Human reproductive cloning is a process intended to create a human being who is a near-exact genetic copy of another individual. This is achieved through Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT). SCNT involves taking the nucleus, which holds the DNA, from a body cell of the person to be cloned and inserting it into a human egg cell that has had its own nucleus removed.
The resulting reconstructed egg is then stimulated to begin dividing, forming an embryo that is subsequently implanted into a surrogate uterus with the goal of bringing it to term. The prospect of using this technology to produce a new person has generated a near-universal global consensus against the practice. Human reproductive cloning is currently prohibited by law or moratorium in the vast majority of countries worldwide.
The Core Biological and Safety Risks
The primary argument against human reproductive cloning rests on the biological dangers of the SCNT process itself. SCNT has proven to be an extremely inefficient and hazardous procedure in every mammalian species where it has been attempted. The low efficiency stems from the difficulty of completely “reprogramming” the adult donor cell’s nucleus back to a state that can guide the development of an entire organism. Dolly the sheep required 277 attempts before a single live birth was achieved, illustrating the scale of reproductive failure.
The process is associated with extremely high rates of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and severe developmental abnormalities in surviving cloned animals. A common affliction is Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS), characterized by excessive birth weight, organ malformations, and respiratory problems. LOS is linked to the aberrant expression of imprinted genes, which become dysregulated during SCNT, leading to abnormal placental and fetal development.
Cloned animals may also suffer from premature aging and immune system deficiencies. Furthermore, the procedure carries substantial risks for the surrogate mother, including higher rates of pregnancy complications like hydroallantois (the excessive accumulation of fluid in the uterus) and pregnancy toxemia. Applying such a medically precarious procedure to human beings is widely considered unacceptable, as it treats the resulting child as the subject of a dangerous, non-consensual experiment.
Compromising Identity and Autonomy
Human cloning raises profound concerns regarding the psychological welfare and fundamental rights of the cloned individual. A person created as a genetic copy of a pre-existing person may face an immense psychological burden, struggling to form an identity separate from their genetic predecessor. They would enter the world with their genetic blueprint already known, potentially leading to the perception that their life is pre-determined or that they are merely a replacement for a deceased person.
The ethical objection centers on the idea that the clone’s life is instrumentalized, meaning they are created not for their own sake but to serve the desires of others. The clone risks being viewed as a manufactured object rather than an individual with inherent dignity. This creation for a purpose violates the moral principle of a person’s right to an open future, as their life narrative and potential for self-determination are diminished by the shadow of their genetic parent.
Societal Implications and Human Commodification
Allowing human reproductive cloning fundamentally alters the nature of human procreation and risks the commodification of human life. Cloning transforms reproduction from a natural process based on chance and genetic contribution from two parents into a manufacturing process where a specific genetic outcome is selected and engineered. This shift encourages the view of children as proprietary products, valued for their genetic makeup or for fulfilling the desires of their creators.
This manufacturing mindset can lead toward eugenics, where the technology is used to create “designer babies” by selecting for specific traits or talents. The ability to choose a child’s entire genome risks establishing a new form of genetic inequality and discrimination. Global regulation would be nearly impossible to police, potentially leading to “cloning havens.” The practice also introduces strain on traditional family structures by creating confused kinship roles, such as a child being the genetic twin of their father or mother.
Defining the Boundaries
The ethical and legal prohibitions are focused specifically on reproductive cloning—the creation of a full human being. This is distinct from therapeutic cloning, which uses the same SCNT technique but for an entirely different purpose.
In therapeutic cloning, the cloned embryo is not implanted into a uterus. Instead, it is allowed to grow only to the blastocyst stage so that embryonic stem cells can be harvested. These stem cells are genetically identical to the donor and could potentially be used to grow patient-specific tissues for medical research or transplantation, reducing the risk of immune rejection. Therapeutic cloning avoids the safety, identity, and societal risks associated with a live birth.