This blog post examines the issues that embryo cloning and genetic manipulation technology pose to bioethics and the social discussions that have followed.
In the 21st century, the development of science and technology has brought about major changes in biotechnology. Biologists have succeeded in the Human Genome Project, which has completed the human genetic map through repeated genetic research, and has opened a new era of genetic engineering and genetic medicine. This has led to the research of stem cells using surplus embryos, and has reached the level where embryo cloning is possible. However, ethical issues regarding these genetic research technologies are also emerging. Some argue that human intervention in the realm of life, which was once considered the domain of the gods, is causing human ethics to regress. So, what is genetic ethics, and I will examine various positions on this and offer my own opinion.
Before discussing genetic ethics, let’s first look at genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is the study of using genetic engineering techniques to create useful substances for humans. Genetic engineering is divided into several fields, including genetic diagnosis, genetic therapy, genetic enhancement, and biotechnology. Genetic ethics is a discipline that deals with ethical issues related to such genetics or genetic engineering, and is a branch of bioethics that has emerged since the 20th century. In this text, we will discuss ethical issues related to biotechnology.
Since the possibility of embryo cloning became possible, humanity has been discussing the ethics of embryo cloning. The reasons for opposing embryo cloning are largely divided into five categories. First, there is the debate over the possibility of misuse. It is argued that allowing embryo cloning will lead to human cloning and the production of customized babies. Similarly, there are also concerns over the possibility of substitution and the undermining of human dignity, which are based on concerns that embryo cloning could be misused. These concerns can be countered relatively easily because they can be prevented to some extent through legal systems and surveillance. However, the ontological argument that it violates human dignity and the natural law argument that artificially creating a life form with the same genes violates the natural order are arguments that discuss the ethical rightness or wrongness of the act itself, not the result of embryo cloning. I believe that these arguments are not perfect, so I would like to discuss them in more detail.
First, the ontological argument discusses the moral status of cloned embryos. The argument is that if the moral status of cloned embryos is recognized, embryo cloning should be completely prohibited. Recognizing the moral status means that the embryo is considered a life form with a high probability of developing into a person. Cloning an embryo presupposes the death of the cloned embryo. Therefore, if we consider an embryo as a human life, then embryo cloning can be seen as the arbitrary manipulation and destruction of human life, or as an act of murder for research purposes. However, if the moral status of cloned embryos is not recognized, then these problems do not arise. The debate over the moral status of the embryo itself is divided into two positions: the position that the embryo should be recognized as having moral status because it has the potential to become a human, and the position that it should not. Those who recognize the moral status of the embryo argue that embryos 14 days after fertilization have a high probability of developing into humans because they form basic body organs. However, it is necessary to consider whether the fact that an embryo has begun to form body organs means that it has the potential to develop into a human. Giving moral status to an embryo because it has the potential to grow into a human is like seeing all pinecones as the same as pine trees because pinecones can become trees. In addition, there is no research that has confirmed the identity of the self between the embryo and the adult. For example, in the case of identical twin embryos, it is difficult to discuss the identity of the self with adult individuals, each of which has its own moral status. This means that an embryo must have self-identity to have the same moral status as a human, but this cannot be confirmed. Therefore, it is worth considering carefully whether it is appropriate to consider an embryo as a human and use it in experiments because it can form body organs.
Nevertheless, due to public opinion against embryo cloning, only embryos before the 14th day or surplus embryos are used in actual experiments. Some argue that embryos before the 14th day should also be recognized as human beings. However, even though an embryo before the 14th day has its own genetic type, it does not have biological individuality. In other words, until 14 days after the fertilized egg is formed, gene expression is regulated by the egg and the cells do not function as an independent individual. Embryos have the potential to develop into a single fetus, but they can also differentiate into the placenta, other tissues, or body organs. Therefore, the debate over embryos before the 14th day is practically meaningless.
In addition, the position of anti-embryo cloning opponents, who do not oppose experiments using surplus frozen embryos, is also contradictory. Surplus frozen embryos refer to the storage of excess embryos created during the artificial insemination process, and the storage of embryos that were not used for artificial insemination in a frozen state. These embryos are eventually discarded. If, as they claim, embryo cloning is wrong because embryos have the potential to become human beings, then it is also inconsistent to oppose surplus embryo research that uses embryos after 14 days and artificial insemination that is premised on the disposal of surplus embryos. However, the fact that this is not the case raises another question. In fact, the American Bioethics Society does not restrict the use of surplus embryos, but does restrict the use of other embryos. In addition, given that artificial insemination is legally possible and encouraged for infertile couples, the creation and research of surplus embryos is not legally restricted.
According to the natural law argument, embryo cloning is an act of artificially creating a life form with the same genes, and therefore it is against the natural order. Religious groups believe that, based on this argument, human beings are created by God, and therefore the act of determining life and death should be prohibited. This is based on the premise that the manipulation of life and the influence on human evolution are God’s inherent authority, but it is a weak argument with a logical leap. If we look at the reasons for embryo cloning, embryo stem cell research can be used to create various organs such as the liver, bones, nerves, and heart, and to treat incurable diseases such as diabetes, cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. In other words, helping people suffering through embryo cloning can be seen as practicing religious love.
There are many logical problems with the argument that using genetic engineering in life is wrong because it invades the realm of God. For example, it is ambiguous to recognize genetic therapy as God’s will while claiming that cultivating genetic qualities is against God’s will. Another problem is that the standards for treatment and cultivation of qualities are not clearly defined.
If manipulating life with genetic engineering is wrong, then we should oppose all life-related research, such as animal testing, as well as embryo cloning, for consistency. However, it is also inconsistent to ignore this logic because of the difference between humans and animals. In addition, discussions about the afterlife, salvation, and the soul of cloned humans are purely religious claims that are outside the scope of scientific discussion. However, I believe that their claims are significant in that they suggest the direction of genetic quality improvement.
In this essay, I have critically examined the position of those who oppose the enhancement of qualities through embryo cloning and genetic manipulation. Biotechnology is contributing to the advancement of medicine and has great potential to continue to do so. While I do not believe that all of the arguments of the opponents of biotechnology are valid, I believe that such debates are meaningful in raising awareness of the problems of biotechnology. This is a positive development as it has led scientists to carefully set the direction of their research and establish legal systems that are in line with bioethics. However, we do not think that unconditional opposition to the development of genetic engineering is desirable as it could delay its progress. We hope that the validity and necessity of these technologies will be recognized as soon as possible so that they can provide public value to humanity, and that research will be actively carried out.
