In South Korea, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has approved the use of somatic cell cloning embryos for therapeutic purposes, reigniting controversy. Somatic cell cloning embryos are useful for treating terminal diseases because they can differentiate into a variety of cells and are less likely to be rejected. Opponents raise ethical concerns, but these can be addressed through the use of discarded eggs and donor consent. I think research should be allowed.
In July 2016, the debate resurfaced when the Ministry of Health and Welfare approved research on somatic cell cloning embryos for therapeutic purposes. A somatic cell cloning embryo is an embryo that is cultured by implanting the nucleus of a somatic cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed, which can then be differentiated into various types of cells. The reason why somatic cell cloning research continues to be promoted is that somatic cell cloning embryos can be cultured into cells that do not regenerate in adults, such as nerve cells, and because they are genetically identical to their donors, they are not likely to be rejected by the body after transplantation.
Although there is a lot of debate on whether or not to allow this type of research, the recent decision by the Ministry of Health and Welfare suggests that it should be limited to therapeutic purposes.
For one thing, it is the only way to give new life to millions of terminally ill patients. Diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, in which nerve cells slowly die, can be slowed down with existing drugs, but not cured. In particular, when the cells in a particular area are irreversibly damaged, such as in patients with optic nerve damage from severe cataracts or those who have suffered spinal cord injuries in a freak accident, resulting in paraplegia or total paralysis, the only way to treat them is to transplant new cells using stem cells.
While opponents of cloned embryos agree that there is a need for treatments using stem cells, they argue that research on cloned embryos is not necessary because treatments are already available through iPS (adult stem cells) or cord blood stem cells (stem cells from the umbilical cord). However, iPS is significantly less feasible than somatic embryonic stem cells because it requires reversing the cycle of cells that have already differentiated. In fact, on a safety scale of 1 for somatic embryonic stem cells, iPS is known to have 1,863 times more genetic variation than somatic embryonic stem cells. The other option, cord blood stem cells, has the added complication that the amount of stem cells in the umbilical cord is too small to be used for therapeutic purposes, and it’s difficult to apply to people who don’t have their umbilical cord stored. Given this, it is reasonable to allow stem cell therapy research using somatic embryo cloning.
There are also insufficient arguments against the use of somatic cell cloning embryos for therapeutic purposes from an ethical perspective. The two main arguments against are that the process of obtaining eggs for research may cause side effects to egg donors, and that embryos destroyed in research should be considered living beings. First of all, the destruction of eggs and embryos in research can be solved by regulating the use of leftover eggs in IVF for infertile couples. Currently, about 10 eggs are retrieved at a time for fertility treatments, but only two or three are actually used, and the rest are frozen and discarded. Limiting research on somatic cell cloning embryos to these remaining discarded eggs, and requiring voluntary donation by the donor, would address the ethical issues and possible adverse effects on the egg donor during the research process.
The other objection, the view that embryos should be viewed as full human beings, lacks logical validity. This view argues that embryos should be viewed as life because they have the capacity to develop into full-blown human beings, and only embryos can develop into adults. If we assume that this view is valid, then by the same logic, a fertilized egg should also be considered a life form because it has the capacity to develop into a full life form. By this logic, any contraceptive device that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus would be murder, and anyone who uses it would be a murderer. In reality, therapeutic somatic cell cloning research uses embryos that have been cultured for six to seven days after fertilization, at which point they are little more than a clump of cells the size of a hot spot and show no signs of life. Given this fact, it is not logical to consider an embryo a complete life form just because it has the ability to develop into an adult, and it is not logical to restrict somatic cell cloning research for this reason.
Reproductive use of somatic cell cloning requires a broader societal discussion. However, the benefits of cloning for therapeutic purposes are too great to limit, and the ethical issues that arise can be addressed simply and effectively. Therefore, therapeutic somatic cell cloning research should be allowed.
