In this blog post, we will consider the impact of human cloning technology on bioethics and identity, and whether it is a choice that benefits humanity.
Since the birth of Dolly the sheep, there has been a long-standing debate about the application of genetic cloning technology to humans. Among them, John Harris is a person who has a positive view of human cloning. He expressed his opinion in the book “Genetic Revolution and Bioethics.” The development of biotechnology is so rapid and revolutionary that it has been dubbed the “genetic revolution,” and Harris advocates human cloning through the genetic revolution and criticizes opponents of human cloning who raise human rights and ethical issues. I think that John Harris’ philosophical view of cloning from a perspective of freedom can be accepted to some extent, but I cannot accept most of the arguments and grounds for supporting human cloning. I would like to refute the problems he overlooks and his thinking, and express my opinion on why human cloning should not be attempted by reorganizing the opinions of scholars in the fields of genetics, philosophy, law, and medicine, such as Hillary Furtnam, Ruth Dech, and Alan Coleman, who are opposed to human cloning.
John Harris has a critical view of the public opinion of anti-human cloning opponents and the resolution on cloning issued by the European Parliament. The European Parliament said that human cloning cannot be justified under any circumstances. To summarize the reasons, “Human cloning is against human equality because it implicitly allows for the selection of races.” In addition, it can violate human dignity by requiring experiments on humans. This is largely in line with the opinions of the public who oppose human cloning. However, Harris criticizes the arguments of opponents of human cloning for lacking proper reasoning and reasons, and for only mentioning vague human rights and fundamental principles without showing how they are violated in specific cases. In short, it means making claims that seem universally correct on the surface without any real-life examples to back them up. Harris claims that there are no cases in which principles such as respect for human dignity and the safety of genetic material have been violated as examples of human rights and fundamental principles. However, I think differently. It should be noted that the reason Harris claims that human dignity and the safety of genetic material have not been violated by human cloning is because no human cloning experiments have actually been conducted yet.
Why have the arguments for and against human cloning been divided since the moment Dolly the sheep was successfully cloned? Since we still don’t know the possibility and success rate of human cloning, and we don’t know whether it is morally right or okay to do it, we are expressing our thoughts on the matter. If we were to carry out human cloning as it is now, the results of the experiment would be the first case of human rights and basic principles being violated, which is what Harris wants.
Harris said that the arguments of anti-human-cloningists are mostly lacking in proper reasoning and justification. He has an attitude that he cannot understand how human rights are violated and how it adversely affects the perception of human dignity. He believes that if there is sufficient progress in biotechnology and a change in public perception, there is no reason why human cloning should be socially rejected. However, I do not think that so many arguments and reasons are needed to create new life. If there is even the slightest possibility of harm to the newly created life, that alone can be a sufficient reason. In addition, if the act of creating new life has the potential to cause additional harm to others, create social unrest, and public opinion, that is also a sufficient reason for opposition. Human cloning falls under both of these aspects. A child born from human cloning is never safer than a child born through normal reproduction. According to Alan Coleman, more than 430 cell fusions were attempted in the case of cloned sheep Dolly, and 277 reconstructed embryos were created. Of these, only 29 survived to the stage of entering the sheep’s womb, and only one of them successfully gave birth. And the cloned sheep, Dolly, did not live as long as the normal sheep. This means that the success rate of cloning is extremely low, and in the case of human cloning, many embryos are inevitably discarded. The physical and psychological pain of the surrogate mother cannot be ignored. In addition, cloned humans born through human cloning are more likely to develop cancer as they age and to develop premature aging syndrome. Although we can carry out human cloning with the belief that the safety is 100% through sufficient animal testing, no one knows what the results will be because there are huge differences between other animals and humans in terms of reproductive physiology and embryology. When we consider a deformed child (or even a normal child) born as a result of the cloning process, it is clear that it is not right in general, considering how difficult the child will have to live, how the child will live as a member of a group, how the child’s identity will be formed, and the worry about unspecified genetic diseases that may occur in the future. The important thing is that if this happens, sadly, the cloned human will not be known to the public for several years after its birth. This is because it will be sure to be criticized by the public. Proponents may think that new medical advances are bound to have potential risks, and that no progress can be made if only stability is emphasized. Therefore, it is an indisputable fact that animal testing is also being carried out. However, I think what we should consider before that is the ratio of risk and the resulting public interest. Many people say that it is not right to develop the natural sciences with the means in mind. Whether it is useful or not, the development of science and technology should be promoted. However, the issue of cloned humans is a sensitive one because it is a matter of life and death. Consider a successful scenario in which a cloned human is successfully born, lives like an ordinary human, and does not die. I question whether the benefits of such procedures, such as the creation of a human clone as a donor for organ transplants, the creation of a human clone to provide blood that does not cause an allergic reaction, or the birth of a child with desired traits, are significant and necessary enough to justify the risks and immorality I mentioned above.
This will inevitably cause problems in society. It is too early for our society to accept that a cloned human is no different from any other human. This means that even if a cloned human is successfully created, it will be difficult for it to blend into our society without any problems. This can be seen in the meaning of the family that humanity currently considers desirable. Diversity is a value that we are willing to accept and recognize. The unpredictability and excitement of not knowing what kind of child will be born to a married couple, and the diversity of that child, are essential values for humanity to form and live in a family society. However, it is not difficult to imagine how the public will react to a family composed of cloned humans compared to the ideal family we currently have. On the surface, it may seem fine, but deep down, people may question whether it is really a true family. Some countries have even enacted laws on cloned humans in response to such social opinion. For example, the UK has a law that prohibits the cultivation of embryos or children created using nuclear replacement technology.
Harris values reproductive autonomy and argues that banning reproduction for reproduction is an oppression of individual freedom regarding reproduction. However, I have doubts as to whether the right to autonomy of procreation can justify government interference in human reproduction, and whether this right should be guaranteed at the risk of scientific risk and public disapproval. If Harris’s argument is correct, then incest, bestiality, and adultery should not have been social issues in the past. However, these acts are illegal in most countries. This suggests why Harris’s argument is unlikely to be easily accepted by society.
Harris also presented eight cases and questioned whether human cloning is unethical and undermines human rights and dignity. The cases he cited include cases where infertile couples or single people who have lost their spouse want children with their genes, or cases where couples with a high risk of genetic diseases want to have healthy children through cloning. The examples Harris gave are mostly about individual freedom and desire. However, I question whether this freedom can be defended in the face of the biological risks and social negative impacts that would result from human cloning, and the selfish desire to leave one’s genes to one’s children despite the alternative option of adoption. I believe that individual freedom can be restricted if there is a high probability that it will harm the public interest or cause harm to others.
Finally, as for the idea of using embryos with specific genes to treat serious diseases such as AIDS, I doubt that this is an appropriate example in the context of opposition to human cloning.
So far, I have refuted John Harris’s argument in favor of human cloning and partially reflected the opinions of anti-human cloning advocates Hillary Putnam, Ruth Deitch, and Alan Coleman. The opinions of Hillary Furtnam, who presented a socially desirable image of the family, Ruth Ditch, who analyzed human cloning from the perspective of public perception and reality, and Alan Coleman, who raised the dangers of cloning from a scientific perspective, helped me to organize my opposition to human cloning. Modern society respects individual freedom, but it is now necessary to extend this individuality to the concept of social responsibility. In that respect, a cloned human being demands an ethical burden and responsibility that is too great for an individual to bear on their own. Considering social responsibility, the human rights of the unborn child, and public reaction, I believe that our society is not yet ready for human cloning. Just as a hastily eaten meal causes indigestion, it would be difficult to handle the social repercussions of forcibly challenging something that is premature. I believe that human cloning is not only premature, but also an area that should not be touched upon the dignity of the human being.
