Human cloning seen from a psychological perspective

What do you think about human cloning? From a bioethical point of view, psychology understands that this is a line that should not be crossed. However, scientific advances are unstoppable. What should be considered in such a context? This article points it out.
Ben Lamm, founder of the first company to “de-extinct” species, recently announced that the first woolly mammoths could be seen as early as 2028. Biotechnology and the science of gene editing are advancing at an overwhelming pace. This raises an interesting question: what does psychology think about human cloning?

There is a common perception in the medical and psychological community that human clones will eventually become a reality. From a bioethical point of view , this is not advisable , as the social and emotional implications will be immense.

Now, what arguments can be used to convince scientists not to promote such engineering? What is more, what effects would it have on society if this were to happen? Details of this information are given below.

Psychology admits and approves genetic therapy for medical purposes such as organ transplants, healing nerve cells and tissues. But human cloning has other, more problematic implications.

Human cloning seen from a psychological perspective

The journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online  highlights in a paper that the topic of human cloning has been a controversial debate for decades . In this regard, both psychology and other social sciences should be the guiding support capable of discouraging the advance or structuring its regulation if it is carried out.

The reality is that, although a large part of society welcomes gene editing to treat diseases, delving into human replication is seen as something aberrant . The cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997 was seen as a metaphor: that of the wolf in sheep’s clothing and the strong possibility that this technology could materialize in humans.

Such was the impact that, months later, the Council of Europe approved a law banning this possibility. Later, the United Nations General Assembly called for the same, arguing that therapeutic cloning irrevocably violates human dignity. However, countries such as the United Kingdom already genetically edit human embryos, according to a 2017 study in Nature .

There is technology, so it is obvious that cloning will happen at some point. So what is psychology’s view on the subject?

See also  Prefrontal cortex and adolescents: what's behind the teenage years?

Cloning has serious considerations

Psychology is in tune with the perspectives of one of the greatest experts in genetics and cloning: Dr. Francisco J. Ayala. In his book ¿Clonar humanos? and in research such as those published in PNAS in 2015, he emphasizes the same idea. Genes can be cloned for medical purposes, but never people.

Opening the door to human cloning would give rise to the most utopian and unethical future scenarios ; for example, it would be possible to make “copies” of individuals with very specific characteristics: great talent, intelligence or beauty. It would also be possible to produce children of a specific genotype . What else would such a breakthrough bring?

  • It would modify the concept of genetic biodiversity.
  • The possibility of cloning deceased loved ones.
  • Human replication as an obvious form of eugenics.
  • As with animal cloning, there would be frequent failures and malformations.
  • The origin of many people is no longer due to biological causality, but to design carried out in a laboratory.
  • Human cloning would no longer respect what is most valuable to all of us: our uniqueness, our being one of a kind in the world.
  • All family relationships would be altered, since there would only be one parent (the figure from which one is replicated).

Psychology recommends that reproductive cloning remain prohibited. The ethical, social, psychological and moral implications would be immense. However, if this possibility were ever to be opened up, it would have to be regulated very rigorously.

The current scientific consensus is that human cloning is unethical. In fact, many animal clones have serious malformations, do not survive or show serious illnesses.

Possible psychological consequences of legalizing cloning

Human cloning is not currently legal, but somewhere there is someone who will step up and emerge as the pioneer who changed things in this area. Psychology knows that, as aberrant as it may seem now, reproductive cloning will happen sooner or later.

Let us therefore consider the situation: what effect would this have on society? And on the cloned person? We will analyse this in a moment.

  • Cloned people would suffer social rejection and discrimination.
  • Being a clone would mean frequently suffering deep existential crises .
  • Clones would be highly conditioned by the expectations and demands of the parents or genotype donors.
  • The environment would always have the tendency to compare the achievements of the cloned figure with those of the original person.
  • Deep psychological burdens would appear, both in the donor figure and in the cloned person. Would they be children and parents? Twins, perhaps?
  • Children generated by reproductive cloning would suffer problems in the formation of their identity and psychosocial development (Annas, 1998; Gonnella and Hojat, 2001 ).
  • Clones would have difficulty accepting their origins and understanding who their family or parents are . From a genetic standpoint , there would only be one, that is, their monozygotic twin.
  • Same genes, different ways of being . In 2013, Dr. Michael Zuck came along and wanted to clone John Lennon. However, something he didn’t know was that the clone would have the same DNA, but none of the life experiences that shaped his personality . He wouldn’t be the artist he longed to come back to life. In the future, clones would be created specifically to replace someone who had died; in these cases, neither the identity nor the personality would be the same.
See also  How to calm crying babies, according to science

Banning cloning protects human dignity

Psychologists have pointed out some very grotesque aspects that could be derived from human cloning. An example of this would be those parents who wish to have an exact substitute for a deceased child. Also, trying to replicate figures of great talents, in an attempt to create a society with eugenic overtones. If there were no firm bioethical regulation in this field, one would be playing Frankenstein. 

At present, cloning is not legalised because progress in the field of animal replication is still lacking. Malformations, illnesses and premature deaths are frequent. However, once strong and healthy individuals are developed, a new biological and social revolution may begin.

Psychology insists that this step should not be taken, since cloning is an attack on human dignity. Already “enslaved” by technology, it would be an attempt to control what should not be under our control. Ceasing to be unique and becoming a copy of another is an attack on identity and individuality.