How can embryo cloning technology reconcile human dignity and ethical standards?

Embryo cloning technology has great potential for curing diseases and solving infertility, but it also raises ethical issues and concerns about human dignity. Proper utilization of this technology requires strict ethical standards and systematic management, along with social awareness and institutional change.

 

Variously referred to as human cloning, embryonic cloning, or human embryo cloning, the modern technology is as wide-ranging in its embrace as it is confusing in its name. Some think it’s about creating cloned humans that look and think exactly like you, like something out of a science fiction movie, while others think it’s about cloning clumps of cells to help couples with infertility. Furthermore, there are expectations that this technology will open a new chapter in the treatment of diseases. Despite these different understandings and expectations, what matters is the impact of these technologies on our society and human life. While we should welcome technological advances, we should also consider the ethical and social issues that come with them.
Therefore, before we discuss the permissibility or ethics of embryo cloning, we need to be clear about what it is and what it is not. Human embryo cloning is not a human being in the social sense, but rather an embryo in the early stages of cellular development, and is more appropriately referred to as embryo cloning than human cloning. Therefore, we will use the term embryo cloning in the following discussion. In the main text, we will clarify the definition of what an embryo is and what level of cloning is meant by cloning. We will then discuss the ethics and permissibility of embryo cloning.
An embryo is a fertilized egg that results from the union of a sperm and an egg, from the time it begins to divide at least one cell until it becomes a complete individual. Generally, up to 8 weeks after fertilization is called an embryo. There are two forms of embryo cloning. The first is by dividing a fertilized egg. Doctors have used this method to develop preimplantation diagnostics. Pre-implantation diagnostics is a technology that allows for the genetic analysis of fertilized eggs before implantation. The second is the cloning of embryos created through nuclear transfer, which includes therapeutic cloning and individual cloning.

 

 

Cloning an individual means creating another individual that is genetically identical to one. The development of cloning technology is prohibited by international agreements, such as the Convention on the Prohibition of Human Cloning, due to concerns that human dignity may be compromised. However, embryo cloning through egg splitting or therapeutic cloning, which is currently permitted, has also been subject to a number of ethical criticisms, some of which are difficult to agree on.
Pre-implantation diagnostics through egg splitting has made it possible to genetically analyze fertilized eggs, allowing patients with congenital genetic disorders with numerical or structural abnormalities of chromosomes, such as muscular degenerative diseases and Down syndrome, to have genetically normal children. However, as French biotechnologist Laurent Degos writes in his book, “Preimplantation genetic diagnostics clearly increase the chances of having a healthy baby. Biologists even openly hint that it is possible to replace defective genes through preimplantation genetic diagnosis. But does a baby with a high chance of being unhealthy, or a baby with a defective gene, have no right to see the light of day?”
Indeed, in our society, if a person with a disability is violently viewed in the same way as someone who “wishes they had never been born,” he or she would be morally reprehensible. It may seem a bit duplicitous that we educate people with disabilities to think of them as equal to people without disabilities, while ostracizing genetically defective embryos. However, in many cases, patients with congenital genetic diseases give up on having a child who will have the same disease as them. This is not only because of the pain and financial burden of the disease, but also because social systems, perceptions, and facilities still limit the ability of people with disabilities to live the same life as people without disabilities.
The technology that has given them back their right to have children is preimplantation diagnosis through egg splitting. In this way, embryo cloning can be seen not as a technology that takes away the right of a baby with a defective gene to see the light of day, but as a technology that helps create a healthy child who would not have been born without it.
Degos also notes that “some civil society organizations oppose any kind of intervention in the genes of pre-implantation embryos. “Interfering with embryonic genes means that every generation that comes after us will have one more or one less gene. Even if it means eliminating the risk of a disease, it paves the way for eugenics,” he says.
It’s a slippery slope logic, and American philosopher Leon Kass also uses it to argue that advocates of cloning want to believe that there are legitimate uses of cloning that are distinct from illegitimate uses. But the very principle they are advocating for (ensuring that a child is healthy and has a good chance in life) makes it impossible to find such a line. In effect, they criticize that they are legitimizing all future artificial attempts to create “perfect” babies.
But is it really the case that allowing genetic intervention in embryos to treat fundamental diseases is a slippery slope that will eventually justify eugenic attempts to create “perfect” babies through genetic manipulation? To rephrase Kass’s argument, he is saying that by recognizing a dominance relationship between healthy and unhealthy and allowing us to select for the superior of the two, we open up the possibility of creating dominance relationships for other traits and attempting eugenic genetic manipulation.
However, I believe that the gap between the trait of being healthy and other traits, such as being tall, is a slippery slope. In its charter, the World Health Organization, WHO, defines health as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease. However, there is an essential difference between the pursuit of being disease-free and the pursuit of having white skin or being a good runner. Diseases often limit a person’s physical freedom and, if not treated appropriately, can be life-threatening and painful. Therefore, at the national level, it is important to treat diseases and help people live well. The trait of having dark skin or not being able to run, if inferior, is not the cause of inferiority, but society, not the trait itself.
If a society does not recognize diversity and promotes the creation of dominance over others, it is the responsibility of its members to ensure diversity through education or institutionalization, not to eliminate all traits that are considered inferior. Therefore, any attempt to genetically engineer to overcome social inferiority should be prohibited. And if a person’s life is not threatened by a particular trait, but he or she is struggling with feelings of inferiority, psychotherapy should be provided to restore the person’s health in the social sense, and social movements should be organized to prevent recurrence.
In this way, we can view embryo cloning through egg splitting as a technology that helps to create healthy children who would not have been born without it. In addition, if genetic intervention in embryos, which enables the fundamental treatment of incurable diseases such as muscle degenerative diseases, is limited to disease treatment and strictly prohibited in other cases, it will be possible to remove the stigma of eugenics. Even if embryo cloning is only allowed for therapeutic purposes, there may be concerns about illegal cloning and genetic manipulation.
However, this is a risk that is not unique to genetic engineering, but to many dangerous but useful technologies, such as nuclear fusion. Just because a technology has the potential to be misused doesn’t mean it should be banned, but rather that it should be debated and reasonable standards should be established and upheld. Specifically, the freedom and integrity of scientific research should be recognized and embryo cloning should be allowed within the scope of curing diseases, but it should be monitored and overseen by the government.
As you can see, embryo cloning technology has the potential to positively impact our society. However, in order to realize that potential, we need to establish ethical standards and ensure that the technology is well managed and monitored to prevent misuse. This will allow us to properly utilize embryo cloning technology to bring hope to many people. Furthermore, we will need to change social perceptions and institutions to create a society where people with disabilities and people without disabilities live together. As technology advances, our efforts to preserve human dignity must continue endlessly.