This blog post examines the issues embryo cloning and genetic manipulation technologies raise for bioethics and the resulting societal debates.
The advancement of science and technology in the 21st century has brought significant changes to biotechnology. Through repeated genetic research, biotechnologists successfully completed the Human Genome Project, mapping the human genome, and have now ushered in a new era of genetic manipulation and genetic medicine. This has enabled stem cell research using surplus embryos and brought us to a level where embryo cloning is possible. However, ethical issues surrounding these genetic research technologies are also emerging. Some argue that human intervention in the realm of life, once considered ‘God’s domain,’ signifies a regression in human ethics. So, what is genetic ethics? We will examine various perspectives on this topic and present the author’s opinion.
Before discussing genetic ethics, let’s first understand genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is the science of utilizing genetic manipulation techniques to create substances useful to humans. Genetic engineering is divided into several fields, including genetic diagnosis, gene therapy, genetic enhancement, and cloning. Genetic ethics is the discipline that addresses the ethical issues related to such genetics or genetic engineering; it is a branch of bioethics that emerged in the 20th century. This text will discuss the ethical issues related to cloning.
Since the advent of embryo cloning, humanity has continuously debated its ethical acceptability. Opposition to embryo cloning is primarily based on five arguments. First is the debate over potential misuse. It is argued that permitting embryo cloning could lead to human cloning and result in the production of designer babies. Similarly, concerns about replaceability and the violation of human dignity are also raised, based on the fear that embryo cloning could be abused. These concerns can be relatively easily countered, as they can be mitigated to some extent through legal systems and oversight. However, the ontological argument that it violates human dignity and the natural law argument that artificially creating genetically identical life forms violates the natural order are claims that discuss the ethical rightness or wrongness of the act itself, not the consequences of embryo cloning. I believe these arguments are not perfect, so I wish to discuss them in more detail.
First, the ontological argument concerns the moral status of cloned embryos. The claim is that if the moral status of cloned embryos is recognized, embryo cloning must be completely prohibited. Recognizing moral status means the embryo is considered a life form with a high potential to develop into a person. Embryo cloning presupposes the death of the cloned embryo. Therefore, if the embryo is regarded as human life, embryo cloning can be seen as arbitrarily manipulating and destroying human life—that is, as murder for research purposes. However, if the moral status of cloned embryos is not recognized, this problem does not arise. The debate over the moral status of embryos themselves is divided between the position that moral status should be granted because embryos have the potential to become human, and the position that denies this. Those who recognize the moral status of embryos argue that embryos after 14 days of fertilization have formed basic bodily organs, making it highly likely they will develop into humans. However, it is necessary to consider whether the mere fact that an embryo begins to form bodily organs should be interpreted as evidence of its potential to develop into a human being. Granting moral status to an embryo based on its potential to become human is akin to treating every pinecone as identical to a pine tree simply because it could become one. Furthermore, there is no research confirming self-identity between an embryo and an adult. For example, in the case of identical twin embryos, it is difficult to argue for self-identity with the adult individuals who possess distinct moral status. This means that for an embryo to have the same moral status as a human, self-identity must exist, yet this cannot be confirmed. Therefore, treating embryos as human and using them in experiments solely because they can form bodily organs warrants careful consideration.
Nevertheless, due to public opposition to embryo cloning, actual experiments currently use only embryos before 14 days or surplus embryos. Some argue that embryos before 14 days should also be recognized as human. However, embryos before 14 days, even possessing a unique genotype, do not have biological individuality. That is, until 14 days after fertilization, gene expression is regulated by the egg, and the cells do not function as an independent organism. While the embryo has the potential to develop into a fetus, it also has the potential to differentiate into the placenta, other tissues, or bodily organs. Therefore, the debate over embryos before 14 days is considered practically meaningless.
Furthermore, the position of embryo cloning opponents who do not oppose experiments using surplus frozen embryos is contradictory. Surplus frozen embryos refer to embryos created and stored during the IVF process that were not used for implantation and remain frozen. These embryos are ultimately discarded. If, as they claim, embryos are wrong to clone because they possess the potential to become human, then they must also oppose research using embryos beyond 14 days and artificial insemination that presupposes the disposal of surplus embryos to be consistent. However, their failure to do so raises further questions. In fact, the American Bioethics Research Association does not restrict research using surplus embryos but legally restricts research using other embryos. Furthermore, given that artificial insemination is legally permitted and encouraged for infertile couples, the creation and research of surplus embryos are not subject to legal restrictions.
According to the natural law argument, embryo cloning is an act that artificially creates a living being with identical genes, thus violating the natural order. Religious groups, following this argument, believe that since humans are beings created by God, acts that determine life and death should be prohibited. This is based on the premise that manipulating life and influencing human evolution are God’s exclusive prerogative, but it involves a logical leap and lacks strong grounds. Examining the reasons for embryo cloning reveals that embryonic stem cell research can create various organs like livers, bones, nerves, and hearts, and be used to treat incurable diseases such as diabetes, cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. In other words, helping suffering people through embryonic cloning can also be seen as practicing religious love.
The argument that using genetic engineering on life is wrong because it encroaches on God’s domain has many logical problems. For example, it is ambiguous to claim that gene therapy is acceptable as God’s will while asserting that enhancing genetic qualities is contrary to God’s will. The failure to clearly define the criteria for therapy versus enhancement is also problematic.
If manipulating life through genetic engineering is wrong, then to be logically consistent, one must oppose not only embryonic cloning but all life-related research, such as animal testing. However, dismissing this logic based solely on the difference between humans and animals also lacks consistency. Furthermore, discussions about the afterlife, salvation, and the soul concerning cloned humans are purely religious assertions that stray from scientific discourse. Nevertheless, their arguments are significant in suggesting the direction for genetic enhancement.
This essay critically examined the position opposing the cultivation of traits through embryonic cloning and genetic manipulation. Biotechnology contributes to medical advancement and holds significant potential for future contributions. While I do not consider all arguments of biotechnology opponents valid, I believe this debate holds significance in raising awareness about the issues surrounding biotechnology. It is positive that this has led scientists to carefully set the direction of their research and that legal systems compliant with bioethics have been established. However, I do not believe it is desirable for the development of genetic engineering to be delayed by unconditional opposition. I hope that the validity and necessity of these technologies will be recognized as soon as possible so that research can proceed actively, enabling them to provide public benefit to humanity.
