Advances in cloning technology have made it possible to successfully clone animals, and nuclear transplantation has opened up many possibilities for the medical field. From drug discovery and organ transplantation to genetic modification to suppress immune responses, there is a growing need for animal cloning and testing for humans. On the other hand, there are also significant concerns about the bioethical and ecological impacts of animal cloning. There is a need to debate the extent to which animal sacrifice for human life is acceptable, and ultimately develop technologies to reduce and replace animal testing.
When did interest in cloning begin? Was it born out of a desire to solve organ failure, or was it a desire to find a replacement for human work? While we don’t know the exact beginning, the moment when the idea of cloning became a reality rather than science fiction was probably when the first successful animal cloning took place. In early 1997, at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Ian Walmut and his colleagues created Dolly, the world’s first cloned animal. The process used nuclear transfer technology. Dolly’s cloning process involves fusing the nucleus of an adult sheep with the egg of another sheep and implanting it in the uterus of a surrogate mother. While the process sounds simple, it was actually complex and had a very low success rate. Of the 277 fusions attempted to create Dolly, only one succeeded in giving birth. Dolly’s birth shocked the world, and the possibility of fission technology and cloning became a hot topic of public interest.
Nuclear transfer technology can be used for many purposes other than cloning. For example, it could be used to treat people with genetic diseases that lack certain immune proteins by replacing their hematopoietic stem cells with normal cells. It can also be used to modify the genes of an animal to be cloned and then clone it, resulting in an animal that has improved upon its existing capabilities. While there is strong opposition to the use of nuclear replacement in humans due to a number of ethical and legal issues, the use in animals is more mixed. Opponents worry about reduced genetic diversity and animal suffering, while proponents argue that it can improve the efficiency of drug testing and help with organ transplants. Considering the current medical need, one can argue in favor of using transgenic animals for medical purposes.
First, it allows for the mass production of substances needed by the human body in animals. Pig organs are very similar to human organs, which makes them a good candidate for transplantation. However, transplanting pig organs into humans requires suppressing the immune response. By modifying the pig’s genes to make them resistant to the human immune system through nuclear replacement technology, transplantable organs can be obtained. In the same way, nucleosynthesis could be used to treat hemophilia, a disease characterized by a lack of clotting factor IX. By replacing the gene that produces the clotting factor with an animal’s gene, the necessary clotting factor can be extracted from the animal’s milk.
Second, it allows for more precise testing. Rabbits are often used to test new drugs because their immune systems are similar, but there are differences in how each individual responds. By cloning multiple rabbits with the same genetic traits through nuclear transfer, consistent data can be obtained, increasing the accuracy of experimental results. By using cloned individuals with the same characteristics, you can also reduce the number of animals needed.
Finally, it minimizes damage to the ecosystem. For example, horseshoe crabs provide specialized blood for endotoxin testing, but every year many individuals die during the blood collection process or suffer from the after-effects. Producing cloned horseshoe crabs with nuclear replacement technology can provide the resources needed for experiments while protecting horseshoe crab populations in the natural ecosystem. Genetic manipulation can also be used to increase the horseshoe crab’s blood production and create more resilient individuals, reducing their suffering.
Despite these benefits, opponents of the use of nuclear replacement technology for medical purposes will still cite animal sacrifice. But when human life is at stake, it’s a difficult question to prioritize animal life over human life. If the only way to save your family or yourself is with organs from animal cloning, you may not have a choice, even if you are concerned about animal suffering. Nuclear replacement technology may actually be a way to reduce animal suffering in experiments. For example, we could consider creating modified individuals that increase the number of pig organs, thus reducing the number of pigs needed for organ transplants.
In conclusion, while I am in favor of using transgenics in animals for medical purposes, this is not an unconditional endorsement. We need to consider the suffering of animals and advance the technology while adhering to the 3Rs of animal testing: replaceability, minimization of suffering, and minimum quantity needed. Efforts to reduce animal sacrifice should continue, such as stem cell research and the development of endotoxin testing technologies to replace horseshoe crab blood. While it is not possible to completely replace animal testing with current technologies, we should continue to develop technologies that address these issues.
