Ethical considerations for human cloning

In this blog post, we’ll discuss the ethical considerations of human cloning.

 

In the 21st century, advances in science and technology have dramatically changed biotechnology. Biotechnologists have continued to study genes, completing a map of human genes called the Human Genome Project and ushering in a new era of genetic manipulation and genetic medicine. This has led to stem cell research using surplus embryos, and even to the point of cloning embryos. However, ethical questions have also arisen about the use of these technologies derived from genetic research. Some argue that human ethics are regressing due to human intervention in the realm of life, which was once considered the domain of God. So, let’s take a look at what genetic ethics is, the positions on the subject, and state my own opinion.
Before we talk about genetic ethics, let’s talk about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is the use of genetic manipulation techniques to create substances that are useful to humans. Genetic engineering can be categorized into several areas: genetic diagnostics, gene therapy, genetic enhancement, and cloning. Genetic ethics is a branch of bioethics that deals with various ethical issues related to genetics and genetic engineering, and has been discussed in the context of bioethics since the 20th century. In this text, we will discuss the ethics of cloning.
Ever since embryo cloning became possible, people have been talking about the ethics of embryo cloning. There are five main reasons for opposing embryo cloning. First, there’s the argument of possible misuse, which argues that allowing embryo cloning would lead to human cloning and the creation of customized babies. Similarly, there are arguments of substitutability and injustice, both of which discuss the potential for abuse in the use of embryo cloning. These arguments are relatively easy to refute because the legal system and oversight can prevent abuses of embryo cloning. However, the ontological argument that it violates human dignity and the natural law argument that it violates the natural order of things to artificially create genetically identical organisms suggest that the process and the act itself, not the outcome of embryo cloning, is ethically wrong. However, I believe that these arguments are incomplete, so I will elaborate on them.
First, the ontological argument discusses the moral status of cloned embryos and argues that if the moral status of cloned embryos is recognized, then cloning should be banned altogether. Moral status means that the embryo is considered a human life with a high probability of developing into a person. Cloning an embryo inevitably involves the death of the embryo. Therefore, if we recognize embryos as human life, then cloning embryos is an act of killing for the sake of research, including the arbitrary manipulation and destruction of human life. However, if the moral status of the cloned embryo is not recognized, this is a lesser concern. There is a debate about whether the embryo itself has moral status or not, and those who recognize the moral status of the embryo argue that the embryo has moral status because it has the potential to become a human being, a being with moral status. This is supported by the fact that embryos that have been fertilized for 14 days have formed the basic organs of the human body. In other words, a 14-day-old embryo has the same moral status as a human being because it has the potential to grow into a human being. However, it is necessary to think about whether it is a correct process of deriving evidence that an embryo has the potential to grow into a human being just because it has begun to form various body parts. If we assign moral status to embryos based on the fact that they have the potential to become human, it would be like treating all pine cones the same as pine trees because they can become trees. Furthermore, there are no studies that have confirmed self-identity between embryos and adults. An example of this is the discussion about the embryos of identical twins. In the case of embryos that form identical twins, it is not possible to say which of the adult human individuals, each of which has a unique moral status, the embryo identifies with. What this means is that for an embryo to have the same moral status as a human being, there would need to be self-identity between the two, which would weaken it. So there is room to think a bit more about the argument that embryos should be recognized as human beings because they can form body parts, and that cloning them for use in experiments should be banned because it is human killing.
Nevertheless, because of public opinion against embryo cloning that does not take this into account, experiments are actually using pre-14-day embryos or surplus embryos. They argue that embryos before 14 days should be recognized as human beings. However, embryos before 14 days of age do not have the biological individuality to become a human being, even though they have pluripotent differentiation potential and a unique genotype. In other words, before 14 days after the formation of a fertilized egg, the expression of genes is controlled by the egg and the cell does not function as an independent entity and cannot be said to “become a human being later. For example, it is possible for an embryo to become a fetus, but it is equally possible for it to differentiate into a placenta or other tissue or organ. Therefore, the debate about embryos before day 14 is a moot point.
Also, it is contradictory that those who oppose embryo cloning are not opposed to using surplus frozen embryos for research. If you look at the process of creating surplus frozen embryos, it is possible that artificial insemination fails, and the embryos that are not used for artificial insemination are frozen and discarded later. The surplus embryos that are frozen before they are discarded are called surplus frozen embryos. If they were to argue that embryo cloning is wrong because embryos have the potential to become human beings, they would have to consistently oppose surplus frozen embryo research that uses embryos beyond 14 days, and also oppose IVF that is done with the intention that surplus embryos will be destroyed. But the fact that they don’t raises another question. This is evidenced by the fact that the U.S. Bioethics Institute does not restrict research with surplus embryos, but legally restricts research using other embryos. And since artificial insemination is legally available and encouraged for infertile couples, the creation and research of surplus embryos is not restricted.
The natural law argument is that cloning embryos artificially creates genetically identical organisms, which is against the natural order of things, and therefore should not be allowed. This argument is often made by religious organizations, based on the idea that humans are God’s creatures and should not be allowed to play God and make life and death decisions on their own. The premise that it is God’s inherent right to manipulate life and influence human evolution is a logical leap and a weak argument, but let’s talk about it.
Before we get to that, let’s take a look at the reasons for embryo cloning. Embryonic stem cell research can be used to create organs such as livers, bones, nerves, and hearts, and can be used to treat various incurable diseases such as diabetes, cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. This means that we can help people who are suffering from diseases such as the genetic diseases described above. In other words, we can practice the will of Jesus to love our neighbor through embryo cloning. Therefore, the need has been met.
The argument that the use of genetic engineering for life is wrong because it invades God’s domain is itself fraught with problems. For example, there is a great deal of ambiguity in the argument that it is God’s will for gene therapy, but that it is against God’s will for people to be genetically enhanced. For example, there is no precise definition of what is normal or what is therapeutic and what is enhancement.
If it is wrong to manipulate life through genetic engineering, then it would be consistent to oppose not only embryo cloning, but all life-related activities such as animal testing. One could argue that humans and animals are different beings and that it is unreasonable to equate them, but since Christianity believes that it is wrong for humans to create life, this is also a flaw in their logic. To summarize, those who claim God’s domain have no clear criteria for their claims, nor do they have a premise for their arguments. There are also arguments related to purely religious issues that cannot be discussed scientifically, such as the afterlife, salvation, and soul of cloned humans. However, their arguments are of some significance in that they point to the direction in which genetic enhancement technologies should and should not go.
In this essay, I have critically examined the position of those who oppose the use of embryo cloning and genetic modification in the application of biotechnology. This gave me the opportunity to think about the direction in which embryo cloning and biotechnology should go, as they have contributed to the advancement of human medical technology and can contribute in various ways in the future. Although I do not believe that the arguments of the opponents of biotechnology are valid, I think that these controversies have raised awareness of the problems that biotechnology can cause and have made scientists more cautious to ensure that their research does not lead to harmful effects on humanity. For example, the controversies have led to the establishment of a new legal system for bioethics and the direction of research within it. However, I don’t think it’s good to see the development of genetic engineering slowed down by unconditional opposition, and I hope that these technologies will be recognized as valid and necessary as soon as possible, so that research can proceed vigorously and contribute to the common good of humanity, such as curing incurable diseases.