In this blog post, we look beyond the instinctive aversion and ethical debates surrounding human cloning to explore in depth the balance between scientific feasibility and social acceptance.
In February 1997, the Roslin Institute in the UK announced news that stunned the world: the birth of Dolly, the cloned sheep. Dolly, the world’s first mammal born through somatic cell cloning, caused a massive stir. U.S. President Clinton directed the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC) to investigate the issue, and in June of that same year, following its investigation, the NBAC recommended that the President enact legislation making human cloning a federal crime. Based on this, President Clinton submitted a bill to Congress banning human cloning for five years. The European Parliament also urged European Union (EU) member states to ban all research related to human cloning.
Hiroshi Nakajima, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), also stated, “The WHO considers the birth of a human being using cloning technology to be ethically unacceptable, as it violates the fundamental principles of medically assisted reproduction. This fundamental principle includes respect for human dignity and the safeguarding of genetic material.” Following this line of reasoning, the WHO also resolved that “the use of cloning technology to create a specific human being is contrary to humanity and morality and is ethically impermissible.” This consistent negative reaction to human cloning from both individuals and groups appeared almost like an instinctive rejection. So, is this sense of rejection truly valid and reasonable? A more logical approach, rather than an instinctive one, is needed.
Before delving into the discussion, we must first clarify the definition and scope of human cloning. Cloning takes various forms, including molecular cloning, cytoplasmic cloning, embryonic cloning, and somatic cell nuclear transfer (somatic cell cloning). Among these, we should focus on embryonic cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Embryo cloning involves replicating an embryo already formed through sexual reproduction to create a genetically identical embryo; it can be viewed as the artificial creation of identical twins. Somatic cell cloning involves transplanting the nucleus of a somatic cell from an adult into an enucleated egg cell, and it is considered more serious than embryo cloning. While there is some debate over whether an embryo constitutes a living being, somatic cell cloning is possible even with adult organisms, which are clearly alive. This means that a living adult can be cloned to create a new life. Dolly was also born through this method.
In fact, various cloned organisms existed even before Dolly. Since Spemann of Switzerland successfully cloned a newt in 1902, various animals—including frogs, mice, sheep, and rabbits—have been cloned. However, all of these cases involved embryonic cloning. The reason Dolly received such intense attention is that she was the first mammal born through somatic cell cloning, rather than embryonic cloning. This was enough to fuel anxiety about the possibility of human somatic cell cloning.
So why do people feel aversion toward human cloning? The most obvious reasons include moral sensibilities, instinctive reactions, and revulsion. Although expressed differently, these are essentially similar. Mary Warnock stated, “As long as ethics exist, whether in the private or public sphere, there is a barrier that must not be crossed regardless of the outcome, and when this barrier is crossed, people feel a strong sense of aversion.” Leon R. Kass also described the aversion to human cloning as “what we know and feel immediately without any argument,” “a violation of what is considered familiar and legitimate,” “a distaste for excessive human manipulation,” and “a warning not to violate things that are indescribably profound.”
Their argument is that we must listen to what people instinctively reject before determining whether it is logically right or wrong. However, there is a flaw in this line of thinking. Of course, a person’s instinctive aversion may appear to have rational grounds. For example, the instinctive aversion to murder and rape is clearly considered right, and many people agree without needing to analyze it logically.
However, this is not always the case. Just a few decades ago, hatred toward Black people was taken for granted in white society, and this stemmed from instinctive aversion rather than logic or reason. While some people may still harbor such feelings internally today, their numbers have dwindled, and such attitudes are now clearly recognized as wrong. Instinctive aversion changes with the times and cannot always be considered correct.
The same applies to human cloning. An instinctive aversion to human cloning is insufficient grounds to ban it. We cannot assert with certainty that the instinctive aversion people currently feel toward human cloning is always correct. Just as hatred toward Black people has diminished in white society, aversion to human cloning may also diminish over time. Furthermore, there is no inevitability that such instinctive aversion must become a social norm in the form of a ban. Rather than relying on vague aversion that can change over time and cannot be confidently deemed correct, a more logical approach is needed.
In addition to instinctive aversion, there are logical arguments against human cloning. The renowned molecular biologist Axel Kahn argues that “cloning humans solely for the purpose of obtaining extra cell lines violates the principle of human dignity advocated by Kant from a philosophical perspective.” Kant’s principle means that “for the sake of human dignity, a human being must not be treated merely as a means.” But to what extent can a human be treated merely as a means?
For example, when an infertile couple replicates their own genetic material to have a child, is this treating the child as “merely a means”? It is common to see parents having children to leave descendants, to give their child a sibling, or to have a son. Are these situations fundamentally different from human cloning? Kant’s logic is suitable for criticizing slavery or Nazi atrocities, but it is difficult to apply it clearly to these cases.
Furthermore, a European Parliament resolution prohibits human cloning, stating that “every individual has the right to maintain their genetic uniqueness.” However, the concept of genetic uniqueness hardly existed before the issue of human cloning arose. There are no cases of identical twins claiming that their genetic uniqueness has been violated. Ultimately, isn’t the concept of genetic uniqueness rooted in a vague fear of human cloning?
This issue can be adequately prevented even while allowing human cloning. Naturally, the consent of the individual in question would be required for cloning to take place. If human cloning is legalized and all procedures—starting with the consent of the individual to be cloned—are systematically codified into law and monitored, it is possible to prevent a clone from being born without the original person’s knowledge.
Everyone feels a certain degree of fear toward new things. Fear and concern regarding human cloning are not particularly strange or misguided. However, it is undesirable to restrict the freedom of science and human freedom based on vague fears. Furthermore, many of the arguments against it are exaggerated or far-fetched. While weak arguments against it do not automatically mean that arguments in favor are sufficient, rather than treating human cloning as taboo based on vague fears or logically flawed opposition, viewing it as a potential direction for human progress and developing it further could open the door to a healthier and more promising future for life sciences.
