In this blog post, we’ll examine the positive effects and ethical issues surrounding animal cloning and consider the direction in which animal cloning research should proceed.
Long ago, Dr. Ian Wilmut of the Roslin Institute in Scotland introduced “Dolly,” the world’s first animal cloned from a somatic cell, to the world. Since then, South Korea has also succeeded in animal cloning, becoming the fifth country in the world to do so with the birth of a calf named “Yeongrong-i.” At first glance, creating an animal in a laboratory that shares the same genetic characteristics as an existing animal seems like a truly remarkable achievement, but the issues surrounding it have, in fact, been the subject of ongoing debate between proponents and opponents.
I have identified three positive effects that supporters of animal cloning anticipate.
First, it allows for the improvement of livestock’s genetic potential. This means cloning animals with superior traits to produce them in large quantities. For example, there is the mass production of high-yielding cows. While the annual milk production per head for dairy cows in South Korea is said to be around 5,000 kg, a high-yielding cow is one capable of producing 15,000 to 20,000 kg or more per year. If, among these high-yielding cows, we select heifers that produce high-quality milk and possess strong disease resistance for cloning, we can produce superior calves. “Yeong-rong-i” was also one such superior calf. Furthermore, moving beyond livestock, it would be possible to clone a variety of animals with outstanding traits—such as drug-detection dogs—and put them to useful purposes. However, opponents of animal cloning point out that the arguments put forward by proponents amount to placing a price tag on the cells of the subject to be cloned. They argue that this evaluates the animal’s value as a means rather than recognizing the dignity of the individual itself; since animals capable of living as autonomous beings possess intrinsic value in and of themselves, commodifying them is wrong.
The second benefit is that it can help conserve endangered animal species; doing so would allow each species to maintain its population, thereby preserving ecological balance and biodiversity. In fact, “Lady,” a cow from Enderby Island, was successfully cloned in the past, leading to the restoration of an endangered species. Even opponents of cloning seem to agree with this point to some extent. However, some people argue that indiscriminate cloning could actually have a negative impact on the ecosystem, and that the possibility of restoration through cloning might lead to a situation where the lives of specific individuals are not valued as highly.
Among the benefits of animal cloning, the most important is likely its potential for positive applications in medicine. Animal cloning facilitates organ transplants and the extraction of biological materials, and by increasing the efficiency of producing genetically modified animals, it will improve human health in various ways. However, as mentioned earlier, opponents argue that since animals are individuals with their own agency, it is wrong to use them as mere tools for human benefit.
In summary, animal cloning can bring benefits to humans—and perhaps even to the ecosystem—in many ways. However, this always raises ethical issues. Opponents of animal cloning argue that “those who believe animal cloning can be utilized without restriction hold an anthropocentric view.” According to this perspective, animals are worthy of protection only when they benefit humans, but when they are of no use to humans—or when killing them would be beneficial—they can be disposed of at will. I believe this stance is flawed. That is why I have consistently opposed animal cloning. But at some point, maintaining such a rigidly opposed stance began to feel ambiguous. After enrolling in veterinary school, I had the opportunity to examine animal cloning more deeply, and the thought that crossed my mind then was, “What if it were my family?” What if a family member, friend, or partner fell ill and needed a transplant from a cloned animal? Even if such a situation arose, could I coldly insist that animals must be protected?
I came to the firm conclusion that I could not. While I take a rational stance against it, on the other hand, I cannot bring myself to give up the benefits that animal cloning could provide. Ultimately, I no longer oppose animal cloning. However, that does not mean I fully support it either. This is because I believe that the sacrifice of animals for human benefit should not be taken for granted.
I agree that animal sacrifice has been necessary for the advancement of science and technology up to now and will likely remain so in the future, but it is wrong to take it for granted. In fact, no matter how loudly opponents argue that animals, too, have the right to live as autonomous beings, research on animal cloning continues and is expected to continue in the future. Even if there are ethical concerns, since the issue involves the lives of animals—not human lives—and because it can bring significant benefits to humans, it will be difficult to halt this research entirely. I, too, acknowledge the necessity of research on animal cloning. However, we must at least recognize that animal lives are just as precious as human lives and work together to find ways to minimize their sacrifice.
Long ago, from the perspective of animal welfare, British scholars proposed the 3Rs principle for animal experimentation: Replacement (finding alternative methods to replace animal testing), Reduction (reducing the number of animal experiments), and Refinement (developing methods to minimize the suffering of laboratory animals). Research on animal cloning should also proceed within this framework, giving full consideration to these principles. Furthermore, we must always bear in mind that animal cloning must not be carried out indiscriminately. This is because I believe that if an environment is created where cloning is abused, people will emerge who come to disregard the value of life. Now that animal cloning technology has advanced significantly, we cannot help but consider the possibility that it might lead to human cloning—a prospect to which I am opposed. While human cloning is unlikely to become feasible under current circumstances, I hope it remains impossible in the future as well. Scholars, too, must give this matter serious consideration.
So far, I have discussed the arguments for and against animal cloning, as well as the direction in which animal cloning research should proceed. Rather than choosing one side or the other, I am inclined to believe that I cannot simply oppose it. In other words, while I acknowledge the necessity of research on animal cloning, we must respect the rights of animals and minimize their suffering. The philosopher Jeremy Bentham once said, “The question is not whether they can reason or speak, but whether they can suffer.” In the course of animal cloning research, we will cause them suffering. We must not forget that this suffering cannot be ignored simply because it is experienced by animals rather than humans, and that we cannot reach an agreement with them.
