This article discusses the advances in cloning technology sparked by the birth of Dolly the sheep, the ethical issues it raises, and where cloning science needs to go in order to honor the value of respect for life and improve the quality of human life.
On February 24, 1997, the world took notice of the announcement of the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep, and it was clear that now that the technology had been applied to animals, it could be applied to humans. The fact that it was now possible to “clone” another individual from one that had only been possible in the imagination was of great interest to humans, but it also raised concerns. According to a 2005 survey of more than 1,800 people conducted by the UK Department of Trade and Industry, about two-thirds of people believe that cloning is a bad thing. People are afraid of having an exact copy of themselves. Stephen Jay Gould, one of the authors of Human Cloning, What’s Wrong with It, argues that it is impossible to create a perfectly identical individual through cloning. I was skeptical of his argument that the cell from which Dolly originated should be considered a specialized cell rather than an adult cell.
The author notes that unlike the sensationalized articles that are written to generate public interest and make it sound like human cloning is on the horizon even though only animal cloning has been successful so far, reading a technical paper on Dolly’s production can be somewhat disappointing. He predicts that we may wonder if Dolly’s story is one that falls short of our expectations. In addition, the author believes that we are unlikely to see perfectly identical objects replicated over time. For one thing, we already knew how to clone in principle at least 20 years ago. We just haven’t developed the technology to fully reproduce the genetic potential of differentiated adult cells. In this respect, they argue, Dolly has not destroyed any theoretical foundations in biology.
Second, the authors are still not sure whether the cells that gave birth to Dolly should be considered adult cells. Dolly was grown from cells taken from the mammary glands of a 6-year-old ewe in the last trimester of pregnancy. Because a pregnant sheep’s mammary glands expand in late pregnancy, some mammary cells may be unstable or embryonic-like, even if they are technically adult cells. This is because they can multiply rapidly at the right stage of pregnancy to produce new breast tissue. Therefore, we can only clone from cells that are not typical adult cells with embryonic potential, and may not be able to clone from cheek cells, hair root cells, or even a drop of blood. Wolmert and colleagues acknowledge this possibility, noting that “we cannot exclude the possibility that a small proportion of relatively undifferentiated stem cells exist that could support mammary gland reproduction during pregnancy.”
Reading this second claim, I questioned the authors’ assertion that Dolly is limited because it can only replicate specific cells. Humanity has made a technological advance by being able to clone from breast cells, which are in the category of adult cells, although it is possible that they are specialized cells, when cloning was initially only possible from embryonic cells. Similar to these technological advances, it is possible that cloning from common adult cells, such as blood or cheek cells, will one day be possible. None of this was achieved without a process and without the desired result from the beginning. This is just a stepping stone to the next step, which is cloning from common adult cells, and with enough research, humans will be able to clone from common adult cells.
The evidence presented above argues that it is technically impossible to clone a perfectly identical individual. Thirdly, I would add that the environment in which the cloned individual grows cannot be exactly the same as the original, so it is inevitably impossible to create an identical individual. Cloned humans are likely to have different personalities due to different social environments and other factors that are beyond our current understanding.
What’s disappointing about this article is that the author only briefly touches on the ethical issues and technical limitations associated with human cloning. One of the reasons why many people are against human cloning is that they worry that the cloned creature will not be healthy. Many people think that Dolly died early because she was a cloned sheep. In fact, some cloned cows have had problems after birth. Researchers have even found abnormal livers, lungs, hearts, and blood vessels in autopsies of cloned animals that died early. Cloned animals are often frail, suffer from illness, and die prematurely. Until these concerns are addressed, it may be wrong to attempt to clone humans. Some scientists believe that the health problems of cloned organisms are primarily due to the fact that they use adult somatic cells as a source of genetic material. During an individual’s lifetime, cells work hard to adapt to their environment, and during this process, the DNA in the cells can accumulate defects called mutations. The cloning process can use genetic material with these mutations to develop embryos, exposing them to much greater biological risk than embryos produced by normal fertilization. This could mean that cloned organisms have a shorter lifespan or are at risk for cancer. In any case, perhaps the most important thing about cloning science right now is that the assumptions are just as important as the results of scientific advances. Dolly, the cloned sheep, had a short life: while the average lifespan of individuals of her species is 11 years, she only lived for six years, and she suffered from arthritis from the age of four. At the age of six, on February 14, 2003, she was euthanized due to severe pneumonia and the adult diseases of advanced arthritis, obesity, and rheumatism. An autopsy revealed that Dolly had lung cancer, a common disease in sheep. Although scientists at the Roslin Institute claimed that there was no evidence of premature aging in Dolly, some scientists have questioned whether the sheep she was cloned from were limited by age-related telomeres that would only allow them to live to be six years old. When Dolly was three years old, her telomeres, known as markers of cellular aging, were the equivalent of nine years old, which is shorter than normal. In other words, Dolly was born already carrying the age of a six-year-old mother sheep.
In addition, factory farming, where individuals are churned out like commodities through cloning, can reduce the diversity of genotypes. In the short term, a leaner, bigger cow may bring cheaper, tastier, higher-quality meat to our plates, but in the long term, it also increases the likelihood that poor genetics will accumulate and manifest themselves. In the past, the British royal family has had many hemophiliacs and mental illnesses as a result of inbreeding. In humans, some people are immune to AIDS thanks to a combination of genes, while others have bodies that are resistant to certain diseases. In extreme cases, artificially manipulating people to look a certain way just for the sake of appearance could have serious consequences when they are exposed to certain diseases or environments.
There is also a great deal of opposition to the expansion of this kind of cloning to humans. There is no guarantee that cloning for the purpose of curing human disease will not lead to human regeneration. This would be an insult to God, who has the power to create life, and could mean self-destruction, negating the order and ethics of human society. It is difficult for bioethics and human order to stand in a society where parents become children and children become parents due to human cloning. It is necessary to reflect on whether human dignity and value are being undermined in this process. In our case, a constitutional complaint has already been filed that the Bioethics Act violates the value of respect for life by allowing research on human embryos. Reconciling human ethical limits with the biotechnological possibilities of human embryo cloning is a major challenge. Moreover, wealthy people who are suffering from illnesses will invest in their own cloned humans just to prolong their lives, and they will not take proper care of the cloned child as a parent would. They will only plan to use the child’s cells or organs. This would result in a serious disregard for human life and violation of human rights. The genetic search for cloned human beings could shatter the norms that human society has upheld.
Not many people remember that it took 2,777 attempts before Dolly was cloned. In the case of animal cloning, the success rate is still only 10% at best. As you can see, cloning technology is still imperfect. Nevertheless, humans are constantly trying to replicate life. With the advances in cloning technology, it’s possible to clone any animal if you’re willing. In addition to Dolly the sheep (1997), mice (1997), cows (1998), goats (1999), pigs (2000), and cats (2002) have been cloned. It’s only a matter of time before monkeys, whose DNA is structurally similar to humans, are cloned.
Despite the challenges and concerns, the science of cloning is advancing, and it should be. Currently, research into cloning for therapeutic purposes is ongoing. Cloning technology can also be used to improve agricultural competitiveness and produce a wide range of transgenic (genetically modified) animals for organ transplantation. By contributing to the production of therapeutic substances for incurable diseases using animals, the development of xenotransplantation techniques, the production of biomaterials using stem cells, and the protection of biodiversity and the environment to preserve ecosystems, cloning will contribute to improving the quality of life for humans in the 21st century and beyond. Indeed, the utilization of cloning science is essential to solve the food shortage caused by the rapidly growing global population and to protect the environment that is being destroyed. Proper regulations must be put in place to ensure that this technology develops without raising ethical issues.
