As the possibility of human cloning technology is discussed after Dolly the cloned sheep, John Harris supports human cloning, while I am concerned about human rights violations and bioethical issues. In this article, I rebut Harris’s arguments, emphasize that human cloning is premature and fraught with ethical issues and risks, and discuss the social ramifications of cloning experiments from the perspective of opponents.
Since the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep, the debate over the extension of genetic cloning technology to humans has been ongoing for a long time. One of the most prominent voices in favor of human cloning is John Harris, who wrote his views in a book called The Gene Revolution and Bioethics. The development of biotechnology has been so dramatic and rapid that it has been dubbed the “gene revolution,” and Harris criticizes opponents of human cloning for encouraging it and citing human rights and ethical issues. While I can agree with John Harris’ philosophical view of cloning from a liberty perspective, I disagree with most of the arguments and evidence in favor of human cloning. I want to argue against his thinking and the problems he overlooks, and I want to reconstruct the arguments of Hilary Putnam, Ruth Deitch, Alan Coleman, and other leading experts in genetics, philosophy, law, and medicine to show why human cloning should not be attempted.
John Harris takes a critical look at the arguments of opponents of human cloning and the European Parliament’s resolution on cloning. The European Parliament stated that human cloning cannot be justified under any circumstances: ‘Human cloning is contrary to human equality in that it implicitly allows for the selection of races, and it would violate human dignity by requiring experiments on humans. This is largely in line with the public opinion against human cloning. However, Harris criticizes the arguments of opponents of human cloning as mostly lacking proper arguments and reasons, with vague references to human rights and fundamental principles but no concrete examples of how they are violated. In other words, it makes claims that seem universally true on the surface, but not in practice. As examples of human rights and fundamental principles, Harris claims that there are no examples of how principles such as respect for human dignity and ensuring the safety of genetic material have been violated, but I disagree. It is important to realize that the reason Harris claims that human dignity and ensuring the safety of genetic material have never been violated by human cloning is because no human cloning experiments have actually taken place yet.
From the moment Dolly, the cloned sheep, was successfully cloned, the proponents and opponents of human cloning have been divided and arguing against each other because we don’t yet know what the possibilities and success rates of human cloning will be, and we don’t know if it is morally right or even a good thing for humanity to do before it is put into practice. If human cloning were to be put into practice at this point, the outcome of the experiment would be the first instance where the human rights and fundamental principles that Harris wants to protect would be violated.
Harris believes that most of the arguments made by opponents of human cloning lack adequate argument and reason. He takes the attitude that it is impossible to understand how human rights would be violated and how it would adversely affect the perception of human dignity. He believes that with sufficient biotechnological advances and a change in public perception, there is no reason why human cloning should be socially rejected. But I don’t think we need that many arguments and reasons to create new life, if there is even the slightest possibility of harm to the new life being created, that alone is reason enough to be against it, and if the act of creating new life is also likely to create collateral damage to others, social bad blood and public opinion, that is also reason enough to be against it. Human cloning falls into both of these categories. A child born from human cloning is in no way safer than a child born from normal reproductive activity. According to Alan Coleman, in the case of Dolly the cloned sheep, over 430 cell fusions were attempted, and 277 reconstituted embryos were created. Of these, only 29 survived to the stage of entering the sheep’s uterus, and of those, only one was successful in giving birth. And Dolly the cloned sheep didn’t even live as long as a normal sheep, which means that the success rate of cloning is extremely low, and in the case of human cloning, many embryos are bound to be discarded. The physical and psychological suffering of surrogate mothers can’t be ignored either. Additionally, cloned humans created through human cloning are more likely to develop cancer as they age, and suffer from premature aging. While we may think that human cloning is 100% safe after enough animal testing, no one knows what the outcome will be because humans are so different from other animals in terms of reproductive physiology and embryology. When you think about a deformed (or even normal) child born as a product of the cloning process, it’s clear that it’s not universally right: how hard a life that child would have, what kind of group they would be part of, how their identity would be formed, worries about unspecified genetic diseases they might develop later in life, and so on. Importantly, if this were to happen, it would sadly remain unknown to the public for many years after the cloned human was born. Proponents may argue that any new medical advancement is bound to have potential risks, and that no progress can be made if we only value safety. That’s why animal testing is undoubtedly being done, but I think what we need to consider is the ratio of risk to public benefit. Many people say that it’s not right to advance the natural sciences for its own sake – that progress in science and technology should be promoted regardless of whether it’s useful or not. However, the issue of cloned humans is sensitive because lives are at stake. Imagine a successful scenario where a cloned human is successfully born and lives like a normal human being without dying. I wonder if the benefits of such a scenario, such as cloned humans as organ transplant providers, cloned humans for a blood supply that does not cause rejection, or the birth of a child with the desired traits, are important and necessary enough to risk the great risks and immorality I mentioned above.
Socially, there would also be problems: our society is not yet ready to accept cloned humans as no different from other humans, which means that even if cloned humans were to be successfully created, it would be difficult for them to integrate into our society without difficulty. We can see this by looking at the meaning of family that humanity currently considers desirable. Diversity is something we are willing to accept and recognize. The unpredictability and excitement of not knowing which children a couple will have, and the diversity of those children, is an intrinsic value for humanity to live in a family society. However, it’s not hard to see how a family made up of cloned humans would be received by the public when compared to what we currently consider a desirable family. On the surface, we might say it’s okay, but on the inside, we might wonder, “Is that really a family? Some countries have even enacted laws regarding cloned humans to reflect this public opinion. For example, the United Kingdom has a legal ban on raising embryos or children created by nuclear replacement technology.
Harris emphasizes reproductive autonomy and argues that banning cloning for reproduction is a suppression of individual freedom to reproduce. However, I question whether reproductive autonomy justifies government interference in human cloning, and whether it is a right that should be guaranteed at the expense of public frowns and scientific risk. If Harris’s argument is correct, then behaviors such as incest, bestiality, and adultery should not have been socially problematic in the past, yet these behaviors are illegal in most countries. This suggests why Harris’s argument is not easily socially acceptable.
Harris also presents eight examples to question whether human cloning is unethical and undermines human rights and dignity, including infertile couples, single people who have lost a spouse and want a child with their genes, and couples at high risk of genetic disease who want to have a healthy child through cloning. Harris’s examples are largely about individual freedom and desire, but I question whether this freedom can justify the biological risks and negative social impacts of human cloning and the selfish desire to pass on one’s genes to a child despite the availability of the next best option of adoption. I believe that individual freedom can be limited if it is likely to harm the public good or cause harm to others.
Finally, as for the idea of cloning and using embryos with specific genes to treat serious diseases such as AIDS, I question whether this is an appropriate example in the context of opposing human cloning.
In rebutting John Harris’s arguments in favor of human cloning, I have incorporated some of the opinions of Hilary Putnam, Ruth Deitch, and Alan Coleman, who have presented a socially desirable family, analyzed human cloning in terms of public perception and reality, and highlighted the dangers of cloning from a scientific perspective, which have helped me to summarize my opposition to human cloning. While modern society honors individual freedom, we need to extend this individuality to the concept of social responsibility, and in that sense, cloning humans carries too great an ethical burden and responsibility to be borne by individual freedom alone. Considering social responsibility, the human rights of unborn children, and public reaction, I don’t think our society is ready for human cloning. Like a rushed meal, the social repercussions of rushing into something that is premature will be difficult to handle. We believe that human cloning is not only premature, but it is an area where the dignity of human life should not be touched.
