Opposition from the scientific community
In a word, there are "immature technology" and "violation of human ethics" in human cloning research. Either of these two reasons can firmly say "no" to the clone! In order to seek the support of public opinion and the government for biotechnology, especially cloning technology, the scientific community has played an active and important role in this anti-cloning movement. In fact, scientists are worried that noisy cloning games will seriously disturb the public and government's support attitude towards cloning technology, thus affecting its normal development.
1. Risks of human cloning research
At present, there are technical risks in animal somatic cell cloning technology that are difficult to predict and eliminate, which has become an important scientific basis for people to oppose human cloning at the ethical level.
(1) Is there any human cloning technology?
Although the concept of "human cloning" has long existed in literature and sci-fi film and television works. The initiator of the modern human cloning movement was obviously inspired by the news that Dolly the sheep was born in February 1997, and the idea of human cloning came into being. At the same time, they saw the hope of realizing human cloning from the successful cases of mammalian cloning. According to the initiator of the human cloning movement, people are animals, and animal cloning technology may also be human cloning technology. However, is there a necessity between the two? How reasonable is this simple analogy?
Animal cloning technology is undoubtedly a reality. However, is there any realistic human cloning technology? As we all know, the characteristic of technology is its practicality. If the technical goal of "human cloning" can be achieved by implementing some animal cloning technology, then this technology should be "human cloning technology". Otherwise, if "human cloning" cannot be successfully created, even if there is some cloning technology, this technology should never be "human cloning technology". However, the technical practice aimed at "human cloning" is prohibited by the international community. This makes it difficult to publicly test the existence of "human cloning technology". Therefore, many of people's conclusions are still speculative to a great extent, and there are many "virtual" elements.
(2) There are more risks in human cloning.
Whether scientists or the general public, they always compare the development prospects of human cloning research from the current situation of animal cloning technology, and take this as the logical basis for further inference. In other words, the current animal cloning experiment is still in the primary stage, and the cloning technology is still immature. There will be some problems in human cloning research, such as high failure rate, high risk, a large number of recombinant eggs, a large number of deformed offspring, rejection in animal cloning experiments and so on. It is wrong, or at least not rigorous, to judge the universal feasibility of cloning technology only by a successful animal cloning case. Scientists believe that it is not easy to apply the technical experience gained from animal (such as sheep) cloning experiments to human individuals. When this immature technology "stubbornly" acts on the human body, the process of human cloning will be full of various dangers. For example, wilmot, a British embryologist, believes that there are many reasons to think that the human cloning experiments announced by zavos and Antinori will have the same high failure rate, just like when trying to clone animals. Moreover, at present or in the foreseeable future, there is no feasible technical method to check the development of all genomes of animal embryos. [3] Therefore, people can't guarantee whether the embryos finally implanted in the uterus can develop normally, so as not to give birth to deformed children or seriously threaten the safety of surrogate mothers.
In addition, at the International Human Genome Conference held in Shanghai in 2002, Academician Zhu Chen, Vice President of China Academy of Sciences, pointed out that it was British scientists who stood out against human cloning first, because experts knew best that the current technology was far from human cloning. ..... Dolly's success in cloning sheep has experienced the twists and turns of 277 failed cloned sheep experiments, and deformed people and deformed people emerge one after another. If this scene repeats itself when human beings are cloned, who will be responsible for the premature death of 277 lives? In addition, the premature aging phenomenon of cloned animals was also found, which can not be explained so far. Nevertheless, human cloning in a hurry is likely to lead to a big mistake. [4] Judging from Academician Zhu Chen's speech, he also compared the situation of animal cloning with that of human cloning in the future. Chinese and foreign scientists have repeatedly observed the development of cloning technology with Dolly's situation, indicating that there is no more empirical evidence in this field to explain the nature of the problem and the size of technical risks.
2. Human cloning violates social ethics.
It is impossible for the scientific community to be indifferent to the accusations of human cloning ethics in society. Scientists affected by this also expressed similar views, such as Enrique, president of the World Medical Association? Accorsi issued a statement on August 8, 20001year, pointing out that the application of cloning technology to human beings "violates human values, ethics and moral principles". On behalf of the World Medical Association, he resolutely opposes the human cloning experiment plan. [5] From another perspective, wilmot told the media: "Imagine that my wife lives with me and a copy of' me', which will produce a very unusual relationship, which will make everyone very embarrassed, especially the copy of' me'. Therefore, we must resolutely oppose human cloning. " 〔6〕
Of course, scientists are not ethicists, sociologists and jurists. It is impossible for them to make a systematic and traceable theoretical analysis of human cloning from the perspectives of ethics, sociology and law. But as realistic social members, they must have similar feelings with other social members on the issue of "human cloning". In this way, it is normal for the scientific community to oppose human cloning research from the perspective of social ethics.
3. Human cloning violates scientific ethics.
(1) Scientific ethics and social responsibility of scientific and technological workers
Morality belongs to a kind of social consciousness, which is the sum total of norms and norms that regulate people's behavior under certain social conditions. Engels once pointed out: "Every stage, even every industry, has its own morality." [7] As we know, the ancient Hippocratic Oath, as a professional oath of medical groups, requires practitioners to do their best to treat patients with knowledge and ability, not to have excessive medical behavior, and to adhere to character and moral norms. Then, in the process of research, development and application of science and technology, people are also required to abide by certain moral principles.
The social function of modern science and technology is more and more powerful, and its penetration into society is more and more extensive, which is more likely to cause more social, ethical and legal problems. The social responsibility of scientific and technological workers is more prominent and important than before. The arguments of "science for science's sake" and "science does not consider utility or interest" are out of date, and scientific and technological workers must make rational analysis and judgment on a series of issues such as "what kind of knowledge should be pursued", "where should the pursued knowledge be placed" and "how to apply this knowledge". These problems have long attracted the attention of the scientific community. On July 1955 and 15, 52 Nobel Prize winners, including Born, Heisenberg and Madame Curie, reflected on the social value of science and technology in the Manau Declaration, saying: "We happily contribute everything to serve science. We believe that science is the road to human happiness. However, we are horrified to see that it is this science that provides human beings with the means to commit suicide. " 〔8〕
Scientific and technological workers have the freedom and right to innovate. However, the freedom of scientific research never means doing whatever you want, and scientific and technological workers should bear corresponding social responsibilities for this innovation. Scientific and technological workers should not only care about their own research interests, but also care about the social functions and social impacts of science and technology. This is not only a strong demand for scientific and technological workers in modern society, but also a historical mission that scientific and technological workers should shoulder. In fact, after Dolly was born in 1997, two famous academic journals, Nature and Science, not only reported scientific papers related to cloning technology research, but also published a large number of scientists' comments, such as Cloning: People Will Be Next, Don't Clone People, Risk and Uncertainty, Textual Research on Dolly and This fully shows that the scientific community is concerned about the social risks brought by the development of cloning technology. Today, scientists who care about the future of mankind should pay attention to ethical, legal and social issues related to cloning, and ensure that cloning knowledge and technology serve the society, rather than endangering human society. As J.D. Watson, a famous molecular biologist who won the Nobel Prize, said, "It can be expected that many biologists, especially those engaged in asexual reproduction research, will seriously consider its significance and start scientific discussions to educate people all over the world. " 〔9〕
In the scientific field, when a technology causes controversy in society, it has become a norm that scientific and technological workers should put social interests first to evaluate this technology. It also requires scientific and technological workers to pay more attention to the social value of the selected topics when they are engaged in scientific research, rather than just engaging in research under the action of some curiosity or interest, and even less engaging in research objectives aimed at "grandstanding" or "strangeness", such as cloning human beings to "revive" the dead or "human-animal cell fusion". In 2002, wilmot emphasized that he had never considered conducting human cloning experiments since conducting animal cloning experiments. Human cloning experiment will not only make the subjects take great risks, but also the experimental results have no scientific significance, and there is no reason to do so either ethically or medically. 〔 10〕
(2) It is irresponsible to conduct biological experiments blindly.
People often talk about a biotechnology research case related to the social responsibility of scientific and technological workers: in the early 1970s, Professor Berg of Stanford University in the United States artificially synthesized the first recombinant DNA hybrid molecule. Soon, his scientific colleagues reminded him that recombinant DNA molecules may cause cancer, and bacterial reproduction with recombinant molecules may also become a medium for spreading human tumors, causing serious adverse consequences in society. Professor Berg accepted the advice of his peers and stopped his own research on gene recombination. He also appealed to scientists all over the world in the journal Nature that gene amplification experiments that may cause cancer should be stopped automatically before the potential harm of recombinant DNA molecules is clarified or appropriate protection measures are found. These discussions led the US government to issue "Guidelines for the Study of Recombinant DNA Molecules" in 1976, which strictly controlled the research and application of transgenic technology. Subsequent scientific practice proved that Berg and others overestimated the danger of transgenic technology. As long as people strictly control, properly manage, take seriously and take strict preventive measures in the process of research and experiment, these potential hazards can be completely avoided. Therefore, the American government resumed the research on gene recombination in 1979. [1 1] This scientific debate involving the social benefits and risks of biotechnology has far-reaching practical significance. This is not only the conscious embodiment of scientific and technological workers' sense of social responsibility, but also a reasonable procedure to deal with the unknown risks of new technologies. In order to avoid the possible harm caused by new technology, we should make necessary management plans and ethical norms, and temporarily stop those experiments whose consequences are not clear. This idea of choosing scientific research topics from the overall interests of human society is not only a scientific choice, but also a moral choice.
Many scientists believe that there is nothing wrong with conducting biological experiments for proper purposes, but Antinori and others' human cloning behavior is irresponsible. As long as the safety of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology is uncertain, as long as people have not fully discussed the moral issues related to human cloning, and whether infertile couples can find other methods of pregnancy, it is an irresponsible act, even a criminal act, to persist in this technical activity knowing that it will cause some "harm" and "risk" to the parties concerned.
(3) It is inconsistent with the rigorous scientific spirit.
What should people think about human cloning research and related reports? Many scientists criticized that Antinori and others' research not only ignored all kinds of risks in the current animal cloning research, but also failed to provide convincing evidence and did not explain what specific technology was used for scientific evaluation. Antinori's words and deeds of human cloning are only published through the mass media, which is inconsistent with the rigorous and realistic scientific spirit, but gives people the feeling of "putting on a show". Richard, editor of the American Journal of Medical Ethics? "I don't think Antinori has ever considered the interests of future generations," Nicholson said. What he did was just to win personal prestige, and he insisted on this controversial experiment for his reputation. " [12] Some scientists urged Antinori and others to clarify whether the relevant news is true.
In fact, many people in the scientific community have seriously questioned the human cloning movement. For example, logically, Arthur of the University of Pennsylvania? Professor Kaplan said: "Those scientists claim that there are more than 200 couples waiting in line, waiting to be taken to a remote place for artificial insemination with cloned cells, and then they will take care of every successful pregnant woman. All this sounds incredible. " Technically, Mark, director of reproductive endocrinology at a medical center in new york? Saul once told Sid that he wanted to clone human beings: "It's hard to imagine doing it in an outpatient clinic, except causing a sensation." [13] As the "chief scientist" of cloning assistance, Boicel has no academic background in medicine and biology, and has never published any research papers related to cloning technology. In this case, how should she conduct human cloning research? I want to ask, where is the credibility of the birth news of "clone" they released? [14] Here, we agree with Mr. Zhou, a well-known scholar in China: "I doubt all too noisy undertakings and all too ostentatious feelings, which always remind me of Shakespeare's satire on life:' full of voices and fanaticism, but nothing'". [15] Scientific research should not only be a very lively occupation, but also need loneliness, loneliness and tranquility.
(4) Oppose profiting from human cloning.
An important driving force of the human cloning movement is the commercial attempt and potential huge profit space of human cloning imagined by some people. At present, it is not excluded that people engaged in human cloning experiments try to profit from it. As Accorsi, president of the World Medical Association, pointed out about the human cloning plan announced by Antinori, the human cloning plan in the world involves many "economic benefits". These plans try to turn cloning technology into "big business" and pursue "simple commodity achievements" through experiments. Therefore, we should resolutely oppose the intention of using human cloning as a profit-making means that violates scientific ethics.