Why Is Cloning Wrong Ethical Concerns And Considerations

Cloning has long captured the imagination of scientists and the public alike. From Dolly the sheep to advances in stem cell research, the ability to replicate genetic material represents one of the most significant scientific breakthroughs of the modern era. Yet, behind the promise of medical progress and biological innovation lies a complex web of ethical dilemmas. While cloning offers potential benefits—such as organ regeneration and species preservation—it raises profound moral questions about identity, autonomy, and the sanctity of life. The debate over whether cloning is ethically permissible extends beyond laboratory protocols and into the core values of society.

The Nature of Cloning: A Brief Overview

Cloning refers to the process of creating a genetically identical copy of an organism. There are three main types: gene cloning, reproductive cloning, and therapeutic cloning. Gene cloning involves copying specific DNA sequences. Reproductive cloning aims to produce a whole organism—like Dolly the sheep in 1996—using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, creates embryos for harvesting stem cells, which may be used in regenerative medicine.

While therapeutic cloning avoids creating full organisms, it still involves the creation and destruction of human embryos, which many find morally problematic. Reproductive cloning, particularly of humans, remains widely prohibited due to both technical risks and deep ethical reservations. Even animal cloning has proven inefficient, with high rates of miscarriage, birth defects, and premature aging.

Violation of Individuality and Personal Identity

One of the central ethical objections to cloning is that it undermines the uniqueness of human beings. Each person, even identical twins who share the same DNA, develops a distinct personality shaped by environment, experience, and chance. A cloned individual, however, is created with the explicit intent of replicating another’s genetic makeup—raising concerns about predetermined expectations and loss of autonomy.

Imagine a child born not through natural conception but as a genetic replica of a parent or deceased sibling. This child may grow up under the shadow of comparison, expected to embody the traits, talents, or memories of the original. Such pressure threatens psychological well-being and distorts the parent-child relationship. As bioethicist Leon Kass warned:

“Creating a child who is the delayed twin of one parent, or of a dead sibling, turns procreation into manufacture and treats the child as a means to adult fulfillment rather than as an end in himself.” — Leon Kass, Chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics

This instrumentalization—the idea of treating a human being as a tool to fulfill someone else’s desires—strikes at the heart of human dignity.

Tip: Ethical scrutiny should focus not only on the method of creation but also on the social and emotional impact on the cloned individual.

Informed Consent and the Rights of the Unborn

A fundamental principle in medical ethics is informed consent. Patients must understand the risks and voluntarily agree to procedures. In cloning, however, the subject—the clone—cannot give consent. They are brought into existence without any say in their genetic design or purpose.

This absence of consent is especially troubling when cloning is pursued to serve another’s needs—such as creating a “savior sibling” designed to provide compatible tissue for a sick family member. While the intention may be compassionate, the act reduces a human life to a biomedical resource. The clone becomes a means rather than an end, violating the Kantian moral principle that individuals should never be treated merely as instruments.

Moreover, cloning introduces unknown long-term health risks. Animal studies show cloned offspring often suffer from immune deficiencies, organ abnormalities, and shortened lifespans. Subjecting a human to these risks without their consent constitutes a serious breach of ethical standards.

Moral Status of Embryos in Therapeutic Cloning

Therapeutic cloning presents a different but equally contentious ethical issue: the moral status of human embryos. To harvest embryonic stem cells, scientists create a cloned embryo and then destroy it during the extraction process. For many religious and philosophical traditions, human life begins at conception, and the embryo possesses inherent dignity and rights.

Even among those who do not equate embryos with fully developed persons, there is concern about normalizing the creation and destruction of human-like life for research. Once society accepts the instrumental use of early-stage human life, it may become easier to justify further encroachments—such as growing embryos for organ farming or genetic experimentation.

The slippery slope argument does not predict inevitability but warns of unintended consequences. As medical capabilities expand, ethical boundaries must be carefully maintained to prevent dehumanization.

Social and Religious Perspectives on Cloning

Different cultures and faiths offer varied perspectives on cloning. Many Christian denominations oppose human cloning, citing the belief that life is sacred and that reproduction should occur within natural, marital bounds. The Catholic Church, for instance, teaches that cloning violates the dignity of human procreation and the unity of marriage.

Islamic scholars generally permit therapeutic cloning if it serves healing purposes and respects the embryo’s sanctity after 120 days—the point at which ensoulment is believed to occur. However, reproductive cloning is widely condemned. In contrast, some secular bioethicists argue that if cloning can alleviate suffering and is conducted safely, it should not be categorically banned.

These divergent views highlight the need for inclusive dialogue. Policies on cloning must balance scientific freedom with respect for diverse moral convictions.

Cloning: Ethical Do’s and Don’ts

Do	Don't
Support research that respects human dignity and avoids embryo destruction where possible	Create human clones for reproductive purposes
Invest in adult stem cell research as an ethical alternative	Treat cloned individuals as commodities or medical tools
Ensure rigorous oversight of cloning-related experiments	Allow commercial exploitation of human genetic material
Promote public education on cloning technologies and ethics	Proceed without international consensus on ethical boundaries

Case Study: The Clone Who Was Never Born

In 2001, a biotech company called Clonaid claimed to have produced the world’s first human clone—a baby girl named Eve. The announcement was met with global skepticism and condemnation. No verifiable evidence was provided, and the scientific community dismissed the claim as a hoax. But the incident sparked intense debate.

Consider the hypothetical scenario: A grieving couple loses their daughter in a car accident. Desperate to reclaim what they’ve lost, they commission a cloning service to recreate her using preserved cells. The clone is born, bearing the same genes. But she grows up as a different person—preferring art over sports, struggling with anxiety, disliking the foods her genetic predecessor loved.

The parents, unable to accept this divergence, withdraw emotionally. The child senses she is a replacement, not a person in her own right. This story, though fictional, illustrates the psychological burden imposed by cloning. It shows how the desire to overcome loss can inadvertently cause new harm.

Expert Recommendations and Policy Considerations

Major international bodies have taken strong stances. The United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration in 2005 calling on member states to ban all forms of human cloning. UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights explicitly states that practices contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning, must not be permitted.

Experts recommend focusing on ethical alternatives, such as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which reprogram adult cells into stem-cell-like states without embryo destruction. These technologies offer similar medical benefits without the moral quandaries.

• Strengthen international treaties against human reproductive cloning
• Fund research into non-embryonic stem cell sources
• Establish independent ethics review boards for cloning-related projects
• Engage the public in democratic deliberation on biotechnology

Frequently Asked Questions

Is cloning illegal everywhere?

No, laws vary by country. Reproductive cloning of humans is banned in over 70 nations, including the U.S., UK, and Germany. However, therapeutic cloning is permitted under strict regulation in some countries like the UK and South Korea. Animal cloning is legal in several places for agricultural or conservation purposes.

Can cloning help cure diseases?

Potentially, yes—especially through therapeutic cloning and stem cell research. Scientists hope to generate patient-specific cells for treating conditions like Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. However, ethical alternatives like iPSCs are now proving equally promising without the controversy.

Are clones exact copies of the original person?

No. While clones share the same nuclear DNA, they develop in different environments and have unique mitochondrial DNA, epigenetic markers, and life experiences. Personality, intelligence, and behavior are shaped by far more than genetics. A clone would be a delayed twin, not a carbon copy.

Conclusion: Upholding Ethics in the Age of Biotechnology

Scientific progress should not outpace moral reflection. Cloning challenges foundational beliefs about identity, consent, and the value of human life. While its potential applications in medicine and biology are undeniable, the ethical costs of human cloning are too great to ignore. Society must draw clear lines to protect human dignity, ensure equitable treatment, and prevent exploitation.

As we stand at the frontier of genetic engineering, the question is not just whether we can clone, but whether we should. The answer requires wisdom, humility, and a commitment to placing human values above technological ambition.

💬 What do you believe are the most pressing ethical issues in modern biotechnology? Share your thoughts and join the conversation on science, ethics, and the future of humanity.