09.07.2025

The synthetic man

At the end of 2023, the Weizman Institute in Canada announced - through an article published in the journal Nature[1] - that they had created a complete model of a human embryo, made entirely from laboratory-grown stem cells obtained from skin samples and managed to grow it outside the womb until day 14-ten; this synthetic embryo model had all the structures and compartments characteristic of this stage, including placenta, yolk sac, chorionic sac and other external tissues that ensure the model's dynamic and adequate growth.

The research team points out that the stem cell-derived cell clusters obtained in previous studies could not truly be considered accurate models of a human embryo because they lacked almost all the defining characteristics of a post-implantation embryo. In particular, these earlier models lacked certain cell types that were essential for embryo development, such as those that form the placenta and the chorionic sac. In addition, they lacked the structural organisation characteristic of the embryo and showed no dynamic capacity to progress to the next developmental stage.

In other words, if they had been able to override ethical considerations - I can only assume the 'nice' words to the ethical principles of researchers who 'can do better, but are not allowed' - and if they had also had an artificial womb[2], which is not far from becoming a reality, the researchers would have bred a synthetic human being.

The purpose of the research - the stated one, at least - was to open up new avenues of research into infertility, drug testing and tissue growth for transplantation, as well as to help scientists analyse the dramatic first few weeks of embryonic development because, as the researchers themselves state in their introductory paper, the first month of pregnancy is everything, the remaining eight months are just a development of what has already been created in the first month.

But let's try to identify the legal consequences of the above scientific findings.

Firstly, because the embryo obtained was not created from biological reproductive material - nor from the combination of an egg and a spermatozoon - but from stem cells after the transformation of skin cells, it is clear that the operation described is in fact, in a legal sense, cloning.

Human cloning is a controversial issue. It is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning, which is the reproduction of human cells and tissues. It does not refer to the conception and natural birth of identical twins. Throughout the numerous debates on the subject, two different aspects based on the ultimate purpose of human cloning have been generated: therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.

Very briefly, proponents of therapeutic cloning explain its necessity by the need to generate whole tissues and organs to treat patients who would otherwise not be able to obtain transplants, to avoid the need for immunosuppressive drugs and to mitigate the effects of ageing. Supporters of reproductive cloning believe that parents who would otherwise be unable to procreate should have access to the technology.

Opposition to therapeutic cloning centres mainly on the status of embryonic stem cells, which is linked to the abortion debate. The moral argument put forward is based on the idea that embryos deserve protection from the moment of their conception, because it is at that very moment that a new human entity, an already unique individual, emerges. Since the sacrifice of human life is considered unacceptable for any purpose, the argument goes on to say that the destruction of embryos for research purposes is not justifiable.

Some opponents of reproductive cloning are concerned that the technology is not yet sufficiently developed to be safe - for example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's 2014 position, while others emphasise that the technique could be prone to abuse (leading to the generation of humans whose organs and tissues would be harvested against their will), and the resulting individuals could create problems by not integrating into society at large.

Although reproductive cloning is banned by national laws in most countries in the world, as it basically means taking an artificially created embryo to the point of birth (improperly lab development rather) of a human being, therapeutic cloning is legal in several countries.

In any case, there is no global consensus on banning reproductive cloning, despite the existence of a (non-binding) 1997 UNESCO declaration calling for respect for human dignity and the prevention of practices that could harm human beings, a 2005 UN declaration - which calls on the organisation's members to expedite the adoption of national regulations prohibiting all forms of human cloning, invoking the same notion of human dignity and the protection of human life - and the 1997 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, whose 1998 addendum banning the cloning of human beings, which came into force in 2001, has not convinced the major players in the research market to sign it.

Moreover, on 29 November 2022, the European Parliament rejected a proposal to ban human cloning in the EU by 316 votes to 37. Italian MEP Francesco Fiori, who proposed the failed resolution, called for new legislation. Defending his report, he said it was essential to decide now which doors should be closed. A visionary perhaps, a species forever banished from the fortress.

And so, returning to the legal issues, let us not miss the inevitable slippery slope. Like all scientific discoveries, as the history of at least the last couple of hundred years shows, this discovery has the potential to slide into uses far beyond its original purpose. The most obvious of these: reproductive cloning. At the time of the UN declarations and the Oviedo Convention, reproductive cloning was only a theoretical possibility. Now Canadian researchers have turned it into a practical one.

Moreover, because, as I mentioned earlier, the embryo was created from stem cells developed from epithelial cells, at the theoretical end of the development of the created being, it would have no parents or relatives. Would it be the property of the corporation that created the development method or the state where it was created? Or would the donor - with or without the permission of the original cells - be able to claim the 'product' created from his DNA?

Without doubt, the future is of transhumanism, of "cyborg man", transferred into digital bits, of man created synthetically, without parents, without roots, without protection.Anyone from whom a few "wasted" cells are taken - we waste millions every day - could be reproduced in a laboratory, whether they have given their consent or not.

What will happen to these human beings? Let's not kid ourselves that they will exist only in theory, it's only a matter of time, all of it, in our fast-forward world. Will they be lab animals? Will they be citizens? Will they have names, identities? Will they have the same rights as us? More? Less? Who will decide their fate? What will they be used for? Will they be able to reproduce? If so, what will happen to their offspring?

Beyond all these questions, one thing is certain: the words of the theoretician of the new world order, Yuval Noah Harari, an illustrious professor, seem to have come true: "Human beings are now piratable animals!"

An article by Victor Dobozi (vdobozi@stoica-asociatii.ro), Senior Partner, STOICA & ASOCIAȚII.