Nuclear replacement technology and Dolly the cloned sheep: what is the solution to the ethical dilemma of human cloning?

The birth of Dolly the cloned sheep demonstrated the advancement of nuclear replacement technology, but its application to human cloning could raise serious ethical issues. Therefore, nuclear replacement technology should be restricted to certain fields, such as stem cell research.

 

In 1997, the announcement of Dolly the cloned sheep created a lot of controversy. The reason why Dolly made such a big deal is that she was the first mammal to be cloned using adult somatic cells. This demonstrated that the nucleus of an adult somatic cell can have pluripotency, and the success of the cloned sheep led many scientists to discuss the application of the nuclear replacement technology that created Dolly. One of the most discussed questions was how it should be used in humans. Ian Wolmut, the scientist involved in Dolly’s creation, has argued that the technology could be useful in areas such as laboratory animal cloning, stem cell research, and precise gene editing. While there is a wide range of research that can be done using nuclear transfer, some of it raises bioethical issues. In particular, it raises serious ethical issues if it is applied to humans and used for human cloning. Therefore, if it is applied to humans, it should only be used in fields related to stem cell research. In this article, we will review the history and current status of nuclear transfer technology and the problems with human cloning using nuclear transfer technology.
Nuclear transfer involves replacing the nucleus of an egg with the nucleus of a somatic cell. This technique was designed to study animal development. It was designed to test the theory that a miniaturized adult exists inside a sperm, and that when it meets an egg, it grows and becomes an individual. Scientists have cloned amphibians using this technique and have confirmed that mammals can be cloned as well. They have also predicted that nuclear replacement will allow for the creation of personalized stem cells with pluripotent differentiation, which could be used for therapeutic purposes. However, being able to create somatic cloned embryonic stem cells with differentiation potential would mean being able to create cloned humans. This is why there is still an ongoing debate about nuclear transfer and human cloning.
Considering that the scope of its application has shifted from the study of animal development to the study of animal cloning, it seems likely that if it were to be applied to humans, it would be used for research related to human cloning. However, this should not happen under any circumstances. Human cloning research raises a variety of ethical issues. Those in favor of human cloning argue that as science advances, ethical issues will disappear, or if they do, they will be limited and not cause too many problems. However, given the fact that in the real world, relationships between humans and other humans are hierarchical, and that these relationships go beyond mere social relationships and cause problems such as insult to personality, it is unclear exactly how people will feel about cloned humans, but it is unlikely that they will see them as equal human beings. In other words, there is a possibility that cloned humans will be used as expendable. Just as animal cloning can produce large quantities of superior livestock by replacing the cellular nuclei of superior livestock, it can also produce large quantities of human clones by replacing the cellular nuclei of physically superior humans, and use these clones for illegal military operations or dangerous work. This could lead to an increase in the volume and quality of crime, as well as a disregard for the human rights of cloned humans. There is also the possibility that cloned humans could be used for organ transplants, as depicted in the movie Island. The problem with using cloned humans for organ transplants is that there is no guarantee that the clone will live. This may not be a problem if the organ being transplanted is one of the body’s paired organs, such as a kidney, so that if one is lost, the other remains, or if the organ is not involved in essential life activities, but if it is an organ whose absence would impair life activities, the clone’s life is not guaranteed. In addition to being used for medical purposes, there is another possibility that the right to life is not guaranteed. This is when cloned humans are used as test subjects. Currently, humans are tested on animals to test the side effects of various medicines or cosmetics. If cloned humans were available for testing, this would have the following benefits Chemicals that would be used on humans could be tested on humans to see if they have any side effects, which could lead to safer products on the market. However, this would likely be done with disregard for their human rights, and, as in the cases above, would treat them as expendable. As with animal testing, which continues to be conducted despite protests from animal rights organizations and a host of ethical concerns, it is likely that as human cloning technology advances, biomedical experimentation with cloned humans will continue, both formally and informally, despite fierce opposition. As such, when cloned humans become commercially available, they will likely be perceived as expendable, and a host of problems will arise.
Of course, you may think that these arguments are extreme. Of course, we could treat them as equals, or we could see them as superiors and subordinates, similar to the relationship between a worker and a boss. But in the history of mankind, we’ve only been treating everyone equally for a short time. Just 200 years ago, in the United States, a country that now seems to be a symbol of freedom, people with darker skin were treated as objects to be bought, sold, and inherited. Fast-forward to the present day, and racism continues to be a problem. Given the fact that these attitudes have been exhibited by fellow humans, and that awareness has only recently improved, and given the current depictions of replicants in various media, it is not unreasonable to predict that when actual replicants appear, we will treat them as we would have treated slaves in the 19th century, or worse.
Proponents of limited human cloning also argue that people who have lost loved ones, especially children, should be allowed to clone a human to replace them. However, I don’t think this is a meaningful endeavor for several reasons. First of all, a cloned human would be genetically identical to the human who provided the cell nucleus. But the self that defines an individual is not shaped by genetics alone. Mental factors, such as the environment in which an individual grew up and the memories they have of it, have a greater influence on the formation of the self than genetic factors. Furthermore, to completely identify a cloned human being with the human who provided the nucleus would be to ignore the personhood of the cloned human being. Given these anticipated problems, human cloning using nuclear replacement technology is likely to cause more harm and social disruption than good. Therefore, research and experiments involving human cloning should not be conducted.
Technology can lead humanity to the light of prosperity or plunge us into endless chaos, depending on how it is used. Nuclear replacement technology is undoubtedly fascinating. It’s a key part of the future of stem cell research, and if it can be advanced to make stem cells affordable and available to everyone, it will mean more conquerable diseases and fewer people suffering from them. However, if it is used to clone humans, humanity will face all sorts of major problems. Therefore, nuclear transfer technology should never be used to clone humans, and no human cloning research should be conducted or planned.