In this blog post, we will examine the scientific advances and ethical issues surrounding human cloning and consider the possibilities and limitations of partial cloning.
The 21st century marks a major turning point in the fields of evolution and biotechnology. In particular, the emergence of CRISPR technology, which enables precise manipulation of human and animal cell genes, is gaining attention as a new breakthrough in the treatment of genetic diseases. Nicknamed the “third-generation gene scissors,” CRISPR has the potential to bring revolutionary changes to the treatment of not only genetic diseases but also various intractable diseases by correcting specific genes with high precision. Such technological advances are turning the possibility of reconfiguring human genetic destiny in ways we could never have imagined into reality, prompting us to rethink the definition of life and its future.
The completion of the Human Genome Project laid an important foundation for these changes. By mapping the entire human genome, the project provided crucial clues for understanding the relationship between genetic diversity and disease, paving the way for the active development of personalized medicine in the medical field. Beyond the prevention and treatment of diseases, this project has raised philosophical questions such as “Who are we, and how should we define ourselves?” In this way, advances in biotechnology have transcended the realm of science and technology to prompt fundamental reflection on the nature of human existence.
Amidst this trend, humanity’s endless curiosity and desire have led us to seek new directions for human development, with the topic of “human cloning” at the center of this quest. Long a staple of science fiction films, human cloning is now emerging as a realistic scientific possibility, sparking heated debate among biotechnologists, ethicists, and the general public alike. Human cloning continues to be a subject of debate, caught between scientific progress and ethical boundaries, and discussions on this topic are likely to continue in the future.
On February 27, 1997, the birth of Dolly, the first cloned sheep, was announced in the scientific journal Nature, sparking worldwide interest in cloning technology. This went beyond a mere scientific achievement, igniting international debate on the possibility of human cloning and the ethical dilemmas that accompany it. People’s opinions were sharply divided.
Some anticipated that human cloning would soon become a reality, leading to positive prospects for disease treatment and extended life expectancy. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) strongly argued that even if cloning technology were scientifically feasible, its application to humans was ethically unacceptable. This reflected the international community’s consensus on the need to clarify the complex relationship between human dignity and cloning technology, transcending mere technical limitations.
The International Bioethics Committee under UNESCO also reaffirmed its position that “no attempt that violates human dignity can be permitted,” emphasizing the need to restrict the use of cloning technology. The reason why ethical discussions are important is because of the issue of “responsibility” that accompanies reproductive choice. Here, “reproductive choice” goes beyond simply choosing offspring and means subjective intervention in the phenomenon of life as a whole. However, if responsibility for such choices is presupposed, some aspects of human cloning technology—namely, “partial human cloning”—may not necessarily conflict with ethical principles.
Partial human cloning has positive aspects that could contribute to human health and life extension in the long term. As science and technology advance, the technology to clone specific organs or tissues for transplantation is becoming a reality, no longer confined to theoretical discussion. For patients suffering from terminal illnesses or organ damage, such partial cloning could be the only means of saving their lives. The approach of replicating only the necessary parts of the human body for therapeutic purposes, rather than replicating the entire human body, is considered an alternative that avoids ethical controversy while maximizing medical utility.
Immanuel Kant’s ethical principle presents a philosophical stance that humans should not be treated as means, but should be respected for their own sake. This principle serves as the core basis for opposition to human cloning. According to Kant, human cloning results in cloned humans being reduced to tools for the purposes of existing humans, which clearly raises ethical issues. If cloned humans recognize themselves as autonomous beings and realize that they were created merely as means to fulfill the desires of others, this could seriously undermine human dignity. Conversely, if cloned humans were to claim the same rights as existing humans, confusion of identity and social conflict would inevitably arise. These concerns demand a fundamental reexamination of human cloning.
Nevertheless, partial cloning, which involves replicating only certain organs or tissues for medical purposes, can avoid direct conflict with Kant’s ethical principles. Technologies that use 3D printers to regenerate cartilage or specific tissues are already in the experimental stage, and if commercialized, they could significantly reduce organ transplant waiting times and contribute to extending life. Such replication technologies targeting only certain organs, rather than replicating the entire human being, represent an approach that does not view humans as mere “objects” and demonstrate the potential to resolve ethical dilemmas to a significant extent.
The “human as an object” referred to in Kant’s principle refers to the case where the entire human being is replicated and used as a tool. However, partial replication is merely a technical effort to improve the functional aspects of the human organism. Of course, the desire to extend life must be clearly distinguished from the potential for technological abuse.
Therefore, partial cloning must also be accompanied by certain ethical restrictions and social regulations. These restrictions need to become stricter as technology advances, and a balance must be found between scientific progress and ethical responsibility. Ultimately, what is important is not the act of cloning “a single individual” for instrumental purposes, but that scientific and technological development be carried out in a way that does not compromise human dignity.
Human cloning remains unrealized due to ethical issues, but partial cloning could be a meaningful alternative for improving human health and extending life. Going beyond simply transplanting organs from other animals, biotechnology for humans, implemented under ethical standards, could have a positive impact on humanity in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
In this way, scientific progress opens up new possibilities for us while also presenting us with serious ethical dilemmas. Sensitive issues such as human cloning require more than mere technological achievements and necessitate multifaceted discussions that take into account human dignity and autonomy. We must constantly reflect on how to prevent the indiscriminate advancement of science and technology from undermining our humanity and seek a balance between ethical standards and technological achievements. The debate surrounding human cloning ultimately boils down to the question of what kind of future we choose, and the answer lies in respecting humanity and adopting a responsible scientific attitude.
