Secret facts

In this case, the detrimental facts are as follows: (1) We usually waste the inochi of animals, fish, and vegetables, and the functioning of our highly industrialized society depends on these wastes of inochi and energy. We treasure our own inochi and take care of that of our community, but we don’t care basically about human inochi in other nations. It is obvious that few people in the advanced nations care about human inochi in the so-called Third World. (2) Our modern civilization has dominated nature and destroyed innumerable inochis, instead of supporting them. We have been using a great deal of fossil energy for our own sake and live an affluent life without regard for future generations. In Japan, we have shut away senile aged people and handicapped people into shisetsu (nursing homes). (3) In Japan, many workers are forced to work with all their power, only to die of hard work. Large numbers of teenagers study so hard night and day to pass entrance examinations that they can only hope for a few hours of good sleep. On the other hand, college students sleep in class, spend money extravagantly and go out seven days a week, not devoting themselves to anything in particular.

These are the facts that the moral paradigm of our society would want to conceal behind a curtain of poetic inochi discourses, in case it fails to put them right. Surely these three inochi norms are worthy, almost sacred, norms which warn today’s society of its wrongful and destructive ways. However, preaching and teaching those norms no longer influences society, because the inclinations of modern civilization described above have become rooted too deeply to be changed by sermons. It is we who have created modern civilization and today’s North-South problems. Under the level of morality there lies a bottomless collective unconscious which has created the good and evil of modern civilization. Our investigation must penetrate this level.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

The inochi paradigm

These three norms accurately represent the moral aspect of the inochi paradigm. Most Japanese have experienced being repeatedly taught these norms by their parents and school teachers when they were young, and consequently these three norms still provoke strong moral standards in today’s society. These norms are so strong that few people deny them officially, and those who deny them are considered by society to be either egoists or nihilists, and are subsequently scorned.

I believe these three norms constitute the basis of the moral paradigm on inochi in contemporary Japan, and it forms the ‘ground of certainty’(48) of Japanese culture. We researchers must question the ‘ground of certainty’ itself at least once by examining accepted but unquestioned sets of moral rules that are functioning in a society. For where a paradigm works it can effectively suppress facts which would be detrimental to the paradigm itself.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Norms of inochi

There are three norms of inochi.

The first norm is to treasure inochi (43). We should treasure all inochi on the earth as well as our own inochi because each of them is irreplaceable and valuable. Our attitude of treasuring inochi will then change into a spirit of respect for inochi, and in the end will lead us toward reverence for the great existence that supports inochi and nature. This norm is similar to references such as ‘respect for life’ or ‘dignity of life’ we encounter in materials on bioethics.

The second norm is to support each other (44). As inochi beings, we should support and help each other in the community and in the ecosystem because we can live only in the midst of the web of all living things. The authors of the two school texts say that one’s inochi not only belongs to him/herself but also belongs to the family and society, and therefore that it is important to live for others (45). They also insist that we should recognize the significance of living together with animals and plants in the wilderness.

The third norm is to do the utmost in one’s power (46). Our inochi is finite. Inochi beings must die sooner or later, and hence we should do our best at every moment of our life. The following sentences show a sophisticated example of this norm. [101/102]

As a cicada lives its short life and gives birth to a new inochi with all its power, so should I live with all my power in order to hand over my inochi to the next generation. I think of treasuring my irreplaceable inochi. I think of living, always concentrating on this moment in time. Then will I be able to be content with my inochi, and hand it over to the next inochi. I want to live at this moment with all my power, and give my inochi radiant light (47).

The assertion here is that we should concentrate on this moment and do the utmost in our power in order to participate in the continuity of inochi. In these sentences we find a logical tension between the continuity of inochi on a large scale and a bright inochi condensed into this moment in time (see also Kakehashi (1989) and Yamamoto (1988)).

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Properties of inochi 2

Living together in mutual support constitutes the fourth property. Inochi beings cannot live without the mutual support networks of inochi which spread all over the earth. These networks mean, on the one hand, synchronic mutual support such as human relationships in the family and food chains in the ecosystem. On the other hand, they mean diachronic mutual support found in the passing of generations from parents to their children. From a synchronic point of view, the concepts of ‘living together’ and ‘symbiosis’ are stressed. From a diachronic point of view, the concepts of ‘succession’ and ‘taking over’ of inochi are stressed.

The fifth property is personality. Every inochi being has its own personality because there is no creature with completely the same figure and appearance as another. Therefore, the writers conclude, every inochi is irreplaceable.

The sixth property is warmth and breath. The authors of these texts insist that the Japanese have a strong sympathy for warm breathing beings, and refer to the relationship of the concept of breath to the ancient meaning of inochi.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Properties of inochi 1

The first property is irreplaceability (42). Only one inochi is given to each living thing, and it cannot be replaced by any other inochi. Once we lose our inochi, we never get it again. It is stressed that every inochi, including those of humans and other creatures, is equally irreplaceable, a belief that is expressed by the stock phrase in contemporary Japanese, ‘irreplaceable inochi’.

The second property is the process of being born, growing, aging, and dying, which applies equally to humans, animals, and plants. This understanding is the most basic way of grasping inochi. [100/101]

The third property defines inochi as being beyond the power of humans. Inochi being neither come into existence of their own will nor do they keep on living of their own will. The writers stress that the existence of inochi beings is founded in something which is beyond the power of humans. They seem to be implying a relationship between inochi and some religious transcendent being.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Lack of sex

Before examining these texts in detail, we should pay attention to the following points that appear in these texts. First, in a sense, these books succeeded in producing an excellent summary of today’s inochi discourses; at the same time, however, some subjects and discourses are intentionally omitted for the purpose of strongly supervising the students (kanri kyoiku). For example, we cannot find any inochi discourses concerning sex education, environmental pollution from factories, and the safety of nuclear power plants. I suppose the last two subjcets were omitted because of the government policy to push forward with industrialization and nuclear power generation, but why sex education was omitted is a mystery. Okuchi (1984) and Toriyama (1985) deal with sex education as one of the most important subjects related to inochi. The Ministry of Education’s textbooks seem to completely ignore this important topic and should be openly criticized for this omission.

Second, these books have been widely used since 1988 in almost all Japanese primary schools and junior high schools. This means that the replies to our questionnaires from primary and junior high school students may have been deeply influenced by these books. In fact, there are a number of replies that mimic expressions that are to be found in these books. It is difficult to clarify the relation of cause and effect between them, but, nevertheless, we must necessarily take this point into account.

These books do discuss inochi, but unfortunately not in a well ordered manner. Hence, I have put in order and classified these discussions into two major categories: (a) properties of inochi, and (b) norms of inochi.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Inochi publications

Let us turn to the books and articles which deal with inochi as their main subject. There are a great many such books written in Japanese. The authors include teachers, physicians, priests, novelists, nonfiction writers, journalists, and housewives. For example, Okuchi (1982), Okuchi (1984), Toriyama (1985), Morisaki (1989), Kansha (1987), Kakehashi (1989), Yamamoto (1988), Mizukami (1988), Ueda (1989), and Nakamura (1987) have all published excellent inochi books. All these are well worth [99/100] examining. However, I shall leave such an examination for another time. Instead, I shall examine here the most noteworthy inochi books I have yet encountered: the Ministry of Education’s Guidelines for Developiing a Spirit of Respect for Inochi: for Primary School Students (1988) and Guidelines for Dveloping a Spirit of Respect for Inochi: for Junior High School Students (1988).

These are guidebooks for school teachers in moral education classes, written by school teachers, professors, and officials of the Ministry of Education. These are excellent inochi publications in that the authors have prepared well studied discourses on inochi, and have made such discussions simple and practical enough for children to understand.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

The inochi's sphere

The following is part of a written opinion (1989) by a Buddhist monk, Wasei Futamata, for a trial concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant in Ishikawa Prefecture.

The Jodo-shinshu sect of Buddhism preaches living and walking with all inochis. The words "all inochi" mean not only humans’ inochis, but also all the inochis living on this earth. And they also mean not only the present inochis, but also those of the future, in thirty, fifty, a hundred, and a thousand years. These inochis are our friends whom we have met, are meeting, and are sure to meet in the future, at the bottom of the identical inochi. We love and treasure our own inochi before anything else. Therefore we must love and treasure all the inochis, and must live, praying to be able to walk together.

These sentences show a clear logic for the need to love inochi. Inochi spreads from humans to all creatures, from the past to the future, and all these inochis are our friends. Hence, just as we love our own inochi, we must love all the inochis.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Inochi and greenery

To begin with, let us examine some leaflets from citizens'4 movements. First, there is a typical understanding of inochi in the leaflet entitled "A view of qi, No. 2" (1990), issued by a qi-gong (41) group, the Green and Healing Circle. In this leaflet, the anonymous secretariat write as follows:

We have realized that all inochis are connected and formed into one while each individual inochi is voluntary and independent; that all inochis are equal in value; that every inochi exists in its adequate position giving life to every other; that the human attitude toward nature is the same as the human attitude toward humans themselves; and that our inochis get sick and die when greenery gets sick and dies.

Here we see expressed the dialectic of the independence and connectedness of inochi, the dynamics of giving life to each other, the inner relationships between our attitude toward nature and ourselves, and the relationship between inochi and greenery. The sentences in the leaflet provide simple and clear ideas concerning these subjects which tend to be very popular in inochi publications.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Images of life among contemporary Japanese

In libraries, bookstores, newspapers, and magazines, we can easily find a number of books and articles which deal with inochi and/or matters concerning inochi. I have called these ‘inochi publications’. They include books or articles concerning, for example, death, euthanasia, abortion, handicapped people, education, sex, religion, ecology, the global environmental crisis, and the anti-nuclear power movement. They also include pamphlets and word-processor leaflets handed out at meetings. It must be stressed that much literature, and many poms, songs, and advertisements are also to be counted as inochi publications.

I have classified these publications into two categories: primary inochi publications and secondary inochi publications. The former are publications which contain the word inochi as a key concept in the title, the table of contents or the text. The latter are publications that deal with subjects and events which could be described by using the word inochi as a key word, but actually use another word for it. In this section we examine some of the primary inochi publications, and leave the secondary materials to future investigations.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

We need “life studies”

My personal view is that a stronger argument is needed for protecting the value of the human embryo, including a cloned human embryo, especially in Japan where the “language of religion” has little clout in the discussion. Instead of religious language, we need “philosophical language” to affirm the value of a human embryo or “the sprout of human life.”

What is it we wish to protect when we use the word “the sprout of human life”? The answer would be “a vigorous energy to develop and transform itself” that we once were, that we came from, and that we still have at the basis of our existence. This is what we have to protect, even if its destruction would be beneficial to the progress of medicine. Why then should we protect it? The answer would be that its destruction means the destruction of something very important which we actually “share” at the basis of our lives; hence, its destruction might lead to the destruction of ourselves. The ultimate danger of research on human embryo is that in the long run it might erode something very important inside us in the name of social welfare and the progress of medicine. We need “philosophical language” to explain the core meaning of the words “something very important” in a way that can be easily understood by the general public. In this sense, we need a new “philosophy of life,” or “life studies,”(15) which will give us the wisdom to protect “something very important” from our own selfish desire to live a long and healthy life.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

The religious sector in silence

It is striking that we encounter no important comments or opinions on this topic in the religious sector. In its Interim Report, the Commission reported that they could find no important opinions in Japanese Buddhism, Shinto, or Japanese Christianity. My own impression is similar. To my knowledge, they have published no reports on human cloning or other related topics. I can offer no explanation for their silence on human cloning research.

Interestingly, both supporters and opponents use the words “human rights” and “human dignity.” They do not debate these concepts because they accept their importance. Instead, the debate is between the “language of utilitarianism” and the “language of scepticism.” And the “language of religion” remains silent. Even disabled people seem to be torn between support and opposition. We should be aware of the fact that many Japanese disabled people have been critical of the “progress” of [14/15] medical technology and of “eugenic ideas” (see my paper “Disability Movement and Inner Eugenic Thought.” (14)) At the same time, however, there are disabled people’s groups that look forward to the development of new technology (e.g., Japan Spinal Cord Foundation). This is the rough sketch of the Japanese discourse on research on human cloning.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

“The language of scepticism” VS “the language of utilitarianism”

Now let us turn our attention to “language” or “discourse.” People who wish to maintain the ban on therapeutic human cloning are journalists, feminists, and researchers critical of the “progress” of scientific technology. Their “language” is based on the “language of scepticism”: scepticism about the propaganda that the progress of science and medicine brings us “health and happiness.” They do not believe this kind of optimism. And they try to keep away from “religion” as much as possible, because in Japan “religious language” has not worked as an instrument of criticism. But precisely because of this, their arguments have not been as persuasive as they had anticipated.

By contrast, the “language of utilitarianism” used by the advocates of advanced medicine seems very powerful. Supporters of regenerative medicine emphasise the benefit of research to the general public, particularly patients with intractable diseases. Not only researchers but also patients themselves talk about their expectations from medical progress. Their language is simple, direct, and forceful. We see an echo of this utilitarianism in the Commission’s Interim Report.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

On “sprout”

It is also interesting that the locus of human dignity is expressed as “sprout,” because this word means the bud of a “plant,” not an animal. However, Shizuka Shirakawa, a prominent linguist, insists that the Chinese character meaning “sprout” contains that of “fang”, and this means the sprout of a plant has a wild, animal-like energy (12). I presume that the [13/14] energy in the sprout of human life is probably something that is shared by plants, animals and humans. Hence, many Japanese feel that it should be respected as much as possible. This concept is reminiscent of Masao Maruyama’s well-known words, “tsugi tsugi ni nariyuku ikihohi” (flowing energy that transforms and develops itself one after another) to be found in the ancient layer of Japanese consciousness of history (13). Maruyama came upon this concept in Kojiki. In this sense, ancient Japanese writings and contemporary bioethics literature might share similar ideas on life and death.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

“The sprout of human life”

One of the most interesting terms in the Japanese discussion on human cloning is “the sprout of human life” which appears in the Japanese law and many other materials. Not only people who object to human cloning, but also many of those who seek to promote research on human cloning admit that a human embryo is the sprout of human life and, hence, it should be highly respected.

The government translated the term as “the beginning of human life,” but this translation loses an important nuance. When they hear the words “the sprout of human life”, many Japanese feel some kind of vigorous energy moving inside the embryo. It might be biological energy, or it might be spiritual. This energy does not mean the mere “future possibility” of becoming a person. It is something that actually exists inside the embryo.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

The Interim Report

On December 26, 2003, the Commission published Fundamental Principles on the Handling of Human Embryos, an Interim Report. This report concluded that the production and use of cloned human embryos should not be completely prohibited, but the Commission members failed to reach consensus about whether a moratorium should be placed on research until further scientific knowledge is acquired. For more information about the Interim Report, see the chapter Cloning in Japan by Robert Horres, Hans Dieter Ölschleger, and Christian Steineck in this book. [*Important note: On Jun 23, 2004, the Commision decided to approve the production of cloned human embryos, however, at the same time, a moratorium was placed until sufficient conditions, such as the safety control of the embryos and the protection of female egg donors, are fulfilled. -- Added on April, 2006]

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

The Council for Science and Technology Policy

In 2001, the Council for Science and Technology Policy, Cabinet Office, was established in the government, and the Expert Research Commission on Bioethics was established in the Council. Its mission was to comprehensively discuss the ethical issues concerning human cloning, ES cells, and other reproductive technologies. In November 2003, a member of the Commission, Susumu Shimazono, professor of religious studies at the University of Tokyo, published a paper in a popular magazine in which he severely criticised the discussion in the Commission (10).

Shimazono first pointed out that “A Draft for Fundamental Thoughts on the Handling of Human Embryos (11) , circulated in the Commission on August 23, 2003, sought to compare two values, namely, “the value of a human embryo on which human dignity is reflected” and “the value created by scientific technology.” Two proposals, for and against promotion, were formulated in the draft. In the case of both ES cells and therapeutic human cloning, the proposal says that the value created by scientific technology clearly surpasses that of a human embryo.

Shimazono insisted that the Commission had never discussed whether or not research on a human embryo and ES cells violates “human [12/13] dignity”, and it had never discussed what “the sprout of human life” is and how it is different from “human life.” He argued that the artificial creation of an “animal-human chimeric embryo” might violate “human dignity,” but they had never discussed the ethical aspect of this handling. The draft uses the words “the sprout of human life” and “human dignity” many times, but the Commission had never considered the ethical and philosophical meaning of these terms in any depth. He laments the fact that the country, which seriously discussed the issue of brain death and organ transplantation, has not discussed this topic earnestly. He suspects that the consideration of economic aspects might have influenced the discussion in the Commission.


>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Three fundamental ethical problems

Junji Kayukawa pointed out in his book that there are at least three fundamental ethical problems surrounding research on “therapeutic human cloning.”(9) The first of these is that it may support, or sometimes promote, “eugenic ideas” that we all harbour deep down. By this, Kayukawa means our inclination to think that some people (e.g., healthy, talented, smart. etc.) are superior or preferable to others (e.g., disabled, mediocre, rude, etc.). He quoted the words of an American couple who wanted to have a cloned baby. In an interview, the wife said she did not wish to adopt a child whose parent might be a killer, and that her own parents had a strong gene, but if her baby was to be born disabled, she would abort it. Kayukawa detects “eugenic ideas” in her words. He also detects them in the opinion that human cloning should not be allowed because a cloned baby is going to have a severe “disability.” Kayukawa’s conclusion is that “eugenic ideas” shape our attitudes toward human cloning, or even therapeutic human cloning, and hence, these techniques are problematic in terms of ethics. [11/12]

The second problem is that there has not been enough discussion about how we obtain human eggs for therapeutic human cloning. The extraction of eggs puts extreme physical and psychological pressure on the female donor. And while therapeutic human cloning imposes a severe burden on females, the leaders in regenerative medicine appear to be unaware of this kind of gender imbalance. For example, a research questionnaire by a self-help group for infertile women shows that fertility drugs produce various side-effects in more than half of the drug users. In this sense, therapeutic human cloning is considered to be a heavily gender-biased medicine. As Kayukawa and Ogoshi pointed out, this has not been sufficiently discussed.

The third problem is that research on therapeutic human cloning (and research on human embryos in general) is inevitably going to regard a woman’s body as a mere “resource” to be exploited for scientific technology, and a woman’s body is going to be treated as “material” to produce a profit, even if money is paid to her as donor. Kayukawa presents two different opinions: one is from a researcher who said “an ES cell is a mere cell,” and the other is from an infertile woman who said “if we donate our surplus eggs for research, our eggs will become a mere ‘instrument’ for people.” Kayukawa urges us to discuss the gap between these two opinions, or in other words, the gap between these two worldviews concerning human life.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

“Human Cloning Techniques Promotion Law”

Kumiko Ogoshi, research associate at NaraMedicalUniversity, calls the current law “Human Cloning Techniques Promotion Law” because it will result in encouraging research on therapeutic human cloning and ES cells, which may violate “human dignity” and “human rights.” (7) She thinks that the most problematic point in this law is that it was established without sufficient discussion about the value of human life, and without hearing the voices of women, disabled people, and the general public. She laments that if the government had heard their voices, such an “inhumane” law would never have passed the Diet. The government, she stresses, should have discussed the problems arising from research on human female eggs, especially the problem of extracting eggs from a female body. She also says that the two-layered system consisting of the law and the guidelines was a “shrewd” way of regulating, because the government can mitigate the ban whenever it wishes, without revising the law itself (8).

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

"Millennium Project"

Junji Kayukawa, a journalist specialising in human reproductive technology, urges us to pay attention to the fact that “regenerative medicine” was included as one of the major topics of the Japanese government’s “Millennium Project,” announced in 1999, together with other advanced technologies in the field of information science, medicine, and environmental science. This Millennium Project was launched to facilitate technological innovation for a new industry, and the government spent 250 billion yen on research in these technologies in the fiscal year 2000 (5). This implies that research on regenerative medicine is strongly supported by the Japanese government, medical researchers, and the industry sector (San, Kan, Gaku, in Japanese).

The first meeting of the Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine was held in 2002. The news media reported that members of the [10/11] Society objected strongly to the ban on “therapeutic human cloning” (6). In the second meeting held in 2003, Makoto Oohama, chairperson of the board of directors, Japan Spinal Cord Foundation, stressed that research on therapeutic human cloning should be allowed because it may lead to the regeneration of an injured spinal cord.

On the other hand, journalists and researchers who are sceptical about therapeutic human cloning and human ES cell research have published papers and books criticising the argument that aimed to promote these technologies.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

ES cells

The words “human dignity,” “means,” “intentional determination,” “preference of excellent characteristics” were used as reasons to prohibit the creation of a cloned individual. These ideas were reflected in the report of the Sub-committee on cloning.

More than 90% of the respondents were against the creation of a cloned individual, an attitude shared by the government. This is the main reason why a heated public debate on human cloning has not occurred up hitherto. Of course, there were a series of discussions in the Diet, but a compromise was soon reached between the government and the Democratic Party of Japan; the discussion has never grown into a public debate.

However, after the establishment of the law and the guidelines, the topic has been fiercely debated between scientists who wish to promote “regenerative medicine” and specialists who want to put the brakes on the rapid advance of scientific technology. The central point of the debate is whether to remove the ban on “therapeutic human cloning” to acquire ES cells from a human clone embryo.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Debate on Human Cloning

There was not much “public” discussion of human cloning after the establishment of the law. The public response was indifferent, reflecting general disinterest in the legal regulation of human cloning. People believed that the government would support their conviction that the creation of a cloned human individual should be prohibited.

The Prime Minister’s Office conducted an opinion survey on cloning in 1998, the year in which the Sub-committee on cloning was established within the Council for Science and Technology. Respondents were scholars, journalists, physicians, researchers and so on (N = 2,114). The result was considered to reflect the general Japanese attitude toward human cloning. 92.3% had an interest in cloning, and more than 93.5% thought that the creation of a cloned individual was questionable in terms of bioethics. The reasons were:

- Human cloning should not be allowed in terms of human dignity, because humans should be conceived by the involvement of both sexes. 67.7%

- The cloned individual will be regarded as a means for attaining a predefined goal, not as a free individual. 43.6% [9/10]

- It should not be allowed to intentionally determine the characteristics of a human being in advance. 29.8%

- The creation of an individual endowed with specific excellent characteristics might be preferred in the future society. 26.1%

- A cloned individual may be exposed to social discrimination. 14.9%

- It is not guaranteed that the cloned individual can grow up in safety. 10%

(* Emphases added by Morioka)

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

A two-layered system

The most striking feature of the Japanese regulation is that it is governed by a two-layered system, consisting of the law and the guidelines. One of the implications is that the guidelines can be “swiftly” altered when the circumstances surrounding human cloning technologies greatly change. For example, if a company in a foreign country begins to make tremendous profits from data acquired from research using human somatic clone embryos in a laboratory, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology may revise the guidelines and lift the ban on research on human somatic clone embryos without a long drawn-out debate in the Diet. The extraction of ES cells from a human somatic clone embryo is currently prohibited, but if many countries begin to do research on therapeutic cloning of this kind, the Ministry may revise the guidelines “swiftly” and allow researchers to study ES cells acquired from a human somatic clone embryo. It is also possible for the Ministry to lift the ban on the transfer of a human-human chimeric embryo into a uterus, leading to the creation of a human individual made of two (or more than two) different human embryos.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

the very complicated regulation of human cloning in Japan

The controversy over the legal regulation of human cloning was settled by the establishment of the law and the guidelines. However, the content of the regulation is very complicated and hard to understand, even for specialists. Below is a table showing the variation of regulations.

The only approved way of handling Specified Embryos is, at present, research on animal-human chimeric embryos, that is to say, research on an embryo produced by unification as a result of 1) inserting human somatic cells into an animal embryo, 2) inserting embryonic cells of a human fertilised embryo into an animal embryo, or 3) inserting embryonic cells of other Specified Embryos into an animal embryo. This means that the insertion of human ES cells into an animal embryo (in order to create transplantable organs) is considered to be approved in Japan. [8/9]

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

The Guidelines for the Handling of a Specific Embryo

After a series of debates in the Diet, the government’s bill was slightly revised and passed the Diet on November 30, 2000. The Democratic Party of Japan finally agreed to the government’s revised bill. The phrase “within five years” from Supplementary Provisions Article 2 was revised to “within three years,” and the new words “the sprout of human life” (hito no seimei no hōga), which the Democratic Party had stressed in their bill, were inserted.

Accordingly, the revised article was as follows:

Supplementary Provisions

Article2 (Study and Examination) The Government shall, within three years of enforcement of this Law, take necessary measures in accordance with the results of its study and examination of the provisions under this law, on the basis of the results of the study and examination by the Council for Science and Technology Policy, Cabinet Office concerning the method of handling of a human fertilised embryo as the sprout of human life with consideration to the circumstances in which this Law is enforced or to any change of the situation surrounding the cloning techniques and other similar techniques.

(*The translation of the words “hito no seimei no hōga” by the government was “the beginning of a human life,” but I believe this translation loses subtle nuances that are present in the literal translation “the sprout of human life.” In the above translation I have used the latter.) [6/7]

Article 4 of this law stipulated that the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology shall prescribe guidelines in relation to the handling of Specified Embryos. In response to this article, the Ministry began to establish guidelines concerning specific embryos. After a heated debate in a committee, the Ministry announced The Guidelines for the Handling of a Specific Embryo (4) on December 5, 2001. Important parts of the guidelines are as follows.

The Guidelines for Handling of a Specific Embryo (December 5, 2001)

Article 1 Production of a Specified Embryo shall be allowed only when the following requirements are satisfied:

1) Scientific knowledge, which cannot be acquired from research with only animal embryos or other research without Specific Embryos, is acquired from production of such a Specified Embryo

2) omitted.

Article 2

1) Regardless of the provision in Article 1 above, only an animal-human chimeric embryo shall be allowed to be produced among nine categories of Specified Embryos, and the purpose of its production shall be limited to the research concerning production of human cell-derived organs translatable to a human being.

2) A Producer shall not use any human fertilised embryos or human unfertilised eggs in order to produce an animal-human chimeric embryo. [7/8]

Article 9

Specified Embryos, except for ones prescribed in Article 3 of ‘the Law Concerning Regulation Relating Human Cloning Techniques and Other Similar Techniques (Law No. 146, 2000)’ (hereinafter referred to as “the law”), shall not be transferred into the uterus of a human or animal for the present.

(*Translation by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)

List of Specified Embryos	Transfer prohibited by the law	Transfer prohibited by the guidelines	Research prohibited by the law	Research prohibited by the guidelines
Human somatic clone embryo	prohibited			prohibited
Human-animal amphimictic embryo	prohibited			prohibited
Human-animal chimeric embryo	prohibited			prohibited
Human-animal hybrid embryo	prohibited			prohibited
Human split embryo		prohibited		prohibited
Human embryonic clone embryo		prohibited		prohibited
Human-human chimeric embryo		prohibited		prohibited
Animal-human hybrid embryo		prohibited		prohibited
Animal-human chimeric embryo		prohibited		approved

Table 1



>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)