This blog post goes beyond the instinctive rejection of human cloning and ethical debates to explore in depth the balance between scientific possibility and social acceptance.
In February 1997, the Roslin Institute in the UK announced news that would shock the world. The birth of Dolly the sheep was the first successful cloning of a mammal using somatic cells. Dolly caused a huge sensation. US President Clinton instructed the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC) to investigate the issue, and in June of the same year, the NBAC recommended to the president that a law be enacted to ban human cloning as a federal crime. President Clinton submitted a bill to Congress to ban human cloning for five years based on this. The European Parliament also called on EU member states to ban all research related to human cloning.
WHO Director-General Hiroshi Nakajima also said, “The WHO finds it unacceptable ethically because the birth of a human using cloning technology violates the basic principle of birth assisted by a doctor. This basic principle includes respect for human dignity and ensuring the safety of genetic material,” the resolution said, and the WHO followed this line, saying, ‘The use of cloning techniques to reproduce specific humans is contrary to humanity and morality and is not ethically permissible.’ This consistent negative reaction of individuals and groups to human cloning seemed like an instinctive rejection. So, is this rejection of people really valid and reasonable? A more logical approach is needed, not an instinctive approach.
Before discussing this, we should first define and explain the scope of human cloning. There are many forms of cloning, including molecular cloning, cytoplasmic cloning, embryonic cloning, and somatic cell nuclear transplantation (somatic cell cloning). Among these, what we should pay attention to is embryo cloning and somatic cell nuclear transplantation. Embryo cloning is the process of creating genetically identical embryos by cloning embryos that have already been formed through sexual reproduction, and it can be seen as the artificial creation of identical twins. Somatic cell cloning is the process of transplanting the nucleus of an adult somatic cell into an egg that has had its nucleus removed, and it is considered more serious than embryo cloning. Although the debate over whether or not an embryo is a stage of a living organism is still ongoing, somatic cell cloning is clearly possible even with an adult organism, which means that a new life can be created by cloning an adult organism. Dolly was also born in this way.
In fact, there were several forms of cloned organisms before Dolly. Since Swiss biologist Hans Spemann succeeded in cloning a salamander in 1902, many animals have been cloned, including frogs, mice, sheep, and rabbits. However, all of these were done through embryonic cloning. Dolly received a lot of attention because she was the first mammal to be born through somatic cell cloning, not embryonic cloning. This was enough to create anxiety about the possibility of somatic cell cloning in humans.
So why do people feel so reluctant about human cloning? The most obvious reasons are moral sensitivities, instinctive reactions, and disgust. Although the expressions are different, they are essentially similar. Mary Warnock said, “As long as ethics exist, whether private or public, there are barriers that should not be crossed regardless of the consequences, and people feel a strong sense of reluctance when these barriers are crossed.” Leon R. Kass also described the aversion to human cloning as “something we know and feel immediately without any argument,” “something that goes against what is familiar and justifiable,” “a distaste for excessive human intervention,” and “a warning not to commit unspeakably profound things.”
Their argument is that before we can determine whether something is right or wrong, we must listen to what people instinctively reject. However, this idea is flawed. Of course, people’s instinctive aversion may seem to have a rational basis. For example, the instinctive aversion to murder and rape is clearly considered right and many people agree without having to reason it out.
However, this is not always the case. Just a few decades ago, hatred of black people was taken for granted in white society, and it was based on instinctive hatred rather than logic or reason. Some people may still have such hatred internally, but the number of people with such hatred has decreased and it is now recognized as clearly wrong. Instinctive hatred changes with the times and cannot always be right.
The same is true for human cloning. An instinctive aversion to human cloning is not enough to justify its prohibition. It cannot be asserted that the instinctive aversion that people currently feel toward human cloning is always correct. Just as the aversion to black people in white societies has diminished, the aversion to human cloning is likely to decrease over time. In addition, there is no need for this instinctive aversion to necessarily become a social norm in the form of a ban. As such, a more logical approach is needed rather than a vague aversion that can change over time and cannot be guaranteed to be right.
In addition to instinctive aversion, there is a logical objection. Axel Kahn, a renowned molecular biologist, argues that “human cloning for the sole purpose of obtaining extra cell lines is contrary to the principle of human dignity advocated by Kant from a philosophical perspective.” Kant’s principle means that “human dignity requires that humans should not be treated as mere means.” But to what extent are humans treated as mere means?
For example, if a couple who are infertile want to have a child by cloning their genes, is this treating the child as a mere means? It is common for parents to have children to leave behind offspring, to give their children siblings, or to have a son. Is this situation fundamentally different from human cloning? Kant’s logic is suitable for criticizing slavery or the atrocities of the Nazis, but it is difficult to apply it clearly to these cases.
In addition, the European Parliament resolution prohibits human cloning, stating that “each individual has the right to maintain genetic uniqueness.” However, the concept of genetic uniqueness hardly existed before the issue of human cloning came to the fore. There are no cases in which identical twins claim that their genetic uniqueness has been violated. In the end, the concept of genetic uniqueness may have originated from a vague fear of human cloning?
This problem can be sufficiently prevented while allowing human cloning. Of course, the consent of the individual in question will be required for the cloning of that individual. If human cloning is legalized and all procedures are systematically legislated and monitored with the consent of the individual in question, the unknowing birth of a clone can be prevented.
Everyone feels a certain degree of fear about new things. The fear and anxiety about human cloning are not so strange or wrong. However, it is not desirable to limit the freedom of science and the freedom of humans with vague fears. In addition, many of the objections are exaggerated or exaggerated. Although the lack of evidence against human cloning does not necessarily mean that there is sufficient evidence in favor of it, rather than banning human cloning based on vague fears or illogical arguments, if we look at it as a potential direction for human development and continue to make progress, we will be able to open a more sound and progressive future for life sciences.
