Since the birth of Dolly the sheep 20 years ago, concerns and expectations about human cloning have intersected, weighing ethical and identity concerns with the promise of curing genetic diseases and organ transplants.
Twenty years ago, the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep made waves around the world. The idea that a new life form could be created using only the somatic cells of an adult, rather than germ cells, had never been done before. The future of biotechnology looked rosy, and people began to hope for human cloning. But the joy was short-lived, as Dolly suffered from obesity, lung disease, and even arthritis, raising concerns that she would age too quickly. In the end, Dolly was euthanized six years after she was born, strengthening the arguments of those who oppose human cloning. So, is human cloning dangerous and should it be stopped? I don’t think this is necessarily the case. To explain this, let’s take a look at the arguments against cloning.
First, the issue is raised from an ethical perspective. Article 20 of Chapter 4, Section 1 (Prohibition of Human Cloning) of the Act on Bioethics and Safety, published by the Bioethics Policy Division of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, states that “No person shall implant a somatic cell cloning embryo in a human or animal womb, keep it implanted, or give birth to it.” The movie Ireland also features “clones” – copies of real people – who exist solely for the purpose of harvesting and transplanting organs when needed. They are portrayed as non-human tools, as “products” that do not feel love or pain. Anti-cloning advocates warn that the future of the movie Ireland could become a reality, arguing that humans could be used as tools in mass cloning for purposes such as organ transplants.
The second issue is identity. A person created through cloning could suffer psychological disruption when they realize that there is an exact copy of themselves. This, it is argued, could lead to identity issues: who am I?
These arguments against cloning are valid and have their place. However, when we look at the ethical and identity aspects, the arguments are less valid.
Let’s look at the ethical aspect first. Even with large-scale cloning, multiple uteruses and surrogate mothers are needed for implantation. However, the availability of uteruses is limited, and it takes about nine months of gestation for a surrogate to give birth to a cloned human. It is also expensive to obtain a large number of eggs, and it is expensive to maintain a cloned human. In terms of time and money, mass human cloning is not feasible. Current images of cloned humans in the popular press and media are highly exaggerated, and commercial mass cloning is far from a science fiction movie. Moreover, cloning humans is a controversial issue, and legal sanctions would be strictly enforced, so it is not a big ethical issue.
Also, the argument that human cloning should be banned for identity reasons is not very convincing. As long as bioethics education is adhered to, there shouldn’t be a problem. However, bioethics is currently under-emphasized in science education, and there is an absolute shortage of professionals to teach it. To solve this problem, bioethics education programs for the general public and cloners can be created to minimize the psychological disruption that human cloning can cause. Through systematic bioethics education, people will be able to internalize pro-life values and develop a sense of identity.
So, what are the positive aspects of human cloning? There are many, but in my opinion, the biggest advantage is the ability to treat genetic diseases. If one member of a couple suffers from a genetic disease, there is a chance that it could be passed on to their offspring. Of course, with current technology, it is possible to prevent some genetic diseases by using donated sperm or eggs from a third party, but the risk of side effects cannot be completely eliminated if the genes are not from the parents. Human cloning, however, has the advantage of preventing parents from passing on their genetic diseases to their offspring.
Genetic analysis is also changing the concept of incurable diseases, such as cancer and AIDS, which were once thought to be incurable. Biotechnologists are using methods such as gene sequencing through human cloning research to advance treatments for incurable diseases. This is likely to be used to treat diseases such as Alzheimer’s and diabetes. In addition, organ transplants are currently in short supply compared to demand. Cloning organs through human cloning could provide a ray of hope for people in need of transplants. In addition to this, human cloning research has other advantages, such as giving the gift of life to infertile couples.
In this article, we’ve looked at the ethical and identity arguments against human cloning and explained why they lack validity. We’ve also discussed the positive aspects of human cloning. This shows that human cloning is not as dangerous as you might think. Thanks to the development of stem cells, we have the possibility of curing incurable diseases, and an average life expectancy of 100 years is not far away. Science has always been about trying new things and taking on opportunity costs. Science and technology have progressed after many failures, and without these trials and errors, genetic engineering would not exist today. The road to human cloning is still long and unfamiliar. But rather than being paralyzed by fear of the unknown, we should embrace the challenge of human cloning research.
