In the age of biotechnology, what are the ethical limits of human cloning and genetically engineered research?

This article discusses the extent to which human cloning and genetically engineered research should be allowed in the age of biotechnology, and how ethical issues can be reconciled and reasonably resolved. It emphasizes the need to reorient research between scientific benefits and ethical limits.

 

The bananas we ate last year and the bananas we will eat next year are, curiously enough, identical twins. They may look different, where they were born, and how old they are, but their genetic information is identical, just like identical twins. In fact, many of the fruits and vegetables we eat have been manipulated and cloned to have genes that benefit humans. This manipulation has extended beyond plants to animals as well, with Dolly the sheep, cloned in 1997, being a prime example. Cloning and genetic manipulation of living organisms has moved beyond research to the marketplace.
But when it comes to humans, the story is different. In South Korea, research on human cloning and genetic modification is basically prohibited. The only research that is allowed is embryonic stem cell research for therapeutic purposes. If you were to conduct research on cloning or genetic modification, you would face not only legal restrictions, but also harsh ethical criticism from the public and scientific community. However, much of the research into cloning and genetic manipulation could lead to promising answers to curing diseases, and the benefits could be enormous. It is also consistent with the direction of global scientific research (i.e., solving health problems). However, it is worth asking whether the current laws and societal perceptions that restrict all such research and make ethical criticisms are reasonable, and if not, how to improve them.
Research in science and technology is conducted for a variety of purposes. These include economic reasons, academic curiosity, political reasons, and human convenience. Let’s take a look at how human cloning and genetic modification research fits into these objectives. Cloning and genetic modification research requires an in-depth study of genes and genetic material. In this way, we can unlock the secrets of genes and conduct research on induced pluripotent stem cells, which are promising for biotechnology. In addition, cloning and genetic manipulation can result in gene therapy, or the relationship between genotype and phenotype can be elucidated. Thus, research is a good reason to fulfill many of the above objectives. So, what are the reasons not to do research?
Opponents of cloning and genetic modification argue that the research process raises ethical issues. They say that research wastes human material and causes psychological suffering to the subjects. However, these arguments stem from a misunderstanding of the research process. Creating hundreds of embryos from scratch, implanting them, and expecting them to be born is highly inefficient. Modern scientists will use techniques that are far more advanced and economical than the research methods used to clone sheep 20 years ago, so not as much human material is used as opponents fear. Nevertheless, some may argue that wasting even a small amount of human material is unacceptable. However, when compared to the natural consumption of human materials in everyday life, the consumption of human materials in research is hardly a problem.
The psychological distress felt by subjects can vary depending on the type of experiment. If a subject donates their somatic or germ cells and the researcher uses them to conduct experiments, the subject is unlikely to experience much psychological distress. However, if a potential human being is created in the subject’s womb or genetically modified, the consequences could be traumatic for the subject. However, this is not a reason to categorically limit research. As mentioned earlier, modern research involves several stages of experimentation before being tested on humans. Psychological distress is not caused if the research is not applied to humans in the final stages, so this problem can be solved by limiting the research to certain areas.
Stronger ethical questions arise when it comes to the results of research. The argument is that cloned humans can cause physical and psychological suffering. This claim is true. It’s hard to predict the suffering that a cloned human would experience, so the discussion of whether or not to perform human cloning should be treated separately. If cloning does occur, efforts should be made in advance to reduce or eliminate the suffering of the cloned person. For example, a cloned person could suffer from the “old telomere problem”. The ends of human chromosomes have a set of sequences called telomeres. In normal somatic cells, telomeres shorten as the cell divides, and when they reach a certain length, the cell dies. It is currently believed that this process determines human aging and lifespan. Since cloned humans are born with cells that are already older, they are likely to have shorter telomeres. As a result, a cloned person would be born with shorter telomeres and have a shorter life expectancy. In addition to physical limitations, this problem can also entail psychological and spiritual suffering. To solve this problem, it is necessary, paradoxically, to study telomeres and develop technologies to compensate for them through cloning and genetic manipulation research. Research is a process of anticipating and solving problems that may arise, and if it is not done hastily, it will lead to deeper research and technological advances.
However, psychological pain is difficult to deal with in this way. Instead, there is a simple way to solve both psychological suffering and technologically solvable problems at the same time. This is to ban human cloning. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do cloning research at all. It just means that we need to draw a line in the sand and limit the research that raises ethical issues. To summarize, not all research on cloning and genetic modification is dangerous or harmful to human dignity, so a blanket ban is not reasonable.
The question is, where should we start and where should we stop when it comes to human cloning and genetic modification? The first area of research that is close to the final stage is the creation of a cloned human being and studying its life. Next, the research would end with the creation of a cloned human being, followed by genetic manipulation of embryos, cloning, nuclear transfer, and related science and technology, which would have fewer ethical implications.
He went on to say that there are no ethical issues with related science and technology research. In the case of ‘nuclear replacement’, it is more reasonable to consider the nucleus of a fertilized egg as biomaterial. Since humans are multicellular organisms, it is scientific to consider a single cell to be part of the human body before it divides. Therefore, there are no ethical concerns about human dignity in related S&T and nuclear replacement research. On the other hand, the issue of embryo cloning or genetic modification is highly controversial. Since the term embryo covers the period from when cells begin to divide to when they become a complete individual (around the eighth week of pregnancy), the criteria for granting human status is ambiguous. If an embryo is considered human after a certain point, then research before that point is less ethically problematic. The scientific community needs to clarify these criteria and limit research.
Everything we’ve discussed so far about the scope of research is based on the premise that the use of “human life” as a test subject is highly ethical. I agree with this position, which is why I excluded the discussion of cloned humans. (In case you forgot, the focus of this article is on research involving human cloning, not whether or not humans are cloned.) If humans have the capacity to make their own decisions and consent to experiments, then research on humans may not be a big deal, but fetuses and embryos (some of which lack that capacity) are. Studying the postnatal life of cloned humans may therefore pose fewer ethical issues than cloning embryos. This is because during infancy, parents make the decision for them, but afterward, they can choose to allow or deny research on their own. However, if human cloning were not allowed, this would be a moot point, so the question that needs to be addressed is “at what point should we allow embryo cloning and genetic manipulation?” and this requires a scientific basis from the scientific community.
Beyond the scope of this article, if human cloning is permitted, scientific and institutional arrangements will need to be in place to ensure that the cloned person will be able to live a life indistinguishable from others. This preparation cannot begin the moment human cloning is allowed. The previous stages of research should be allowed in turn, so that the problems that may arise from research can be solved by research itself. There are many health and academic benefits to be gained from related research, even if it does not go into the realm of human cloning. There is also a lack of strong arguments to stop research. There are currently too many restrictions on research into human cloning and genetic modification. These restrictions need to be carefully considered and recalibrated without crossing ethical lines.