Can human cloning technology overcome societal fears?

Advances in human cloning technology offer benefits such as rejection-free organ transplants, but they also raise moral concerns and safety issues. Hilary Putnam and Allyn Coleman argue for and against human cloning, emphasizing the need and potential benefits. Such technology could play a significant role in advancing the life sciences.

 

Since Watson and Crick unraveled the structure of DNA in 1953, biotechnology and genetic engineering have been advancing rapidly. As a result, humans have benefited from the development of cures for many diseases, GMO foods, and more. While advances in the life sciences have brought great convenience to humans, the birth of Dolly the cloned sheep in 1997 raised concerns about human cloning technology. However, human cloning technology is essential to the advancement of the life sciences. The benefits to humans from its application are endless. For example, cloning human embryos allows for rejection-free organ transplants. Therefore, human cloning is an area that should continue to be researched. In this article, we’ll take a look at the arguments of two scholars who have opposing views on human cloning, Hilary Putnam and Allyn Coleman, and refute them in an effort to reduce societal fears of human cloning.
First, let’s look at Putnam’s argument. Putnam posits a society in which human cloning technology becomes widespread and the majority of couples utilize it because they want to have a child that looks exactly like them. In his view, choosing the type of child the parents want reduces the child to an object for the parents’ desired lifestyle, which is inconsistent with Kant’s argument that people should not be treated as means to an end. He also argues that such a society would result in a monolithic family in which all family members are genetically similar, creating problems similar to the Nazis’ rejection of racial diversity and Scandinavia’s eugenics-based sterilization of the unfit. Putnam values the unpredictability and diversity of children, and argues that a family that includes these values is consistent with the morals of a democratic society.
Putnam’s argument is refuted: even if human cloning technology becomes available, the society Putnam posits will not come to pass. Putnam’s use of Nazi and Scandinavian examples suggests that his hypothetical society would be based on eugenic ideas. However, consider the case of cosmetic surgery: while cosmetic surgery may be eugenic, there are many more people who do not have plastic surgery. Similarly, the society Putnam postulates is unlikely to emerge even if human cloning technology becomes available. We already have a history of Nazi and Scandinavian sterilization that makes us think it’s wrong, so it’s unlikely that we’ll see a return to the pursuit of a homogenized family.
Sure, there may be a small percentage of couples who have children who look exactly like them. But is it morally wrong to want children to look exactly like their parents, as Putnam suggests? Kant argued that in an ideal family, the members do not see each other as objects of their parents’ ends, but as ends in their own right, and respect each other as human beings whose plans and happiness are important to them. Hegel also saw parents as the guarantors of their children’s autonomy. Putnam argues that if we take these values and apply them to the morality of the family, then morality must also include a willingness to accept diversity, and that human cloning is a violation of this. But this argument is not correct. It’s hard to argue that accepting uniformity in a situation where uniformity is acceptable is an act of unwillingness to accept diversity. Nor can it be said that having a child who looks exactly like you violates the child’s autonomy. This is because not all children have the autonomy to decide how they will be shaped.
Second, let’s look at Coleman’s argument. Coleman argues that cloning research on humans should not be attempted because it is unsafe and inefficient. It took hundreds of cell fusions to create Dolly the cloned sheep, and many embryos were discarded. Coleman argues that attempting to clone humans would result in many more embryos being discarded, and would cause both surrogates and biological parents physical and psychological pain. There’s also the possibility that a child born from the laborious process could be severely deformed. Even if the technology is perfected in other animals and then applied to humans to solve these problems, there is no guarantee of stability due to the large genetic differences between mammalian species. He also argues that even if human cloning technology is used to prevent women with defective mitochondria from passing them on to their children, it cannot be justified because the risks of the nuclear replacement process greatly outweigh the benefits. In other words, he concludes that human cloning, in whatever form it takes, is unethical.
Coleman’s argument is that the physical and psychological suffering of surrogacy can be solved by the development of in vitro culture technology. In vitro culture is the process of growing human embryos outside of the mother’s body, and Magdalena Jernika-Goetz and her team at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Physiology in the UK have successfully cultured human embryos for 13 days. Although the 13-day culture has not yet been successful, if the technology advances, it will be possible to clone human embryos for organ transplantation without the need for surrogate mothers. Chimpanzees, the species most closely related to humans evolutionarily, are also currently being cloned. As the technology continues to be perfected in more human-like animals, it is possible that human cloning will be stable enough that the risks will not outweigh the benefits.
We have examined Putnam and Coleman’s arguments against human cloning and either refuted them or offered solutions to their problems. Hopefully, this will help to alleviate some of the fear and hostility toward human cloning in our society. Human cloning technology has the potential to contribute significantly to the advancement of life sciences. Let’s not antagonize these technologies out of ethical and instinctive fears. Humanity has always been good at advancing science and technology and solving the problems that come with it. Now it’s our turn to advance human cloning technology.