This blog post explores ways to harness cloning technology for human advancement while considering ethical concerns. It examines both scientific possibilities and societal impacts.
On February 24, 1997, the world watched as the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep was announced. Since this technology had been applied to animals, it became clear that cloning could now be applied to humans as well. The fact that ‘cloning’—creating another individual from a single organism—was now possible, something previously only imagined, sparked great interest in humans while simultaneously raising concerns. According to a 2005 survey conducted by the UK Department of Trade and Industry involving over 1,800 people, approximately two-thirds believed cloning was wrong. People feared the creation of an identical copy of themselves. Stephen Jay Gould, one of the authors of ‘Human Cloning: What’s the Problem?’, argued that it is impossible to create a perfectly identical individual through cloning. I harbored doubts about his assertion that the cells from which Dolly was derived should be considered special cells rather than adult cells.
The author mentions that unlike sensational articles exaggerating human cloning as imminent despite only animal cloning having succeeded, reading the technical paper on Dolly’s production might be somewhat disappointing. He anticipates readers might wonder if Dolly’s story falls short of our expectations. Furthermore, the author predicts that even with time, we are unlikely to see the cloning of perfectly identical individuals. First, he points out that we already understood the principle of cloning at least 20 years ago. We simply hadn’t developed the technology to fully restore the genetic potential of differentiated adult cells. In this respect, he argues that Dolly did not overturn any theoretical foundations in biology.
Second, the author states he is still uncertain whether the cell that gave birth to Dolly should be considered an adult cell. Dolly grew from cells taken from the mammary gland of a six-year-old ewe in late pregnancy. Because the mammary glands of pregnant ewes expand significantly in late pregnancy, some mammary cells, while technically adult cells, may be unstable or resemble embryonic cells. This is because they can proliferate rapidly at the appropriate stage of pregnancy to produce new mammary tissue. Therefore, cloning may only be possible with cells that possess embryonic potential, not typical adult cells, and it might not be feasible from cheek cells, hair follicle cells, or a single drop of blood. Walmer and colleagues acknowledge this possibility, stating, “We cannot rule out the possibility that a small proportion of relatively undifferentiated stem cells exist that could support mammary gland regeneration during pregnancy.”
Reading this second argument, I began to question the author’s claim that Dolly has limitations because cloning is only possible with specific cells. While human cloning was initially only possible with embryonic cells, it has now been made possible from mammary cells, which belong to the category of adult cells. This signifies a technological advancement. Similar to this technological advancement, it implies the possibility that cloning from common adult cells, such as blood or cheek cells, will become feasible someday. Nothing has ever achieved the desired result from the start without a process. This is merely a stepping stone towards the next stage: cloning from common adult cells. Through sufficient research, humans will make cloning from common adult cells possible.
The arguments presented earlier assert that, from a technical standpoint, it is impossible to clone a perfectly identical individual. Thirdly, adding my own opinion, it is inherently impossible to create an identical individual because the environment in which the cloned individual grows cannot be completely identical to that of the original. A cloned human is likely to possess a different personality due to differing social environments and other factors currently beyond our scientific understanding.
A disappointing aspect of this article is that the author only briefly touches upon the ethical issues and technical limitations associated with human cloning. One reason many people oppose human cloning is the concern that cloned organisms might not be healthy. Many believe Dolly died early because she was a cloned sheep. Indeed, some cloned calves experienced problems after birth. Researchers have also discovered abnormal livers, lungs, hearts, and blood vessels during autopsies of cloned animals that died young. Cloned animals are often frail, suffer from illness, and die prematurely. Until these concerns are resolved, attempting human cloning itself may be wrong. Some scientists believe the health problems in cloned organisms primarily stem from using somatic cells, which exist in adults, as the source of genetic material. Throughout an individual’s lifetime, cells exert considerable effort to adapt to the environment, a process during which defects called mutations can accumulate in the DNA within the cells. The cloning process, by using genetic material carrying these mutations for embryonic development, may expose the resulting organism to significantly greater biological risks than an embryo created through normal fertilization. This could mean cloned organisms have shorter lifespans or face increased cancer risks. In any case, the most important thing in cloning science today might be the fact that family is just as precious as the results of scientific progress. Cloned sheep Dolly had a short lifespan. While the average lifespan for individuals of her species is 11 years, Dolly lived only 6 years, suffering from arthritis starting at age 4. She was euthanized on February 14, 2003, at age 6, due to severe pneumonia and adult diseases including progressive arthritis, obesity, and rheumatism. The autopsy revealed Dolly had lung cancer, commonly found in sheep. While scientists at Roslin Institute claimed there was no evidence Dolly showed signs of premature aging, some scientists questioned whether the age of the sheep used to clone Dolly—six years old—meant she was inherently limited by telomere-related aging, potentially only able to live to six years. When Dolly was three years old, her telomeres—known as indicators of cellular aging—were already shorter than normal, equivalent to those of a nine-year-old sheep. In other words, Dolly was born carrying the age of her six-year-old mother.
Furthermore, adopting a factory-style production method that mass-produces individuals like commodities through cloning could reduce genetic diversity. While plump, large cattle might initially provide cheap, tasty, and high-quality meat for our tables, in the long term, the risk of defective genetic traits accumulating and manifesting increases significantly. The high incidence of hemophilia and mental illness in the British royal family’s lineage in the past was also a result of inbreeding. Similarly, in humans, the combination of diverse genes has led to individuals immune to AIDS and others with bodies resistant to specific diseases. While extreme, artificially manipulating reproduction to produce only people with trend-aligned appearances for purely superficial reasons could lead to severe consequences when exposed to certain diseases or environments.
Furthermore, opposition to extending such life cloning to humans is significant. There is no guarantee that life replication, justified under the banner of treating human diseases, will not lead to human regeneration. Before being an insult to God, who holds the authority to create life, this could signify self-destruction by negating the order and ethics of human society. This is because in a society where human cloning causes parents to become children and children to become parents, it becomes difficult for bioethics and human order to stand firm. Reflection is needed on whether human dignity and value are being compromised in this process. In our case, a constitutional petition has already been filed, arguing that the ‘Bioethics Act’ infringes upon the value of respecting life by permitting human embryo research. Harmonizing the bioethical limitations of human embryo cloning is emerging as a critical task, no less important than its biotechnological potential. Moreover, wealthy individuals suffering from disease will invest solely to extend their own lives by creating cloned humans. They will not properly care for these cloned children as parents should. They will only plan to use the child’s cells or organs. This would result in severe disregard for human life and human rights violations. Human society’s long-held norms could be shattered by practices like genetic screening of cloned humans.
Few remember that it took a staggering 2,777 attempts to clone Dolly. For animal cloning, the success rate remains as high as only 10%. Thus, life cloning technology is still far from perfect. Yet, humans persistently pursue life cloning. As cloning technology advances, any animal can now be cloned if one is determined to do so. Starting with the cloned sheep Dolly (1997), mice (1997), cows (1998), goats (1999), pigs (2000), and cats (2002) have been cloned. Cloning monkeys, whose DNA structure is highly compatible with humans, is only a matter of time.
Despite various problems and concerns, cloning science is advancing and must continue to advance. Research into cloning for therapeutic purposes is ongoing. Cloning technology can also be used to enhance agricultural competitiveness and produce a wide range of genetically modified animals for organ transplantation. By contributing to advancements in diverse fields—such as producing substances for treating intractable diseases using animals, developing xenotransplantation technology, producing biomaterials using stem cells, and protecting biodiversity and the environment for ecosystem conservation—it will enhance the quality of life for humanity in the 21st century and beyond. Indeed, the application of cloning science is essential to address the food crisis caused by the rapidly growing global population and to protect the deteriorating environment. Appropriate regulations must be established to ensure this technology develops without raising ethical concerns.
