Human cloning raises ethical and practical issues and is considered an unethical act that violates dignity. Instead, gene therapy and cloning technologies are alternatives, and we should solve the problem of human cloning and pursue a better life through advances in biotechnology.
On February 21, 1997, the birth of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, was announced to the world through the journal ‘ Nature. The birth of Dolly surprised the scientific community because the process of cloning a new life from an adult cell requires the nucleus of a cell that has already differentiated to become totipotent again, which is very difficult. In 1998, the team succeeded in cloning mice and cows. Human cloning has become a feasible technology, and there is a lot of debate between proponents and opponents of human cloning. In particular, those who are in favor of human cloning mostly cite the purpose of prolonging life by cloning organ donors and bone marrow donors. However, from the three perspectives of ethics, practicality, and necessity, human cloning should not happen and we need efficient biotechnology that can replace human cloning.
Let’s start by thinking about human cloning from an ethical perspective. From an ethical point of view, the most valid arguments in favor of human cloning are infertile couples or people who want to clone themselves to treat diseases. In the case of infertile couples, the child will receive DNA that has accumulated many mutations from adult cells, so it is more likely to develop cancer and grow old quickly. Also, the telomeres of the DNA have been shortened, so there is no guarantee of longevity. Moreover, if a child is born and finds that he or she consistently looks like one parent, ages more than his or her peers, and especially if he or she finds out that he or she is a clone of his or her parents, he or she will have a great deal of confusion about his or her identity, such as, “Am I the child of my parents or am I just a clone? This is not a life that was ever honored in the first place, and it is wrong to clone a human being knowing that it will be born with such a loss of dignity.
In addition, if a clone is to be created to treat a disease, the respect for the life of the clone will be less than that of the infertile couple above. At least in the case of the infertile couple, the clone would be loved and cared for as a child, but the clone for disease treatment would be treated as a means of organ transplantation rather than as a valuable human life. In other words, the clone would be born with an inherent obligation to use a part of his or her body for someone else, and would be deprived of the right to self-determination for something as important as organ transplantation. Infertile couples should seek other medical help to become pregnant or explore other options, such as IVF or adoption, and people with serious illnesses should continue to seek medical treatment and find other organ donors.
Next, let’s think about the practical challenges of human cloning: one of the technologies that will be used to clone humans is cell fusion, a process that involves obtaining an egg, removing the nucleus from it, and combining the remaining cytoplasm with the nucleus of the organism being cloned. Dolly is a cloned sheep that was born through this process of cell fusion. It is important to note that after 430 cell fusion attempts, only 277 embryos were created, 29 of which were able to enter the sheep’s uterus, and even then, most of them were malformed and had to be artificially aborted, and only one of them was ultimately born. This means that in humans, a very large number of miscarried or artificially aborted embryos would be discarded, and the psychological and physical stress on the biological parents and surrogate mothers would be enormous. Furthermore, the human rights of the deformed children born as a result of the cloning process are not guaranteed at all. Opponents of this rationale argue that by cloning many mammals, the uncertainty of the process would eventually be eliminated. However, even within the same mammal, there are significant differences in reproductive physiology and embryology, so this is not a valid argument.
In addition, we cannot overlook the social issues that could arise if cloning technology is commercialized. If cloning technology is commercialized, those who can afford it will be able to obtain better organs and live healthier lives through their own clones. However, those who are economically disadvantaged will likely not be able to benefit from this technology. This could lead to further social inequality and create an unethical situation in which the value of life is converted into money. Furthermore, there is the question of what status cloned humans will have in society. Will they be guaranteed all the rights of a human being, or will they simply serve as genetic donors? These issues suggest that the negative impacts of cloning technology on society must be fully considered.
Finally, consider the practical need for human cloning and the alternatives to human cloning. For most people, the purpose of human cloning is to fulfill their own desires or for health reasons. Of these, there is no justification for human cloning simply to fulfill a desire. For example, if a couple who is able to have a child pays money to someone they like among other people and asks for human cloning to have a child, it is no different from buying a doll, and the dignity of the child is completely ignored. In other words, human cloning for the sake of choosing one’s own child is a wrong desire that takes away the value of the living being and is not necessary at all. On the other hand, in the case of infertile couples who claim human cloning for health reasons, human cloning is necessary even though it violates the human rights of the child. Weighing the value of human rights and necessity is not easy, but it can be solved with gene therapy. In short, the most efficient idea is to give people the ability to create children, rather than forcing them to do so. The same idea can also be applied to cases where there are health problems with the fetus, or if you know that the pregnancy is bound to result in a child with a certain disease, you can use gene cloning. However, the abuse of genetic cloning technology to fulfill personal desires, such as using genetic cloning simply because you want to have a boy, is highly unethical according to Kant’s principle of exploitation, as it views the child as a tool. In other words, gene therapy or genetic cloning can be used as needed without violating ethical and practical issues, and can be a very efficient alternative to human cloning.
So far, we’ve discussed why human cloning shouldn’t happen from three perspectives: ethical, practical, and necessary. To summarize, human cloning always carries the heavy burden of “creating a new life,” so there are always ethical issues involved. From a practical point of view, human cloning technology is far from perfect, even though we have successfully cloned many mammals, including Dolly the sheep. However, if we look at the need for human cloning, there is some need. However, if we think outside the box of human cloning, these are problems that can be complemented by gene therapy or gene cloning technologies. In other words, for problems that need solutions, it is desirable to use well-coordinated gene cloning technologies that do not raise ethical issues.
In conclusion, human cloning has many problems, and it is desirable to develop biotechnologies such as gene therapy and gene cloning as alternatives. Technological advances are meant to enrich human life, and it is important that we do not lose sight of this purpose and utilize them appropriately.
