This blog post explores how human cloning technology, which gained momentum after Dolly the cloned sheep, could impact the future beyond ethical controversies.
In 1997, the cloned sheep Dolly was born. Dolly’s birth captured the world’s attention and marked a major milestone in biotechnology. Until then, the prevailing belief was that fully grown mammals could not be cloned. This monumental event suggested that human cloning could become a reality. Consequently, numerous human rights organizations voiced strong opposition. Thus, the debate surrounding the technology of ‘human cloning’ is fierce. This stems from the very nature of human cloning.
Human cloning, strictly defined, means replicating a human zygote at the cell division stage—before it develops into a fetus after sperm and egg fertilization—to produce a human with identical genes. The current method of human cloning is nuclear transfer technology. Nuclear transfer involves removing the nucleus from a mature, unfertilized egg and replacing it with a nucleus obtained from a special cell in an adult or embryonic tissue. Since all genetic information is contained within the nucleus, the egg with the replaced nucleus and the organism developed from it are genetically identical to the organism that was the source of the transplanted nucleus. In other words, genetically identical individuals can be produced indefinitely through nuclear transfer. Using this method, in principle, any person can be cloned. Moreover, due to laboratory culture and tissue preservation, the cloned individual can live longer than the original organism, making it possible to clone even deceased individuals.
Wilmut and his colleagues, who created the cloned sheep Dolly, discovered a method to reprogram the state of DNA within the provided cell. By reverting its differentiated state to an early state and restoring its developmental potential, they were able to reproduce the entire process of producing a mature organism. Specifically, they reversed the process of somatic cell division in each cell back to its pre-differentiation state, creating primitive cells. Therefore, the research currently underway aims not to create humans through the fertilization of sperm and egg, but to create humans through the somatic cell division of a single cell.
If human cloning were achieved, the field that would benefit most significantly would be medicine. Stem cell research is currently being actively pursued, and stem cells themselves can be considered a form of replication. Stem cells are cells before they differentiate into tissue; they are attracting attention because they can be introduced into damaged tissue to produce therapeutic effects. Those in favor of cloning research argue that it should continue precisely because it enables the acquisition of stem cells. Human cloning would allow individuals to possess an identical genetic copy of themselves. This would enable organ transplants from the clone to treat diseases involving specific internal organs and potentially contribute to extending human lifespan.
This raises significant human rights concerns. The film ‘The Island’ explores this issue, depicting protagonists who are clones of other people, isolated from the outside world. The sponsors view their clones as merely existing for survival, but the clones possess identical genes to their sponsors, enabling them to think and live in the same manner. Thus, how should the human rights of these clones be guaranteed? Should they be recognized as persons? Recognizing them as persons would deviate from the original purpose, preventing the original individuals from freely using their organs.
Generally, opposition to human cloning can be divided into two positions. The first is the essentialist view that human cloning is inherently wrong. Advocates emphasize the naturalness of sexual reproduction, arguing that cloning—the creation of life through asexual reproduction—is fundamentally flawed. They contend that children born through asexual reproduction struggle to develop autonomy and that their bond with parents weakens. Mail Lander stated at the NBAC on March 13, 1997: “Our children are born with a kind of genetic independence from their parents from the very beginning. Children do not copy either their father or their mother. This ultimately reminds us that we must recognize children’s independence and that it is our duty to prepare them to be independent. Though we must never forget the meaning that, in principle, a child is a gift given to us.”
Second is the consequentialist perspective, which argues that the outcomes of cloning would be detrimental. This viewpoint, the most weighty moral objection to cloning, can be divided into two points: the high likelihood of physical or genetic damage to the child during human cloning, and the concern for psychological trauma stemming from unrealistic parental expectations and identity confusion. Nevertheless, the reason nuclear replacement technology (cell fusion method) cannot be abandoned is that it is the only method enabling an understanding of cancer based on genetic foundations, thereby allowing the treatment of genetic diseases like cancer.
Molecular biologist Leon Kass argued that all attempts to clone humans constitute unethical experimentation on the child to be born, carrying serious risks of failure and deformity, as confirmed through animal testing. Considering the very concept of cloning, he believes it is difficult to imagine that a child born in the future, even if healthy, would choose to be cloned. He therefore points out that we cannot be certain human cloning is ethically justifiable and emphasizes its dangers. Conversely, Gregory Pence counters that the claim human cloning would be harmful is not always justified. He asks, “Why are we so concerned about somatic cell nuclear transfer when we are already doing very novel things to save human lives, from genetically modified tomatoes to pig-to-human liver transplants, crossing nature’s boundaries?” Fence argues that as long as high embryo loss rates are accepted in normal reproduction and in vitro fertilization, we should not set excessively strict standards for human cloning.
Human cloning technology has notable advantages, but it also has many problems. The author supports a consequentialist perspective, and the problems with human cloning are as follows. First, there is the aforementioned issue of human rights violations. If human cloning becomes possible, there will be a tendency to devalue life. Life is unique and equally precious to all, but if human cloning becomes reality, it could theoretically allow for infinite life extension, potentially fostering a culture that devalues life. Some opponents of human cloning express concern that children born through cloning might be treated not as persons but as objects. This is because the process could be perceived as ‘making’ rather than ‘giving birth’ to humans, leading to objectification.
Second, if biotechnology is misused, the damage could be immense. Since cloning technology creates life, its abuse could lead to severe consequences. For instance, it could be linked to crime, where another individual is created unknowingly, leading to someone being wrongfully accused of a crime.
Third, human cloning is inseparable from genetic manipulation, and the tendency to pursue a perfect human ideal would intensify. This could exacerbate discrimination issues. Similar to past racial discrimination problems, if individuals with superior genes are born through cloning, they could be distinguished from children without such genes, becoming a cause for discrimination. While this can be seen as an issue related to eugenics, it would become more severe if human cloning becomes possible, making it an important matter inseparable from human cloning.
The author takes a critical stance on human cloning. As examined thus far, cloning technology holds significant medical value and offers advantages that could enhance humanity’s quality of life. However, as this technology directly concerns life itself, it must be handled with extreme caution. Used properly, it could expand human capabilities, but misuse would cause immense harm. Furthermore, potential problems this technology might cause still exist. Human cloning technology is a critical matter that could determine humanity’s future. Therefore, rather than making hasty judgments, we must deliberate on it with even greater caution.
