How can scientific progress and advances in human cloning technology be reconciled with ethical standards?

This article discusses the ethical issues and challenges posed by advances in human cloning technology and explores how scientific progress can be reconciled with human dignity. It emphasizes the potential of cloning technology and the multifaceted approach needed to address the ethical dilemmas it creates.

 

The 21st century marks a major turning point in evolution and biotechnology. The third generation of CRISPR genetic scissors, which correct genes in human and animal cells, has become an important key to curing genetic diseases. The ability to edit specific genes with incredible precision has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of many diseases, not just genetic ones. These technological advances have opened up the possibility of reshaping our genetic destiny in ways we could never have imagined in the past.
The Human Genome Project has made genetic information accessible since its completion. The project, which sequenced the entire human genome, has been fundamental to understanding human genetic diversity and its relationship to disease, and has played a major role in facilitating the development of personalized therapies in medicine. Beyond the prevention and treatment of disease, it has led to fundamental questions about how humans redefine and understand themselves.
Our curiosity and insatiable appetite for knowledge led to the search for human advancement and the exploration of human cloning. Human cloning is a complex topic of scientific curiosity and ethical debate, and as a classic movie subject for many years, it has always been a hot topic of interest to biotechnologists, ethicists, and the general public alike. The topic of human cloning is constantly being debated between scientific progress and human moral boundaries.
On February 27, 1997, the birth of Dolly, a cloned sheep, was announced in Nature. More than just a scientific achievement, this event sparked a worldwide debate about the possibility of human cloning and the ethical dilemmas it would bring. The world’s views were polarized. The birth of Dolly the cloned sheep sparked speculation that the promise of true human cloning would soon become a reality. Some were optimistic that the technology could help cure human diseases and extend human lifespans.
In the meantime, however, the WHO has made it clear that despite the availability of cloning technology, it is ethically unacceptable and a violation of morality to use it. This position can be seen as an international attempt to clarify the complex relationship between human dignity and the use of cloning technologies. It also reaffirms the position of UNESCO’s International Commission on Bioethics that the use of cloning technology should be restricted because of the premise of prohibiting actions that violate human dignity. The reason for these opinions is that the freedom to make reproductive choices must be accompanied by responsibility. Reproductive choice is a biophenomenological word used in the sense of reproduction and choice. However, partial human cloning, as opposed to full human cloning, is not inconsistent with this basic principle, as long as we can take responsibility for it.
The benefits of partial human cloning should be noted, as it will contribute to the advancement of humanity. As science advances, the idea of cloning specific organs or tissues to extend human health and longevity is becoming more realistic. This is no longer just a theoretical possibility, but has the potential to actually make a huge difference in the medical field. In particular, for patients suffering from terminal illness or organ damage, organ transplantation through partial cloning may be the only means of prolonging their lives.
Immanuel Kant’s principle that we should not exploit human beings for our own ends is the dominant idea behind the idea that human cloning should not be practiced. “Kantian ethics prohibits humans from treating other humans as means to an end, which provides a strong philosophical argument against cloned humans being used merely as tools for existing humans. If human cloning is allowed, it raises questions about the ethical laws and dignity of cloned humans, as well as the unreasonableness of humans using them.
If cloned humans begin to recognize their identity and think like normal humans, a number of problems will arise. First of all, if they recognize that they were created to fulfill the means of existing humans, humans will treat them as robots with the ability to replace them. Eventually, we will become desensitized to the killing of AI, which will violate the dignity of AI. On the other hand, what happens if the replicants recognize themselves as equal to existing humans and want to be treated as such? This will cause confusion in humanity as the gap between the identities of existing humans and replicants will be reduced. If we consider these issues and think about the principles of Immanuel Kant, we should prohibit the cloning and use of human entities to suit our own means.
However, partial human cloning is an alternative for improving human health. The technology to create detailed organs and tissues, such as cartilage, using 3D printer technology is currently under development. This technology is still in its infancy, but if commercialized, it could contribute significantly to treating organ damage, reducing childhood mortality, and extending life. Furthermore, these technologies have the potential to resolve some of the ethical dilemmas that arise from extending life without compromising human dignity.
“The human being treated as an object, as advocated by Immanuel Kant’s principle, refers to the problem of cloning a single human being and using it as a means to benefit oneself. However, partial cloning can avoid this problem. Of course, practicing partial cloning to fulfill the human desire to live longer is a case of the ends justifying the means. However, regenerating organs and organs is not treating humans as objects. It is an effort to improve a part of a pure human being, not to clone a whole human being and use it as an object.
Furthermore, partial cloning is only a temporary solution to treating diseases, so it is not a way for humans to live forever to fulfill their own greed, and is therefore only a simple extension of life. Of course, restrictions on partial cloning are essential to prevent abuses that would lead to something closer to full cloning. These restrictions should become more stringent as the technology improves, striking a balance between ethical standards and scientific progress. In the end, partial cloning does not conflict with the principles of Immanuel Kant, as we are not creating a copy of an object, but rather treating an individual as an object.
The cloning of humans has always been an ethical issue that has prevented it from becoming a reality. With the advent of various technologies, cloning in moderation is necessary for the preservation and bright future of humanity. We should be prepared for the emergence of cloning using advanced technologies, not simply transferring mammalian organs, such as spare hearts, to sustain life. In conclusion, partial cloning on a non-human level should be allowed for the advancement of humanity and the development of the fourth industrial revolution.
As such, scientific advances offer us new possibilities, but at the same time, they pose serious ethical challenges. Complex issues such as human cloning need to be discussed beyond mere technological achievements, and require a multifaceted approach that takes into account human dignity and ethical standards. Therefore, we must find a balance between scientific progress and ethical standards to address these complex issues, so that we can make technological progress while preserving human dignity.