Human cloning, how long will we be afraid and turn away from the possibility?

Instinctive reactions and ethical objections to human cloning may change over time, and a logical approach is needed. The debate should be conducted in a way that takes into account the potential advances in human cloning and does not restrict the freedom and progress of science.

 

In February 1997, the UK’s Roslin Institute made an announcement that sent the world reeling. Dolly the cloned sheep was born. The reaction to Dolly, the world’s first mammal born through somatic cell cloning, was overwhelming. In the United States, President Clinton ordered the National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC), a presidential advisory body, to investigate the issue. In June of the same year, the NBAC concluded its investigation and recommended that President Clinton enact legislation to make human cloning a federal crime, and Clinton submitted a bill to Congress that would ban human cloning for five years. The European Parliament also called on European Union (EU) member states to ban all research on human cloning. The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, also said, “WHO considers the birth of a human being using cloning technology ethically unacceptable because it violates the fundamental principles of physician-assisted childbirth. These fundamental principles include respect for human dignity and ensuring the safety of human genetic material,” and along these lines, the WHO has resolved that “the use of cloning technologies to reproduce specific human beings is contrary to humanity and morality and is ethically unacceptable.” These consistent negative reactions to human cloning by various individuals and groups seem almost instinctive. But are these objections valid and rational? Let’s take a more logical approach, rather than a visceral one.
Before we begin, it’s important to clarify the definition and scope of human cloning. Cloning can be categorized into several different ways. Molecular cloning, cytoplasmic cloning, embryonic cloning, and somatic cell nuclear transfer (somatic cell cloning) all fall under the umbrella of cloning. Of these, we’ll focus on embryo cloning and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Embryo cloning involves cloning an embryo that has already been formed by sexual reproduction to create genetically identical embryos. You can think of it as artificially creating identical twins of an embryo. Somatic cell cloning involves taking the nucleus of an adult cell and implanting it into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. This is considered more serious than embryo cloning. This is because it’s debatable whether an embryo is even a stage of life yet, while somatic cell cloning can be done on an adult that is clearly a living being. This means that it is possible to create a new life that is a living, breathing, talking, and acting copy of ourselves. This is how Dolly was born.
In fact, many forms of cloning have been done before Dolly, starting with the successful cloning of a salamander by Swiss scientist Spemann in 1902, followed by frogs, rats, sheep, rabbits, and other animals. However, these were embryo clones. Dolly’s cloning was particularly noteworthy because she was the first mammal to be born from somatic cell cloning rather than embryo cloning. This was enough to create a sense of urgency among people that human somatic cell cloning would soon be possible.
So why do people resist and oppose human cloning? The first forms of opposition are moral sensitivity, instinctive reactions, and disgust. The language is different, but the meaning is similar. As Mary Warnock writes, “If ethics, whether private or public, exists at all, there is something that must not be done, regardless of the consequences, and there is a barrier that must not be crossed. The boundary of this barrier is the emotion of outrage that is perceived when something is done, and when it is allowed to be done, people feel that it is not only very scandalous but also civilizing. Leon R. Kass describes the revulsion felt toward human cloning as “something we know and feel immediately and without argument,” “a violation of what we consider to be just and familiar,” “a revulsion at the excesses of human endeavor,” and “a warning against transgressing something unspeakably profound.
What they are saying is similar. The idea is that we should listen to our instinctive rejection before we weigh in with logic and reason. But there’s a flaw in this thinking. Sure, our instinctive disgust usually seems pretty reasonable. For example, our instinctive aversion to murder, rape, and so on is considered to be obviously right. Most people would agree that it doesn’t even have to be logically or rationally right or wrong.
However, this is not always the case. Just a few decades ago, hatred of black people was considered natural in white society, and black people were legally discriminated against. At that time, discrimination against black people was based on visceral dislike rather than logic and reason. While there are still people who harbor such feelings today, they are far less common than they used to be, and they are now recognized as wrong. Instinctive disgust is something that changes with the times and is not always right.
The same can be said for human cloning. Instinctive aversion to human cloning is not enough to justify a ban on human cloning. There is no guarantee that people’s current instinctive aversion to human cloning is right. Just as the aversion to black people in white societies has diminished over time, the aversion to human cloning may also diminish over time. Nor is there any reason to believe that this instinctive aversion should necessarily become a social commitment in the form of a ban. We need a more logical approach than a vague disgust that changes over time and that we cannot be sure is right.
There are, of course, objections to what seems to be a more logical approach than a visceral disgust. The renowned molecular biologist Axel Kahn opposes human cloning on the grounds that “the creation of human clones for the sole purpose of obtaining spare cell lines is, from a philosophical point of view, a clear violation of the principle of human dignity as proposed by Immanuel Kant.” Kant’s principle states that “in order for a person’s dignity to be respected, he or she must not be treated solely as a means to an end.” But what is the extent to which a human being is treated only as a means to an end?
For example, if a couple is infertile and they seek to create a child by cloning genes from both or either of them, are they “treating the child solely as a means”? It is not uncommon for people to have children in order to pass on their own offspring, to give their children siblings, or to have a son. Kant’s logic works well for slavery and Nazi behavior, but it’s hard to apply it to cases like this, where it’s hard to say that it’s truly a means to an end.
On another intellectual level, there’s the European Parliament’s resolution on cloning, which cites the rationale that “each individual has the right to maintain his or her genetic uniqueness and therefore human cloning is prohibited.
The idea of individual genetic uniqueness is somewhat questionable. Up until now, humans have never had their genetic uniqueness violated unless they are identical twins. In fact, it’s likely that genetic uniqueness didn’t even exist before the issue of human cloning came up. No one talks about their rights being violated by their twin. After all, the term genetic uniqueness was coined out of a vague fear of human cloning, a fear that a human being just like you might suddenly appear one day without your knowledge.
However, this problem can be solved by legalizing human cloning. Cloning a specific individual would naturally require the consent of the human subject. If we legalize human cloning and systematically legislate and monitor everything, starting with the consent of the subject, we can prevent unwitting clones from being born.
We all have some level of fear of the unknown. People’s fears and worries about human cloning are neither strange nor wrong. But it’s not right to limit scientific freedom and human freedom based on vague fears, and many of the objections are exaggerated or overstated. Of course, it is possible that a weak argument against something is not enough to support it. However, rather than treating human cloning as a taboo based on vague fears or illogical objections, we can have a more productive and progressive life sciences if we recognize its potential as another potential direction of human development.