In this blog post, we will look at the limits of how far human cloning and genetic manipulation research can be ethically tolerated in the age of biotechnology.
The bananas we ate last year and the bananas we will eat next year can be called identical twins. They may look different, be born in different places, and be of different ages, but their genetic information is the same as identical twins. In fact, many of the fruits and vegetables we eat have been manipulated and cloned to have genes that benefit humans. This manipulation has been applied to animals as well as plants, with the most famous example being Dolly the sheep, cloned in 1997. As such, the cloning and genetic manipulation of living organisms is being actively used in the market beyond research.
However, the story is different when the target is human. In Korea, research on human cloning and genetic manipulation is basically prohibited. The only research that is allowed is the research on embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes. If research on cloning or genetic manipulation is conducted, it will face not only legal restrictions but also strong ethical criticism from the public and the scientific community. However, many of the studies on cloning and genetic manipulation may provide promising answers to the treatment of diseases and are expected to bring enormous benefits. This is also in line with the direction of global scientific and technological research (i.e., solving health problems). Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the current laws and social perceptions that restrict all related research and only raise ethical criticisms are reasonable, and if not, how they should be improved.
Research on science and technology is conducted for various purposes. These include economic reasons, academic curiosity, political reasons, and human convenience. Let’s first look at whether human cloning and genetic engineering research meet these purposes. Cloning and genetic engineering research must be preceded by in-depth research on genes and genetic material. In this process, the secrets of genes can be revealed and research on promising biotechnologically induced pluripotent stem cells can be conducted. It can also make gene therapy possible as a result of cloning and genetic manipulation, or identify the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Therefore, such research is sufficient reason to satisfy these purposes in a variety of ways. Then, let’s think about what is the reason not to do the research.
Opponents of cloning and genetic engineering research claim that ethical issues arise during the research process. They say that research wastes human material and causes psychological distress to the subjects. However, these claims stem from a misunderstanding of the research process. The method of creating and implanting hundreds of embryos from the outset in the hope that they will be born is highly inefficient. Modern scientists will use techniques that are much more advanced and economical than the research methods used to clone sheep 20 years ago. Therefore, not as much human material will be used as opponents are concerned. Nevertheless, some may argue that even a small amount of waste of human material is unacceptable. However, when compared to the human body substances that are naturally consumed in everyday life, the human body substances consumed through research are not considered problematic.
The psychological distress felt by the subject may vary depending on the type of experiment. If the subject donates his or her somatic or germ cells and the researcher uses those cells to conduct an experiment, the subject will not feel much psychological distress. However, if a potential human being is grown or genetically modified in a subject’s womb, the results could have a psychological impact on the subject. But this is not a reason to unconditionally restrict research. As mentioned earlier, modern research goes through several stages of experimentation before being applied to humans. If the research is not applied to humans at the final stage, it will not cause psychological distress. Therefore, this problem can be solved by restricting certain research areas.
The research results raise a stronger ethical issue: that cloned humans may suffer physical and mental pain. This claim is true. It is difficult to predict the pain that cloned humans will experience. Therefore, the discussion of whether to perform human cloning should be dealt with separately. If cloning is indeed carried out, efforts should be made in advance to reduce or eliminate the pain of the cloned person. For example, a cloned person may experience the “old telomere problem.” At the end of human chromosomes, there is a set of sequences called telomeres. In normal somatic cells, the telomeres become shorter as cell division progresses, and the cell dies when only a certain length remains. It is currently believed that this process determines human aging and lifespan. Since cloned people are born with already aged somatic cells, they are more likely to have shortened telomeres. This can lead to them being born with shorter telomeres and having a shorter life expectancy. This problem can involve psychological and emotional distress in addition to physical limitations. To solve this problem, paradoxically, we need to conduct research on telomeres through cloning and genetic engineering and develop technologies to complement this. Research is a process of predicting and solving possible problems, so if it is not done hastily, it will be an opportunity to achieve deeper research and technological development.
However, psychological distress is difficult to deal with using the above methods. Instead, there is a simple way to solve both the psychological pain and the technically solvable problem at the same time: ban human cloning. This does not mean that we should not conduct any cloning research at all. It means that we should only restrict research that raises ethical issues by clearly defining the scope of permissible research. In summary, not all research on cloning and genetic engineering is dangerous or undermines human dignity. Therefore, a blanket ban on such research is not reasonable.
If so, we need to consider how far we should allow research on human cloning and genetic manipulation and where we should limit it. If we list the research areas that are close to the final stage, the first is to create a cloned human and study its life. Next, the research ends with the creation of a cloned human, followed by the study of genetic manipulation of embryos, the development of cloned embryos, nuclear replacement, and related science and technology, which will have less ethical repercussions.
He continued to say that there are no ethical issues with the relevant scientific and technological research. In the case of nuclear replacement, it is more reasonable to consider the nucleus of a fertilized egg as a living material. Since humans are multicellular organisms, it is scientifically reasonable to consider a single cell before division as part of the human body’s constituent materials. Therefore, there are no ethical issues with the relevant science and technology and nuclear replacement research regarding human dignity. On the other hand, the issues of embryo cloning and genetic manipulation are highly controversial. Since an embryo is defined as a cell that has begun to divide and has become a complete individual (around the eighth week of pregnancy), the criteria for when an embryo is granted human status is ambiguous. If we consider the period after a certain stage of the embryo as human, then the research before that can be considered to have fewer ethical issues. It is necessary to clearly establish such a standard in the scientific community and limit research.
All of the content discussed so far regarding the scope of research is based on the premise that there are major ethical issues with using “human life” as an experimental subject. I agree with this position and have excluded the discussion of cloned humans. (Just in case you’ve forgotten, the focus of this article is not on whether human cloning is possible, but on the related research.) If humans have the right to make their own decisions and agree to the experiment, research on humans may not be a big problem, but research on fetuses and embryos (some of which do not have the ability to make their own decisions) may be a problem. In that case, studying the life of cloned humans after their birth may have fewer ethical problems than embryo cloning. This is because in infancy, parents make decisions for them, but after that, they can choose whether to allow or deny research on themselves. However, if human cloning is not allowed, this will be a meaningless argument. Therefore, the question to be addressed is “up to what age should embryo cloning and genetic manipulation be allowed?” This requires scientific evidence from the scientific and technological community.
Although this article does not cover this issue, if human cloning is allowed, scientific and institutional preparations are needed to ensure that the cloned person can live without any difference from other people. Such preparations are too late if they begin the moment human cloning is allowed. If the previous stages of research are allowed one by one, the problems that may arise from the research can be solved spontaneously through the research. Even if we don’t go as far as human cloning, there are many health and academic benefits to be gained from related research. In addition, I don’t think there is a strong basis for stopping research. Currently, there are too many restrictions on research on human cloning and genetic manipulation. These restrictions need to be re-adjusted by considering them well within the bounds of ethical issues.
