This article discusses the ethical and social dilemmas posed by advances in genetic engineering and human cloning. It weighs the benefits and risks of the technology, warns of the negative effects of human cloning, and emphasizes the need for regulation and oversight.
In 1997, Ian Wilmut and his colleagues announced that they had successfully cloned a sheep named Dolly. While cloning technology was not new, this was the first time an adult cell had been cloned, and it caused a huge social uproar. The most notable debate was whether human cloning was now possible, and if so, should it be done. Richard Dawkins, Hilary Putnam, and many other philosophers, scientists, and even Ian Wilmut himself opposed human cloning. I am also opposed to cloning humans and believe it would be a catastrophe on par with a nuclear bomb. Despite these concerns, 20 years have passed since Dolly was cloned, and genetic engineering and nuclear replacement technologies have brought us many benefits and have become an inseparable part of our lives. Genetic engineering is fascinating. However, for all its appeal, genetic engineering in humans poses many ethical and social dilemmas. Human cloning is at the top of the list, so why are these technologies so problematic? In this article, we’re going to take a look at the possibility of human cloning in the future, and whether we can stop it if it could have a very negative future.
First of all, genetic engineering came into existence in the 1970s with the launch of genetic recombination technology and refers to the field of manipulating genes to make artificial changes to existing, natural organisms, such as human genome research, genetic recombination, and cloning. Cloning, in particular, has seen numerous advancements since Robert Briggs and Thomas King succeeded in cloning a tadpole in 1952, including mice and Dolly, the latter of which had a greater social impact because it used nuclear replacement technology to inject an already differentiated cell nucleus into an egg from which the nucleus had been removed, creating a creature genetically identical to the donor. What this means is that if you take a nucleus from an existing human being, you can create a human being that is genetically identical to that person through nuclear replacement. If genetic engineering technology is further developed in the future, it could even enter the realm of human cloning. There are a lot of concerns, but there are also a lot of supporters.
Genetic engineering technology itself is widely supported, and many people are in favor of the development of human cloning technology with the development of social institutions and regulations. In the case of nuclear replacement, it can be used to clone animals to produce healthy, genetically strong seeds that can contribute to the profitability of farms, or to obtain stem cells from an individual’s undifferentiated cells to treat cellular diseases such as Parkinson’s disease. Genetically modified organisms, represented by GMOs, are already on the dinner table of many families and contribute significantly to farmers’ incomes. In the future, further advances in the technology will allow us to prevent genetically inherited diseases in individuals through genetic manipulation, and contribute significantly to increasing human longevity, such as through transgenic animals and xenogeneic liver transplants. Those in favor of human cloning, such as Richard L. Gardner, argue that human cloning will only create genetically identical individuals, and therefore will not lead to the feared situations of technological inefficiency and human cloning run amok, and that genetic engineering can be used to improve the quality of life of individuals, which falls under individual rights and does not raise many other ethical and legal issues. However, these positions either focus only on the light of genetic engineering’s light and shadow, or they downplay the shadow. While genetic engineering in and of itself is already producing great benefits, it’s when it involves humans that serious consideration is needed.
Let’s take a look at the arguments against human cloning. Genetic engineering in humans poses many ethical and social dilemmas. There are many subcategories, such as nuclear replacement, genetic engineering, and more, but we can’t cover them all, so we’ll focus on one of them: genetic testing. In this article, Varta Maria Nofus and Justin Burley’s predictions for insurance and employment, we’ll explore the future of genetic testing. As society puts so much effort into advancing biotechnology, genetic research will ultimately make genetic testing affordable and accessible to the public. Advanced technologies, such as DNA biochips, will facilitate testing for hundreds of conditions at once, but a person’s genetic information is a piece of personal information that can lead to genetic-based discrimination. When an individual seeks insurance, knowing a person’s genetic information can help insurers reduce losses by allowing them to diagnose the likelihood of future illnesses and decide whether to approve an application or charge more. On the flip side, however, individuals may be asked to pay more than others because of their genetics. This may be very justifiable from an economic point of view, but for the individual, it’s just another factor of discrimination. The same is true in employment. Genetic diseases such as α1-antitrypsin deficiency, which are only expressed under certain conditions (such as dusty environments), can help employers avoid hiring unqualified employees in the first place, thus preventing economic losses such as poor working conditions. This can also be related to advancement opportunities and job duties, which can lead to more efficient deployment of individuals, increasing the company’s bottom line. On the other hand, individuals can be denied many opportunities through no fault of their own due to genetic factors. While it may seem like a discriminatory factor for individuals, it is strictly a factor that can contribute to the company’s bottom line, and from the perspective of the kingpin, the kingpin is most often the company, so we can assume that genetic testing will become more and more common. Of course, manipulation technology will also be developed along with genetic testing technology, so it may be different if you have to pay extra for manipulation, but for the poor, biotechnology may not be beneficial due to the cost, and as a result, discrimination similar to the type described above may occur, eventually contributing to the polarization of the rich and poor. There is also a problem with manipulative technologies, even if they can become less expensive and thus contribute to reducing polarization. This goes to the heart of the first dilemma: genetic testing and manipulation of humans can spread perceptions of certain genetic traits as “disabled” or “non-disabled,” influencing people’s mindsets in the form of eugenics as practiced by the Nazis. It could lead to more people modifying themselves for better genes, much like plastic surgery to conform to a stereotypical look, which could reduce the diversity of the gene pool or create new problems such as harmful mutations and DNA loss. Genetic testing could also be the first step toward human cloning. This is because genetic testing can identify what we want to fix, which can then be addressed through cloning and genetic manipulation techniques.
The second dilemma is related to human cloning. One of Kant’s maxims is “Never treat another human being solely as a means to an end,” and human cloning is one of the most prominent examples of treating another human being as a means to an end. To borrow an argument from Hilary Putnam. The intrinsic value of family includes the unpredictability and diversity of what children will be born, and the use of genetic testing and human cloning can lead to children being molded to fit the parents’ tastes, or to children being seen as a part of the parents’ lifestyle rather than an end in itself, and to children being used as a means to the parents’ success, rather than a positive family image in which each person strives for the other as an end rather than a means to an end. The process of human cloning also reduces the gene pool, which could eventually lead to human extinction, just as bananas are currently endangered. Regardless of whether or not an embryo is considered a life, the use of surrogate mothers for cloning is an example of the instrumentalization of human beings and demonstrates the unethical nature of human cloning. In addition, the low success rate of nuclear replacement results in a large waste of human material, making discarded embryos, suffering surrogate mothers, and potentially deformed children a very real risk of human cloning. Citing Alan Coleman’s risk-to-benefit ratio, a cloned child could have problems that an adult nucleus would have, such as DNA mutations and rapid aging, causing unnecessary suffering to the organism. In the end, genetic engineering in humans, including human cloning, can create a very negative social climate, and the technology itself requires a lot of sacrifices, so the losses may outweigh the benefits.
I would say this: if you want to know the future of human cloning and genetic engineering, look to history. We learn history because history repeats itself, and past examples can help us understand future events. The synthesis of ammonia from nitrogen in the air is a good example of the future of human cloning. First developed by Fritz Haber and commercialized by Karl Bosch and his colleagues, ammonia synthesis became a source of fertilizer and lifted countless people out of poverty and starvation, but ironically, it also claimed countless lives because it could be used to make bombs. In order to survive, Karl Bosch’s company, Wasp, collaborated with the German state and, by extension, Hitler and the Nazis, and became Germany’s defense contractor in World War I and II, contributing to the deaths of countless young people in Europe. The point here is that Fritz Haber’s sense of honor, Karl Bosch’s money, and the growth of his company drove them to develop ammonia. In that sense, genetic engineering in humans is in a very similar situation to ammonia synthesis. Technologies like organ transplantation and nuclear replacement can help us overcome the limitations of existing medical technology and the human body. However, the very real problems of dehumanization and the disruption of the ideal family are outweighed by the benefits of commercialization. Genetic engineering in humans could become a huge capitalized industry if commercialized, and just as ammonia synthesis was exploited for economic and ideological reasons, such as corporate survival and war victory, so too could genetic engineering in humans, such as human cloning, be exploited for economic and ideological reasons.
In conclusion, without further consideration of the development of genetic engineering technologies, human cloning is likely to occur with high probability. This is because nuclear modification and genetic recombination are very attractive technologies in their own right, and the potential for greater capital in the case of humans is enough to attract people. But genetic engineering is a very attractive field, and the scary prospect of cloning humans is not enough to stop it from progressing. Therefore, genetic engineering technology should be regulated through international treaties and agreements, and through increased regulation and continuous monitoring of genetic-related industries to ensure that it is not developed in areas that involve humans, and to raise awareness among citizens. If this is done, human cloning can be prevented to some extent. Although genetic engineering technology involving humans can bring many benefits, it can also have very bad consequences and should be stopped. Just as the development of technologies such as nuclear weapons does not necessarily bring happiness, humanity would be happier without the development of human genetic engineering.
