In this blog post, I would like to explore whether human cloning is truly an inevitable choice for technological progress or the beginning of an ethical crisis.
In 1996, the cloned sheep Dolly was born. The fascinating topic of human cloning was enough to pique humanity’s curiosity, and ultimately, Dolly’s birth—achieved through repeated experiments—opened up significant possibilities for the success of human cloning. Dolly’s birth not only opened a new chapter in the scientific community but also sparked a global sensation by providing a platform for ethical and philosophical debates. However, the excitement was short-lived; concerns about the problems that could arise from human cloning were soon raised, and heated discussions among experts in related fields regarding the legalization of human cloning began. These discussions continued vigorously within both academic circles and the general public, expanding into a broader debate surrounding the future of human cloning.
Due to the lack of significant progress in these discussions, public interest in human cloning has largely waned. However, a decision to legalize human cloning research would have undeniable ethical and institutional implications. There is a growing consensus that prioritizing technological advancement without first reaching a social consensus could be dangerous, and thus a cautious approach is necessary. To resolve these complex issues, it is crucial to strike a balance not only with scientific research but also with ethical and legal frameworks. That is why I wish to address this issue.
The most common argument put forward by proponents of human cloning is the infinite potential of the technology. Treatments for incurable diseases, fertility treatments for infertile couples, and the overcoming of congenital disabilities are just a few of the many potential benefits that could be achieved through human cloning research. However, despite these benefits, if sufficient consideration is not given to the potential risks and moral issues that cloning technology may bring, the introduction of this technology could instead become a disaster for humanity. For this reason, I believe that when discussing the pros and cons of introducing a specific technology or research, the disadvantages should be addressed more thoroughly than the advantages. Of course, if the disadvantages are very minor and the advantages are significant enough to outweigh them, then the advantages should naturally be considered. However, no matter how great the benefits may be, if the technology has fatal flaws, the drawbacks must take precedence in the discussion. Therefore, regarding human cloning, which raises a relatively large number of issues, a discussion of the problems must precede any discussion of the potential benefits.
‘Philip Kitcher’ is a leading figure opposed to human cloning. The major issue he points out is the social chaos caused by the indiscriminate use of the technology. In fact, if human cloning research were to proceed simultaneously in various parts of the world, it would cause immense social chaos regarding the identity of cloned humans, the justice of such actions, and cloning without the consent of the individuals involved. Human life must be regarded as more sacred than any technological advancement, and infringing upon it undermines the fundamental values of humanity. Proponents, including Gregory E. Pence, argue that indiscriminate use of the technology can be controlled by establishing an international coalition and ensuring that only authorized research is conducted through government-backed regulations. However, I believe perfect regulation is difficult to achieve. For example, if a researcher who acquired relevant knowledge from a public institution were to secretly conduct research with funding from a private institution, how would the government prevent this? Furthermore, research data and knowledge generated in this private capacity would soon spread to other private research facilities around the world. Therefore, human cloning research should be outlawed from the outset to make such research impossible. While such regulations cannot completely prevent related research, they would be far more effective than a proposal to legalize human cloning solely within public institutions.
There are also unresolved ethical issues arising from human cloning experiments. Currently permitted embryonic stem cell research is only allowed to use embryos that are less than 14 days old. This is because embryos under 14 days old have not yet developed a central nervous system and therefore cannot experience any consciousness or pain. However, the situation is different for human cloning research. To declare human cloning a success, the process must not stop at the embryonic stage but must continue until the embryo develops into a fetus or a fully formed human child. Even in the Dolly the sheep experiment, out of more than 200 ova, only Dolly survived to reach adulthood. Human experiments are said to be far more difficult, so achieving successful human cloning would likely require an even greater number of embryo samples. Some of these embryos may die after 14 days, or they may die while still in the fetal stage; I believe this carries the same weight as sacrificing humans for the sake of experimentation. Furthermore, in Dolly’s case, her lifespan was shorter than that of ordinary sheep, and her aging process proceeded quite rapidly. If we were to continue with human cloning and create cloned humans despite knowing this, it would constitute a violation of the human rights of those cloned individuals.
There is another ethical issue regarding the human rights of cloned humans. Before birth, humans cannot express their own will. If a human born through cloning leads an unhappy or unhealthy life due to cloning, this can be viewed as a violation of their human rights from the moment of their birth. Some proponents argue that since these individuals had the right to be born, it is better for them to live an unhappy life than to never be born at all. However, since these individuals were not born through natural reproduction but are the result of artificial experimentation, this argument is neither logically nor ethically sound. Furthermore, some might counter that the same issue arises when cloning embryonic stem cells for research. However, as mentioned earlier, permitted research targets embryos under 14 days old—at a stage where the embryo is incapable of thought—so I believe this is a different matter.
Thus, considering the social and ethical problems that would arise from human cloning—and given that the probability and scale of negative impacts are quite significant—I believe human cloning should remain prohibited. Even if the potential benefits of human cloning were immense, I oppose it. Prohibiting human cloning experiments may put the brakes on technological progress. However, this is a sacrifice well worth making when considering the problems that legalizing human cloning experiments would cause, such as the human rights violations, institutional chaos, and erosion of ethical consciousness mentioned above. I believe that now is the time for humanity—which has been relentlessly striving to clone itself—to pause for a moment and reflect on the future that our actions will bring. This reflection is not merely a matter for the scientific and legal communities; it must become a critical challenge that all of humanity must address together.
