In the 21st century, advances in science and technology have made embryo cloning and genetic manipulation possible, and biotechnology has made significant contributions to disease treatment and human genetic research. However, ethical questions about human dignity and the natural order are constantly being raised. Issues such as the moral status of embryos and cloned organisms, religious opposition to biotechnology, and the potential for misuse of the technology are intertwined and need to be approached carefully through legal and social consensus.
In the 21st century, advances in science and technology have revolutionized biotechnology. Biotechnologists have continued to study genes and succeeded in the Human Genome Project, which completed the human genetic map, ushering in a new era of genetic manipulation and genetic medicine. This has led to stem cell research utilizing surplus embryos and even the cloning of embryos. However, ethical questions about these genetic research techniques are also emerging. Some argue that human intervention in the realm of life, which was once considered “God’s domain,” is leading to a regression in human ethics. So, what is genetic ethics, what are the different positions on the subject, and what is my opinion?
Before we discuss genetic ethics, let’s talk about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is the use of genetic manipulation to create substances that are useful to humans. Genetic engineering is divided into several fields, including genetic diagnostics, gene therapy, enhancement of genetic traits, and life cloning. Genetic ethics is a branch of bioethics that emerged in the 20th century and deals with ethical issues related to genetics or genetic engineering. In this text, we will discuss the ethical issues related to cloning.
Ever since embryo cloning became possible, humans have been debating the ethics of embryo cloning. There are five main reasons for opposing embryo cloning. First, there’s the argument of possible misuse. It is argued that allowing embryo cloning will lead to human cloning, resulting in the production of customized babies. Similarly, there are arguments about substitutability and undermining human dignity, which are based on concerns that embryo cloning is open to abuse. These concerns are relatively easy to refute, as they can be prevented to some extent through legal frameworks and oversight. However, the ontological argument that human dignity is violated, and the natural law argument that the artificial creation of genetically identical organisms violates the natural order of things, are arguments that address the ethical rightness or wrongness of the act itself, not the consequences of embryo cloning. I believe that these arguments are not perfect, and I would like to discuss them in more detail.
First, the ontological argument discusses the moral status of cloned embryos. The argument is that if the moral status of cloned embryos is recognized, then cloning should be banned altogether. Recognizing the moral status of an embryo means that it is considered a living being with a high probability of developing into a person. Cloning an embryo presupposes the death of the cloned embryo. Therefore, if embryos are considered human life, embryo cloning can be viewed as the arbitrary manipulation and destruction of human life, i.e., murder for research purposes. However, this problem does not arise if the moral status of the cloned embryo is not recognized. The debate over the moral status of the embryo itself is divided into two camps: those who recognize the moral status of the embryo because it can potentially become a human being, and those who deny it. Those in favor of recognizing the moral status of embryos argue that embryos 14 days after fertilization are likely to develop into human beings because they have formed basic body organs. However, it is important to consider whether an embryo has the potential to become a human being just because it has begun to form its organs. To give an embryo moral status because it has the potential to become a human being is like equating all pine cones with pine trees because they can become trees. There are also no studies that confirm self-identity between embryos and adults. For example, in the case of identical twin embryos, it is difficult to argue that they are identical to adult individuals, each of whom has a unique moral status. This means that self-identity is necessary for an embryo to have the same moral status as a human being, but it cannot be established. Therefore, treating embryos as human beings and using them in experiments because they can form body parts should be considered with caution.
Nevertheless, due to public opinion against embryo cloning, only embryos before the age of 14 days or surplus embryos are used in actual experiments. There are arguments that pre-14-day embryos should be recognized as human beings. However, embryos before 14 days do not have a biological individuality, even if they have a unique genotype. That is, until 14 days after the fertilized egg is formed, gene expression is controlled by the egg and the cell does not function as an independent entity. The embryo has the potential to develop into a fetus, but it also has the potential to differentiate into the placenta, other tissues, or body organs. Therefore, the debate about embryos before 14 days is practically meaningless.
It is also contradictory that opponents of embryo cloning do not oppose experiments using surplus frozen embryos. Surplus frozen embryos are frozen embryos that are not used for fertilization after an extra embryo is created and stored during the fertilization process. These embryos are eventually discarded. If, as they claim, embryo cloning is wrong because embryos have the potential to become human, then it would be consistent to oppose surplus embryo research that uses embryos beyond 14 days and artificial insemination that is predicated on the disposal of surplus embryos. However, the fact that this is not the case raises another question: in the United States, the Society for Bioethical Research does not restrict surplus embryo research, but does legally restrict research using other embryos. Furthermore, given that artificial insemination is legally available and encouraged for infertile couples, the creation and research of surplus embryos is not legally restricted.
The natural law argument argues that embryo cloning violates the natural order of things because it artificially creates life forms with identical genes. Religious organizations believe that humans are created by God and therefore should not be allowed to perform life-or-death procedures. This argument is based on the premise that manipulating life and influencing human evolution is the inherent right of God, but it is a logical leap and a weak argument. The rationale for embryo cloning is that embryonic stem cell research can be used to create a variety of organs, including livers, bones, nerves, and hearts, and to treat incurable diseases such as diabetes, cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. In other words, it is an act of religious love to help people who are suffering.
There are many logical problems with the argument that using genetic engineering to create life is wrong because it invades God’s domain. For example, it is ambiguous to recognize gene therapy as God’s will but claim that genetic enhancement is against God’s will. There is also a lack of clarity on what constitutes a cure and what constitutes a quality.
If it is wrong to manipulate life through genetic engineering, then it would be consistent to oppose not only embryo cloning but also all life-related research, such as animal testing. However, it’s also inconsistent to dismiss this logic because of the differences between humans and animals. Furthermore, the afterlife, salvation, and souls of cloned humans are purely religious arguments that are outside of the scientific debate. However, their arguments are valuable in providing a direction for genetic enhancement.
This essay critically examines the arguments against embryo cloning and genetic modification. Biotechnology has contributed to the advancement of medicine and has great potential to do so in the future. While I don’t agree with all of the arguments made by opponents of biotechnology, I do believe that these debates are valuable in raising awareness of the problems with biotechnology. It’s positive that this has led to scientists carefully directing their research and creating legal frameworks that are consistent with bioethics. However, I do not think it is desirable to delay the development of genetic engineering out of blanket opposition. I hope that the feasibility and necessity of these technologies will be recognized as soon as possible so that they can provide public value to humanity.
