In this blog post, I would like to consider together whether human cloning is an inevitable choice for technological progress or the beginning of an ethical crisis.
In 1996, Dolly the sheep was born. This very interesting topic of human cloning was enough to stimulate human curiosity, and the birth of Dolly through repeated experiments eventually opened up great possibilities for the successful cloning of humans. The birth of Dolly not only opened a new chapter in the scientific world, but also provided a forum for ethical and philosophical discussions, which caused a great sensation around the world. However, the excitement was short-lived, as soon after the problems that would arise from human cloning were raised, and heated debates between experts in related fields began over the legalization of human cloning. These discussions continued to be actively held among the academic community and the public, and spread into debates over the future of human cloning.
The lack of progress in the debate has somewhat diminished people’s interest in human cloning. However, the decision to legalize human cloning research will have an ethical and institutional impact that cannot be ignored. There are growing calls for a cautious approach, as it can be dangerous to prioritize technological progress without social consensus. To solve these complex problems, it is important to strike a balance between scientific research and ethical and legal systems. That is why I want to address this issue.
The most common argument of those who support human cloning is the infinite possibilities of human cloning. Treating incurable diseases, infertility treatment for infertile couples, and overcoming congenital disorders are some of the many achievements that can be achieved through human cloning research. However, despite these advantages, if sufficient consideration is not given to the potential risks and moral issues that cloning technology will bring, the introduction of the technology could be disastrous for humanity. For this reason, I believe that when discussing the pros and cons of introducing a particular technology or research, the disadvantages of the technology should be discussed in more depth than the advantages. Of course, if the disadvantages are very minor and the advantages are so great that they can be ignored, then of course, the advantages should be considered. However, if the advantages are so great but the technology has fatal flaws, then the disadvantages should be the primary topic of discussion. Therefore, for human cloning, which has relatively many issues, discussion of the issues should precede the discussion of the achievements.
Philip Kitcher is a leading figure who opposes human cloning. The problem he points out is the chaos in society caused by the indiscriminate use of technology. If human cloning research is conducted simultaneously in different parts of the world, it will cause enormous chaos in society as a whole, including the identity of cloned humans, the definition of them, and cloning without the consent of the parties. Human life should be treated with dignity above any technological advancement, and infringing on this is a violation of the fundamental values of humanity. Proponents, including “Gregory E. Pence,” argue that creating an international coalition and using government-backed regulations to allow only approved research to be conducted will help control the indiscriminate use of technology. However, it is difficult to achieve perfect regulation. For example, how would the government prevent a researcher who obtained relevant knowledge from a public institution from conducting covert research with the support of a private institution? In addition, such privately-generated research data and knowledge will soon spread to the research sites of other private institutions around the world. Therefore, human cloning research should be illegal to prevent such related research from being conducted in the first place. Such regulations will of course not completely prevent such research, but they will be much more effective than legalizing human cloning only for public institutions.
There are also unresolved ethical issues that arise when conducting human cloning experiments. Currently, the only permitted research on cloning with embryonic stem cells is using embryos that are less than 14 days old. This is because embryos that are less than 14 days old cannot feel any pain or suffering because their central nervous system has not yet developed. However, the situation is different when it comes to human cloning research. In order to declare the success of human cloning, it must be developed until it takes the form of a fetus or a full-fledged human child, rather than stopping at the embryonic stage. In the cloning sheep experiment, only Dolly survived to the adult stage out of more than 200 ovum. Human experiments are said to be much more difficult than this, so even more embryonic samples will be needed to successfully clone a human being. Some of them may die after 14 days or even die in the form of a fetus, which I believe is tantamount to sacrificing humans for the sake of an experiment. Also, in the case of Dolly, her lifespan was shorter than that of a normal sheep, and the aging process proceeded much faster. If human cloning is continued knowing this, it would be a violation of the human rights of the cloned human.
There is another ethical issue related to the human rights of cloned humans. Humans cannot communicate their intentions before they are born. If a human being born by cloning is unhappy or leads an unhealthy life due to cloning, this can be seen as an infringement of their human rights from the moment they are born. Proponents sometimes argue that since they had the right to be born, it is better to prevent them from being born no matter how unhappy their lives are. However, this is a logically and ethically incorrect argument because they are not humans born naturally through reproduction, but humans created as a result of artificial experiments. Some may argue that the same problem occurs when embryonic stem cells are cloned during embryonic stem cell experiments. However, as mentioned above, the permitted research is on in-vitro embryos that cannot be damaged for less than 14 days, so I think this is a different issue.
Considering the social and ethical problems that will arise from human cloning, I believe that human cloning should continue to be banned because the probability of adverse effects and the scale of the adverse effects are quite large. I am against human cloning, no matter how great the achievements that can be made through human cloning. Banning human cloning experiments could put a brake on technological development. However, this is a sacrifice worth making considering the problems that the legalization of human cloning experiments will cause, such as the human rights violations, institutional confusion, and erosion of ethical consciousness mentioned above. I think it is time for humanity, which has been constantly striving to replicate itself, to stop for a moment and think about the future that its actions will bring. This is not just a problem for the scientific and legal communities, but should be an important task for all of humanity to solve together.
