This blog post explores how nuclear replacement technology can replace or reduce animal testing while simultaneously saving human lives.
When did interest in cloning begin? Did it start from the desire to solve organ damage, or was it the search for beings to replace human labor? While the exact origin is unclear, the moment the concept of cloning moved from science fiction to reality was likely the first successful animal cloning. In early 1997, at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Ian Wilmut and his colleagues created Dolly, the world’s first cloned animal. Nuclear transfer technology was used in this process. Dolly’s cloning process involved fusing the nucleus of an adult sheep with an egg from another sheep, then implanting this into a surrogate mother’s uterus. While this process appears simple, it was actually complex and had an extremely low success rate. Out of the 277 fusion attempts made to create Dolly, only one resulted in a successful birth. Dolly’s birth shocked the world, and the potential of nuclear transfer technology and cloning captured the public’s intense interest.
Nuclear transfer technology can be used for various purposes beyond cloning. For example, it could be used to treat people with genetic disorders lacking specific immune proteins by replacing their hematopoietic stem cells with normal cells. Additionally, modifying the genes of an animal before cloning it could yield improved animal individuals with enhanced capabilities over the original. While the application of nuclear replacement technology to humans faces significant opposition due to numerous ethical and legal issues, its use on animals is subject to divided opinions. Opponents express concerns about reduced genetic diversity and animal suffering, while proponents argue it enhances the efficiency of new drug testing and aids in organ transplantation. Considering current medical needs, the use of nuclear replacement technology on animals for medical purposes can be supported.
First, nuclear replacement technology enables the large-scale production of substances needed by humans through animals. Pig organs are highly similar to human organs, making them strong candidates for transplant use. However, transplanting pig organs into humans requires suppressing immune reactions. By modifying pig genes through nuclear replacement technology to resist the human immune system, transplantable organs can be obtained. Similarly, nuclear replacement technology can be utilized to treat hemophilia, a condition characterized by a deficiency in coagulation factor IX. By replacing the gene responsible for producing this factor with the animal’s gene, the necessary coagulation factor can be extracted from the animal’s milk.
Second, nuclear replacement technology enables more precise experimentation. While rabbits, which share a similar immune system, are primarily used in new drug testing, there are variations in response between individual rabbits. Cloning multiple rabbits with identical genetic traits via nuclear replacement yields consistent data, enhancing the accuracy of experimental results. Using cloned individuals with identical characteristics also reduces the number of animals required for experiments.
Finally, it minimizes damage to ecosystems. For example, horseshoe crabs provide the unique blood used in endotoxin testing, but many die or suffer long-term effects annually during blood collection. Producing cloned horseshoe crabs via nuclear replacement technology allows securing resources for experiments while protecting wild horseshoe crabs in natural ecosystems. Furthermore, genetically modifying horseshoe crabs to increase blood production and create resilient individuals can reduce their suffering.
Despite these advantages, opponents of using nuclear replacement technology for medical purposes will still cite animal sacrifice as a reason. However, prioritizing animal life over human life when human lives are at risk is a difficult problem. If the only way to save a family member or oneself is through an organ obtained from animal cloning, there would be no choice, even if animal suffering is a concern. Nuclear replacement technology could instead be a solution to reduce animal suffering in experiments. For example, creating modified organisms that increase the number of pig organs could be considered to reduce the number of pigs needed for organ transplants.
In conclusion, while I support the use of nuclear replacement technology on animals for medical purposes, this support is not unconditional. We must consider animal suffering and develop the technology while adhering to the 3Rs principles of animal experimentation (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement). Efforts to reduce animal sacrifice, such as stem cell research or developing alternative endotoxin testing technologies to replace horseshoe crab blood, must continue. While current technology cannot completely replace animal testing, the development of technologies to solve these problems must continue.
