The birth of Dolly the sheep in 1996 opened up the possibility of human cloning, but it also raised ethical and social questions. Despite the benefits of human cloning, the human rights violations, institutional disruptions, and ethical dilemmas it has created argue that it should still be banned.
In 1996, Dolly the cloned sheep was born. The fascinating topic of human cloning was enough to pique humanity’s curiosity, and after repeated experiments, Dolly’s birth opened the door to the possibility of successful human cloning. Dolly’s birth not only opened up a new chapter in science, but also sparked ethical and philosophical debates around the world. The excitement was short-lived, however, as the issues raised by human cloning soon became apparent, and the legalization of human cloning began to be hotly debated among experts in the field. The debate continued among academics and the public alike, and the debate over the future of human cloning spread.
The lack of progress in the debate has led to a certain loss of interest in human cloning. However, the decision to legalize human cloning research will have ethical and institutional implications that cannot be ignored. Rushing ahead with technological advances in the absence of a social consensus could be dangerous, and many are calling for a cautious approach. To address these complex issues, it is important to balance scientific research with ethical and legal frameworks. That’s why I’d like to address this issue.
The most common argument in favor of human cloning is its limitless possibilities. Cures for incurable diseases, fertility treatments for infertile couples, and overcoming birth defects are just a few of the many things that could be achieved through human cloning research. However, despite these benefits, if the potential risks and moral issues of cloning technology are not fully considered, its introduction could be disastrous for humanity. For this reason, I believe that when discussing the pros and cons of adopting a particular technology or research, the disadvantages of the technology should be explored in more depth than the advantages. Of course, if the disadvantages are very minor and the advantages are large enough to override them, then of course we should consider the advantages. However, if there are significant problems with a technology, no matter how great the benefits, then the downsides should be prioritized. So in the case of human cloning, where there are relatively many issues being raised, the discussion should be about the problems rather than the benefits.
Philip Kitcher is a prominent opponent of human cloning. His main concern is the disruption of society caused by the reckless use of technology. Indeed, if human cloning research were to be conducted simultaneously in every corner of the world, it would cause tremendous disruption to society as a whole, including the identity of cloned humans, definitions of them, and cloning without their permission. Human life deserves more dignity than any technological advancement, and violating it undermines fundamental human values. Proponents, including Gregory E. Pence, argue that reckless use of technology can be controlled by creating an internationally coordinated body and government-backed regulation to ensure that only authorized research is conducted. However, they believe that perfect regulation is unlikely. For example, if a researcher who gains relevant knowledge from a public institution secretly conducts research with the support of a private institution, how can the government prevent this? In addition, the research materials and knowledge generated in this way will soon spread to other private institutions around the world. Therefore, human cloning research should be made illegal to prevent such research from happening in the first place. While this would not prevent such research, it would be much more effective than legalizing human cloning for public institutions only.
There are also unresolved ethical issues that arise from human cloning experiments. Currently, embryonic stem cell cloning research is allowed as long as it uses embryos that are less than 14 days old. This is because embryos under 14 days old have not yet developed a central nervous system and are unable to feel pain or suffering. However, human cloning research is a different story. In order to declare human cloning a success, it must not be stopped at the embryonic stage, but must be developed until it resembles a fetus, or a fully formed human child. In the cloned sheep experiment, only Dolly survived to adulthood out of over 200 ovum. Human trials are said to be even more challenging, and if so, many more embryo samples will be needed for successful human cloning. Some of these embryos may die after 14 days, or even while still in fetal form, which we consider to be the equivalent of sacrificing a human being for experimentation. In addition, in Dolly’s case, her lifespan was shorter than that of a normal sheep, and her aging process was considerably faster, and it would be a violation of the human rights of the cloned human to continue cloning humans knowing this.
There is another ethical issue regarding the human rights of cloned humans. Humans cannot communicate their wishes before birth. If a cloned human were to live an unhappy or unhealthy life because of their cloning, it could be argued that their human rights were violated at birth. Proponents sometimes argue that since they had the right to be born, no matter how unhappy their lives are, it’s better than never being born at all. However, this is not a logical or ethical argument, as these are human beings who are the result of artificial experimentation, not those born through natural reproduction. Some may also argue that the same issues arise when cloning embryonic stem cells in embryonic stem cell experiments. However, as mentioned above, the permitted research involves embryos that are less than 14 days old and incapable of thinking, so I think this is a different issue.
Given these social and ethical issues, I believe that human cloning should continue to be banned because the probability and magnitude of adverse effects is so great. I am opposed to human cloning, no matter how much good it could do. Banning human cloning experiments could stifle technological progress. However, this is a small price to pay for the problems that legalizing human cloning experiments would cause, including the human rights violations, institutional disruption, and lack of ethical awareness mentioned above. I think it’s time for humanity’s relentless pursuit of cloning itself to stop and think about the future implications of its actions. This is not just a question for the scientific and legal communities, but for all of humanity.
