This blog post examines the ethical boundaries of human cloning and genetic manipulation research in the era of biotechnology.
The bananas we ate last year and the ones we’ll eat next year are, remarkably, identical twins. While their appearance, birthplace, and age may differ, their genetic information is identical, just like identical twins. In fact, many fruits and vegetables we consume have been genetically modified and cloned to possess genes beneficial to humans. Such modifications have extended beyond plants to animals, with the cloned sheep ‘Dolly’ in 1997 being a prime example. Thus, cloning and genetic manipulation of living organisms are actively utilized not only in research but also in the marketplace.
However, the story changes when the subject is human. In South Korea, research on human cloning and genetic manipulation is fundamentally prohibited. The only research permitted under strict limitations is therapeutic embryonic stem cell research. If research on cloning or genetic manipulation were to proceed, it would face not only legal restrictions but also fierce ethical criticism from the public and the scientific community. However, much of the research on cloning and genetic manipulation holds promise as a solution for disease treatment and is expected to yield enormous benefits. Furthermore, it can be said to align with the direction global scientific and technological research is pursuing (namely, solving health problems). Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether the current laws and social perceptions, which restrict all related research and focus solely on ethical criticism, are truly rational. If not, how should they be improved?
Research in science and technology is conducted for diverse purposes. These include economic reasons, academic curiosity, political motives, and human convenience. Let us first examine whether human cloning and genetic manipulation research align with these objectives. Such research necessitates in-depth study of genes and genetic material. This process can unlock the secrets of genes and advance research on induced pluripotent stem cells, which hold great promise in biotechnology. Furthermore, the outcomes of cloning and genetic manipulation can enable gene therapy or clarify the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Therefore, such research provides sufficient justification to satisfy these diverse objectives. So, what reasons exist to oppose this research?
Those opposing cloning and genetic manipulation research argue that ethical problems arise during the research process. They claim the research wastes human biological material and causes psychological distress to subjects. However, these claims stem from misunderstandings about the research process. The approach of initially creating hundreds of embryos and implanting them with the expectation of birth is highly inefficient. Modern scientists employ techniques far more advanced and economical than those used two decades ago when cloning sheep. Consequently, the amount of human material used is not as substantial as opponents fear. Nevertheless, some may argue that even minimal waste of human material is unacceptable. Yet, compared to the natural consumption of human material in daily life, the amount expended for research is hardly problematic.
The psychological distress experienced by subjects may vary depending on the type of experiment. If a subject donates their somatic or germ cells and researchers conduct experiments using those cells, the subject is unlikely to experience significant psychological distress. However, if a potential human being is grown in the subject’s uterus or genetic manipulation is performed, the subject could experience mental or psychological shock depending on the outcome. Yet, this too is not a reason to unconditionally restrict research. As mentioned earlier, modern research undergoes multiple stages of experimentation before involving humans. If the final stage of research does not involve human subjects, psychological distress is not caused. Therefore, this issue can be resolved by restricting only specific research areas.
Stronger ethical concerns arise regarding the outcomes of such research. It is true that cloned humans could experience physical and mental suffering. Predicting the exact nature of this suffering is difficult. Therefore, the debate over whether to perform human cloning must be addressed separately. If cloning were to occur, efforts must be made beforehand to minimize or eliminate the suffering of the cloned individuals. For example, cloned individuals may face the ‘problem of aged telomeres’. At the ends of human chromosomes lie telomeres, sequences of nucleotides. In normal somatic cells, telomeres shorten with each cell division. Once they reach a certain critical length, the cell dies. This process is currently believed to determine human aging and lifespan. Since cloned individuals are born from somatic cells that are already aged, their telomeres are likely to be shortened. Consequently, cloned individuals may be born with shortened telomeres, potentially leading to a shorter life expectancy. This issue could entail not only physical limitations but also psychological and mental distress. To resolve this, paradoxically, research on telomeres must be advanced through cloning and genetic engineering studies, leading to the development of compensatory technologies. Research inherently involves predicting and solving potential problems; thus, provided it is not rushed, it can serve as an opportunity for deeper research and technological advancement.
However, psychological suffering is difficult to address through such methods. Instead, there is a simpler method to simultaneously address psychological distress and technically surmountable problems: banning human cloning. This does not mean abandoning cloning research entirely. Rather, it means carefully defining permissible research boundaries to restrict only studies that raise ethical concerns. To summarize, not all research on cloning and genetic manipulation is inherently dangerous or undermines human dignity. Therefore, a blanket ban on such research cannot be considered rational.
Then, we need to consider where to draw the line on permitting research into human cloning and genetic manipulation. Listing research areas closer to the final stage: first is creating cloned humans to study their lifespans. Next, ending research after creating cloned humans, followed by studying embryo genetic manipulation, cloned embryo development, nuclear replacement, and related science and technology would likely have less ethical repercussions.
It has been consistently stated that research into related scientific technologies does not pose ethical problems. Regarding ‘nuclear replacement,’ it is more reasonable to consider the nucleus of a fertilized egg as biological material. Since humans are multicellular organisms, it is scientifically sound to regard a single cell before division as part of the material that constitutes the human body. Therefore, research into related scientific technologies and nuclear replacement can be said to raise no ethical issues concerning human dignity. Conversely, issues surrounding embryo cloning or genetic manipulation are highly contentious. The term ‘embryo’ encompasses the period from the start of cell division until it becomes a complete individual (around 8 weeks of pregnancy), making the criteria for when human status should be conferred ambiguous. If we consider an embryo to be human only after a specific point, then research conducted before that point can be viewed as having fewer ethical issues. The scientific community needs to clearly establish such criteria and impose restrictions on research.
All the research scope discussed so far is based on the premise that using ‘human life’ as an experimental subject carries significant ethical problems. The author agrees with this position and has excluded discussions about cloning humans. (Just to clarify, the focus of this article is not on whether human cloning should be permitted, but on research related to it.) If humans possess the capacity for self-determination and can consent to experiments, research involving them may not pose a major problem. However, fetuses and embryos (some of them) lack this capacity, which could be problematic. Therefore, researching the life of a cloned human after birth might actually raise fewer ethical concerns than embryo cloning. This is because while parents make decisions during infancy, the individual can later choose whether to permit or refuse research. However, if human cloning is not permitted, this becomes a meaningless debate. Therefore, the problem to be solved is ‘up to what stage should embryo cloning and genetic manipulation be permitted?’, which requires scientific justification from the scientific and technological community.
Although not covered in this article, if human cloning were permitted, scientific and institutional preparations would be necessary to ensure cloned individuals could live indistinguishably from others. Such preparations would be too late if initiated only after human cloning is permitted. Permitting earlier stages of research sequentially would allow potential problems arising from the research to be resolved organically through that research. Even without reaching the realm of human cloning, significant health and academic benefits can be gained through related research. Furthermore, I believe there is insufficient compelling justification to block such research. Current research on human cloning and genetic manipulation faces excessive restrictions. These restrictions need to be carefully reconsidered and readjusted, ensuring they do not exceed ethical boundaries.
