In this blog post, we will examine whether the aversion and fear of human cloning are valid scientific objections.
The introduction of the Dolly sheep cloning experiment to the world on February 24, 1997, has led many scientists and the public to take an interest in somatic cell cloning. As time has passed, cloning technologies have become more widely known to the public, but there are still people who have a hard time explaining human cloning and who have a strong sense of disgust and fear. Leon Kass, a renowned biologist, once said, “The disgust for cloning is the only voice left to be shouted in order to protect the core of humanity.” Some people still oppose human cloning, saying that it is abhorrent. But is this aversion to human cloning a convincing reason for anyone to oppose it? I would like to discuss whether the aversion to human cloning that people have can objectively deny human cloning.
Can I create a cloned human with the same genes as me using somatic cell cloning technology? Let’s try to express in words the thoughts of those who oppose human cloning because they find it abhorrent. Perhaps the phrase “a child to satisfy one’s desires,” which refers to children created by scientists using somatic cell cloning technology, is the most appropriate. As in a scene from the movie The Island, which deals with cloned humans created for organ transplants, cloned humans with the same genes as oneself are used like consumables using cloning technology. This would have made people shudder with disgust and fear, imagining the situation in which human dignity would be reduced to the bottom. However, despite people’s imagination, this is a very unrealistic story when looking at the progress of somatic cell cloning research to date. Human cloning, which combines somatic cell cloning technology and genetic engineering, may be theoretically possible, but it is currently in the realm of impossible dreams. Even if it becomes possible in the future, various factors, such as life experiences, not just genes, affect the expression of human traits. Therefore, the idea that it is possible to create a cloned human being by simply cloning genes is a leap too far. Ultimately, the aversion and fear that people have had toward human cloning so far stem from assumptions that lack scientific evidence. Many stories and discussions based on such unproven premises blind people’s eyes, preventing them from envisioning and judging the current state of human cloning technology, its prospects, limitations, and countermeasures. If discussions on the negative aspects of human cloning are conducted without objective evidence and judgment, they will only lead to preconceptions and prejudices about cloning technology. Moreover, they will even ignore the positive aspects of human cloning.
Another mistake that is often made by those who oppose human cloning is to present emotional arguments as objective facts in order to confuse the issue. In fact, the main text of the book criticizes the view of human cloning in terms of utility, and cites this as a reason for opposing human cloning because of the commodification of humans and the loss of dignity. For example, Chapter 5 opposes asexual reproduction of humans, citing the individual uniqueness and the damage to the bond between parents and children. However, the premise of this argument is based on the feelings of disappointment and disgust that the public has formed over the years. Chapter 3 also fails to explain the reasons for the inherent aversion to human cloning. Nevertheless, it insists that this should be taken as an instinctive warning, as if to abhor incest. In the end, human cloning is defined as a violation of nature and a departure from natural human methods. Those who oppose human cloning are developing their arguments by assigning subjective values to nature and human nature. This kind of discussion fails to objectively and scientifically explain the feelings of disgust and instinctive opposition that cloning has caused. In the end, this kind of discussion, which is dominated by emotions, lacks logical persuasiveness and validity.
You might think that I am opposing the idea of human cloning when you read this essay. However, this essay is not about expressing my opinion on human cloning, but about the conditions and attitude required to express an opinion. So, what conditions must be met for an opinion against human cloning to be valid? The technology of human cloning must be viewed scientifically and realistically. The extent to which the technology of human cloning is technically and realistically possible for genetic manipulation and human cloning should be determined soberly, and then the discussion should be developed after setting appropriate limits. In addition, the discussion on human cloning is basically about the appropriateness of a technology that does not yet exist. Therefore, the discussion can naturally develop based on the images and ideas that are ingrained in our minds more than any other debate. In this process, we should be suspicious of whether we are discussing unrealistic possibilities that are not objective. Within this framework, we should examine various possibilities and objectively estimate the problems that could be caused by some of the feasible cases. We should first make efforts to consider solutions and countermeasures, and further, the moral issues that could be caused by feasible possibilities.
