Since the birth of Dolly, a somatic cloned sheep, in 1997, countries around the world have tightened bans and regulations on human cloning, expressing both visceral aversion and ethical concerns. However, it’s worth discussing whether the instinctive aversion and ethical objections surrounding human cloning are well-founded or just vague fears that can change with the times.
In February 1997, the UK’s Roslin Institute announced news that would shock the world. Dolly, a cloned sheep, was born. Dolly, the world’s first mammal born through somatic cell cloning, caused a stir. In June of the same year, the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC) investigated the issue and recommended to President Clinton that he enact legislation to make human cloning a federal crime. President Clinton then submitted a bill to Congress that would ban human cloning for five years. The European Parliament also called on European Union (EU) member states to ban all research involving human cloning.
The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Hiroshi Nakajima, also said, “WHO considers the creation of human beings using cloning technology ethically unacceptable because it violates the basic principles of physician-assisted childbirth. These fundamental principles include respect for human dignity and ensuring the safety of genetic material.” Along these lines, the WHO has also resolved that ”the use of cloning technologies for the cloning of specific human beings is contrary to humanity and morality and is ethically unacceptable.” These consistent negative reactions from individuals and groups to human cloning seem like a visceral rejection. But is this rejection valid and rational? We need a more logical approach, not a visceral one.
Before we get into the discussion, it’s important to define the definition and scope of human cloning. Cloning can take many forms, including molecular cloning, cytoplasmic cloning, embryonic cloning, and somatic cell nuclear transfer (somatic cell cloning). Of these, embryo cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer are the ones we should focus on. Embryo cloning involves cloning an embryo already formed by sexual reproduction to create genetically identical embryos, which can be thought of as the artificial creation of identical twins. Somatic cell cloning involves implanting the nucleus of an adult somatic cell into a de-nucleated egg, and is considered more serious than embryo cloning. This is because while it is debatable whether or not an embryo is a stage of life, somatic cell cloning can be done with an adult that is clearly a living being. This means that a new life can be created by cloning a living adult. Dolly was born this way.
In fact, there were several forms of cloning before Dolly. Since Swiss scientist Spemann succeeded in cloning a salamander in 1902, frogs, rats, sheep, rabbits, and other animals have been cloned. However, these were all embryo clones. Dolly is unique because she is the first mammal to be born from somatic cell cloning rather than embryo cloning. This was enough to create anxiety about the possibility of human somatic cell cloning.
So why do people have objections to human cloning? The first reasons that come to mind are moral sensibilities, visceral reactions, and disgust. Though expressed differently, they are essentially similar. Mary Warnock said, “As long as there is ethics, whether private or public, there is a barrier of what should not be done, regardless of the consequences, and when that barrier is crossed, people feel a strong sense of repulsion.” Leon R. Kass similarly characterized the aversion to human cloning as “something we know and feel immediately and without argument,” “something that goes against what is considered familiar and legitimate,” “a revulsion against excessive human magnanimity,” and “a warning not to commit unspeakably profound things.”
Their argument is that we should listen to what we instinctively reject before we consider what is logically right or wrong. But there’s a flaw in this thinking. Sure, our instinctive disgust may seem to have a rational basis. For example, the instinctive aversion to murder and rape is considered obviously right, and many people agree with it without having to logically question it.
However, this is not always the case. Just a few decades ago, hatred of black people was taken for granted in white society, and it was based on instinctive disgust rather than logic or reason. While some people may still harbor such feelings internally today, they are fewer in number and are now recognized as plainly wrong. Instinctive aversion changes with the times, and it’s not always right.
The same is true for human cloning. Instinctive aversion to human cloning is not enough to justify banning it. We can’t say that people’s current instinctive aversion to human cloning is always correct. Just as white society’s aversion to black people has decreased, it is possible that aversion to human cloning will decrease over time. Nor does this instinctive aversion necessarily have to become a social norm in the form of a ban. A more logical approach is needed than a vague disgust that may change over time and is not necessarily correct.
In addition to instinctive disgust, there are logical objections. The renowned molecular biologist Axel Kahn argues that “cloning humans for the sole purpose of obtaining spare cell lines violates the principle of human dignity, which was formulated by Kant from a philosophical perspective.” Kant’s principle means that “for the sake of human dignity, humans should not be treated as mere means to an end.” But to what extent is a human being treated as a means to an end?
For example, if an infertile couple wants to have children by cloning their genes, are they “treating children as mere means”? It is not uncommon for parents to have children to leave offspring, to give their children siblings, or to have a son or daughter. Are these situations fundamentally different from human cloning? Kant’s logic is well suited to criticizing slavery or Nazi atrocities, but it is not clearly applicable to these cases.
The European Parliament resolution also prohibits human cloning, stating that “each individual has the right to maintain his or her genetic uniqueness. However, the concept of genetic uniqueness was almost non-existent before the issue of human cloning arose. Nor do people who are identical twins claim that their genetic uniqueness has been violated. After all, isn’t the concept of genetic uniqueness born out of a vague fear of human cloning?
This problem can be easily avoided by allowing human cloning. Cloning a specific individual would naturally require that person’s consent. If we legalize human cloning and systematically legislate and monitor every step of the process, starting with the consent of the targeted individual, we can prevent unwitting clones from being born.
We all have some level of fear of the unknown. Fears and concerns about human cloning are not unusual or wrong, but it is not advisable to limit scientific freedom and human liberty based on vague fears. Many of the arguments against cloning are also exaggerated or overstated. The lack of evidence in favor of cloning does not mean that there is not enough evidence in favor of cloning, but rather than treating it as a taboo based on vague fears or illogical objections, we should look at it as a potential way of advancing humanity and develop it, which will lead to a healthier and more progressive future for the life sciences.
