In this blog post, we will look at whether human cloning technology is a technology that must be researched for the advancement of life sciences despite its ethical controversies and risks.
Since Watson and Crick revealed the structure of DNA in 1953, biotechnology and genetic engineering technology have been rapidly developing. As a result, humans are benefiting from the development of treatments for various diseases and GMO foods. Advances in the life sciences provide great convenience to humans, but the birth of Dolly the sheep in 1997 raised concerns about human cloning technology. However, human cloning technology is an essential technology for the advancement of the life sciences. The benefits that humans can gain from its application are endless. For example, it is possible to perform organ transplantation without rejection through human embryo cloning, which will allow more patients to improve their quality of life. It can also play an important role in researching and treating the genetic causes of rare genetic diseases. Therefore, human cloning technology should be established as a technology with practical medical value beyond simple experimentation.
In this article, I will examine the arguments of the scholars who oppose human cloning technology, Hilary Furtum and Alvin Coleman, and then refute them to reduce social fear of human cloning technology.
First, let’s look at Putnam’s argument. Putnam assumes a society in which human cloning technology has spread and most couples want to have a child that looks exactly like them. He believes that choosing the type of child that parents want turns the child into an object of the parents’ lifestyle and is not in line with Kant’s argument that people should not be treated as means. He also argues that in such a society, all family members will have a uniform family image that is genetically similar, which will cause problems similar to those in Nazi Germany, which rejected racial diversity, and Scandinavia, which implemented sterilization laws against the unfit based on eugenics. Putnam values the unpredictability and diversity of children and says that the family image that includes these values is in line with the morality required by a democratic society.
Let’s refute Putnam’s argument. Even if human cloning technology becomes available, the society that Putnam envisions will not come. Judging from the fact that Putnam mentioned the cases of the Nazis and Scandinavia, the society he envisions must have originated from eugenic ideas. However, consider the case of cosmetic surgery for beauty. Although cosmetic surgery for beauty can be seen as stemming from eugenic ideas, there are far more people who do not undergo cosmetic surgery. Similarly, even if human cloning technology becomes available, the society that Putnam envisions will not emerge. Moreover, our society has already experienced history such as the Nazis and the Scandinavian sterilization laws and has seen this as wrong, so the possibility of a return to the pursuit of a uniform family image is low.
Also, just because a technology exists, it does not mean that everyone will use it. Just as many people do not choose plastic surgery even though it is popular, there will still be many people who will not choose human cloning even if it is developed. It is unlikely that all members of society will be uniform in using one type of technology, and individual choice and autonomy will still be guaranteed.
Of course, there may be a small number of couples who have children who look exactly like them. But is it morally wrong to make children look exactly like their parents, as Putnam says? Kant said that in an ideal family, members do not serve the purpose of their parents, but consider each other to be their own purpose within their own rights, and respect each other as human beings whose plans and happiness are important. Hegel also believed that parents should guarantee their children’s autonomy. Putnam argues that if these values are accepted and applied to the moral code of the family, the value of accepting diversity should also be included in the moral code, and human cloning is an act that goes against this. However, this argument is not correct. In a situation where one can accept uniformity, it is difficult to see that accepting uniformity is an act of unwillingly accepting diversity. Also, it cannot be said that having a child that looks exactly like oneself infringes on the child’s autonomy. This is because not all children decide how they will be formed by their own autonomy.
Second, let’s look at Coleman’s argument. Coleman argues that human cloning research should not be attempted because it is unsafe and inefficient. It took hundreds of cell fusions to create Dolly the sheep, and many embryos were discarded. Coleman says that if human cloning is attempted, many embryos will be discarded and the surrogate mother and biological parents will suffer physical and psychological pain. In addition, it is said that a child born through such a difficult process may have serious deformities. To solve this problem, even if the technology is perfected on other animals and then applied to humans, it is said that stability cannot be guaranteed because there are large genetic differences between mammalian species. They also argue that the risk of the nuclear replacement process cannot be justified even if a woman with defective mitochondria uses human cloning technology to prevent her child from inheriting the defective mitochondria, because the risk greatly outweighs the benefits. In other words, they conclude that human cloning is unethical no matter what form it takes.
Coleman’s claim that the physical and psychological suffering of surrogates can be solved by the development of in vitro fertilization technology. In vitro fertilization is a technology that cultivates human embryos outside the mother’s body, and a team of professors from the Department of Physiology at the University of Cambridge in the UK led by Magdalena Jernik-Goetz has succeeded in in vitro fertilization for 13 days. Although they have not yet succeeded in culturing for 13 days, if this technology is developed, human embryo cloning for organ transplantation without a surrogate mother will be possible. In addition, chimpanzees, which are currently the most evolutionarily close species to humans, are also being cloned. If we continue to improve the technical perfection of animals similar to humans, human cloning technology will be so safe that the benefits will outweigh the risks.
Finally, ethical concerns raised by the advancement of human cloning technology are already being addressed in various scientific fields. When stem cell research and gene editing technology first emerged, there were also various objections and concerns, but researchers have been strengthening ethical standards and improving safety to overcome them. If human cloning goes through this process as well, it will pave the way for human society to safely use cloning technology within a new ethical framework.
In the main body, I examined the arguments of Putnam and Coleman against human cloning and refuted them or presented solutions to the problems. I hope that this will help our society to overcome its fear and hostility towards human cloning technology. Human cloning technology has the potential to contribute greatly to the development of life sciences. Let’s not be hostile to such technology out of ethical and instinctive fear. Humanity has always been good at developing science and technology and solving the problems that arise from it. Now it is time to develop human cloning technology.
