A Giant Step in Cloning

mernil writes "The Independent reports: "A technical breakthrough has enabled scientists to create for the first time dozens of cloned embryos from adult monkeys, raising the prospect of the same procedure being used to make cloned human embryos."

hmmmm

[theheadlessrabbit (1022587)]

now all we need to work on is cloning typewriters, and we'll be set!

Re:

[Daimanta (1140543)]

Well that, and a million years.

Re:hmmmm

[tacocat (527354)]

I was thinking more like .. Now I can finally get my very own Angelina Jolie, Rachael Welch, Ingred Bergman.. Whatever suits my fancy

Re:

[somersault (912633)]

Yeah, after you've raised them as your daughters o_0 they still don't have accelerated aging, or accelerated education ;)

Re:

[davidsyes (765062)]

Really, ethically, I think, these are still beings that should NOT be manufactured for sexual exploitation reasons. In this life, if you can't GET sex (consensually, hopefully), then existentially you probably "unearned" it in this or a previous lifetime.

It's one thing to joke about sex, and another when people get fantastical ideas of having organic clones of humans for sexual gratification. For those wanting human clones for sexual reasons, go get a real doll, or pray for a neural dream-controlling simula

Re:

[krotkruton (967718)]

I would have gone with offtopic. The GP pointed out why the "sex slave" idea doesn't apply to this discussion since you'd still have to raise the clones. Had you replied to the GPP, then your comment would have made more sense as he was the one who made the joke about cloning his very own celebrity. But if that had been the case, the Troll mod would have made more sense since you were creating an argument out of a joke, and I doubt I'm the only one who's tired about people picking apart the ethics or fac

Re:hmmmm

[rrkap (634128)]

Yeah, after you've raised them as your daughters o_0 they still don't have accelerated aging, or accelerated education ;)

You're right, not everybody has the patience of Woody Allen...

I really don't think

[Rix (54095)]

The poster wanted them for their education.

Re:hmmmm

[by Anonymous Coward]

you can also be rejected by clones of Jessica Alba and Halle Berry. Whatever suits your fancy.

Re:

[abes (82351)]

No no no. We already have Shakespeare, and we all know that is all monkeys are good at. Never understood why people were so intent on recreating Shakespeare. Plus, I believe all monkeys are part of the WGA, so it would be pointless right now anyways.

The English canon

[by Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our Shakespeare-typing overlords.

hmmmmm . . .

[spamking (967666)]

If Michael Jackson is cloned, is it against the law for him to play with himself as a child?

some of these are good [biofact.com]

Re:

[EaglemanBSA (950534)]

It's a pun, supposed to sound like "obscene phone call"

one problem

[ILuvRamen (1026668)]

They still haven't solved the #1 problem with cloning though: why would I want another one of me? My exact genes aren't that great as is.

Re:

[dintech (998802)]

Your genetic code? No, probably not. Barbera Streisand? That's another matter altogether.

Scarlet

[CarpetShark (865376)]

why would I want another one of me?

You're thinking about this cloning thing all wrong. Think Scarlet Johannson.

You need /bin/cp...

[r6144 (544027)]

even though it does not create any new information.

Re:one problem

[vadim_t (324782)]

Replacement parts.

Grow a clone without a brain to avoid the ethical implications. Keep it safely stored (frozen in liquid nitrogen?). If you need a transplant of anything you can get a new organ, fully compatible, and even better than before (lungs undamaged by smoke/contamination, etc).

Might work as a way of living longer. Heart is not doing so well when you're 70? Replace it with one from a 20 year old clone.

I could see modified clones being used. A gender swapped clone, a clone with blue eyes, fixed genetics to avoid diseases and cancer, etc. If you could move your brain to a new clone and keep this up long enough I could see people building a "perfect self", by fixing all the defects in each new iteration that they found in the previous body.

Re:

[squiggleslash (241428)]

Given the brain manages the body, it seems improbable that you can get away with creating a brainless clone.

(Unless you're talking about creating Republicans! Arf arf!)

No, but seriously I think the technical challenges created by somehow genetically modifying a human to have no brain or a significantly modified zero-consciousness brain are far, far, greater than those that were up against cloning. I suspect that cloning helps us create brainless organ-donors in the same way that the wheel helped us cre

Re:

[vadim_t (324782)]

No, but seriously I think the technical challenges created by somehow genetically modifying a human to have no brain or a significantly modified zero-consciousness brain are far, far, greater than those that were up against cloning. I suspect that cloning helps us create brainless organ-donors in the same way that the wheel helped us create space rockets.

Why, this even happens naturally. People are born with all sorts of horrific malformations, some of which include no brain, and probably being born as a ve

Re:

[Bastard of Subhumani (827601)]

Reminder to self: Breathe in. To Do. Cause stomach muscles to pulsate. Reminder to self: Breathe out. OMG!!!!, Atria contract, venticles contract, atria contract, ventricles contract. That was close! What was I doing again? Oh yes, Reminder to self: Breathe in, breathe out.

Re:

[PrescriptionWarning (932687)]

I could see modified clones being used. A gender swapped clone, a clone with blue eyes, fixed genetics to avoid diseases and cancer, etc. If you could move your brain to a new clone and keep this up long enough I could see people building a "perfect self", by fixing all the defects in each new iteration that they found in the previous body.

So long as you're only fixing "defects", such as illnesses, cancer, etc. I think its a marvelous idea. But once you start talking about putting your brain in another body is a whole nother mess in itself because it trivializes the point of having a body in the first place. We may as well just be floating brains [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[Paradise Pete (33184)]

But once you start talking about putting your brain in another body is a whole nother mess in itself because it trivializes the point of having a body in the first place.

Compared to your brain, which body it's in is a whole lot less important. Put your brain in a replacement body and it's still you, just with some weird body. But put a replacement brain in your body and you cease to be.

Re:

[PrescriptionWarning (932687)]

I think there's some psychological condition that some major burn victims have when they have to have complete facial reconstructive surgery, even if their new face doesn't appear horrific, getting used to someone else staring you back in the face in the mirror might be quite a shock to someone. Now imagine its their entire body that has changed.

Re:one problem

[BigDogCH (760290)]

"Grow a clone without a brain............."

The problem here is clear. What if I need a brain because of a stroke, head trauma, or something?

The key here is clearly to keep the clone sedated, and do a nightly robocopy or rsync to keep it updated. Also, the clone should be stored offsite, probably in a fireproof vault.

Re:

[inviolet (797804)]

The problem here is clear. What if I need a brain because of a stroke, head trauma, or something?

The key here is clearly to keep the clone sedated, and do a nightly robocopy or rsync to keep it updated. Also, the clone should be stored offsite, probably in a fireproof vault.

Ah, but now you've got to answer the "transporter question": if you could duplicate yourself perfectly, would that duplicate be 'you'?

Certainly the duplicate would insist that it was indeed 'you', because it genuinely thinks that it

Re:

[ookabooka (731013)]

Exactly, I mean you could be at risk for liver cancer, you know how hard it is to find a match for a new liver? A genetically identical clone could eventually have the same problem though probably at a later date than you. Why would you want a genetically identical clone. . .:-p

I suppose someone super egotistical person would raise a clone of him/herself. Or if you lose a loved one this would be a way to replace them. . .scary stuff, hard to really think of a truly legitimate reason to actually need a clon

Re:

[rice_web (604109)]

No... but /mine/ are.

Hmmm.

[WindBourne (631190)]

How soon before we take some of the "icemans" cells and try to clone him? It may be interesting to see what has happened to man over the course of 5000 years. Of course that would require ignoring all ethical issues.

Re:

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

hint: an iceman clone created and grown today will know as much about life 5000 years ago as you or I.

However I do see us attempting to clone wooly mammoths and dodos and other extinct animals.

Re:

[WindBourne (631190)]

Hint: will they be stronger? Shorter (most likely)? what resistance to what diseases do they have? How fast do the learn? Are their unique biological systems in their bodies that we have lost (for example the appendix originally was thought to be about digestion, but now appears to be a major part of the immune system), etc. etc.
That is life.

The cloning of Mammoths and Dodo are already in the pipeline.

Re:Hmmm.

[hairykrishna (740240)]

Not that interesting - the humans 5000 years ago were basically identical to now. Only real differences are diet and lifestyle related

Re:

[WindBourne (631190)]

key word on that is "basically". How much do they differ? That is not known. If they do not differ much in 5K years (esp. in intelligence), then it bodes poorly for mankind. Afterall, a species that is stagnant will not adapt that well. OTH, if we made great jumps in intelligence, and can show exactly how we differ over time, than we have an idea of where man is headed.

With all that said, there is more reason to believe that we are not "basically" the same. In current time, we appear to know a lot about v

Re:

[rucs_hack (784150)]

I believe that biologically we are no different from him, so we'd gain little there.

It would be interesting though. Getting it past the religious types, now that would be tricky.

I recognize the need for cloning and genetic manipulation. I'm rather hopeful that one day our species will get off this planet, but I am not hopeful it will be to another planet that quickly, Mars is a big job, we may not get to do it.

More likely is that we will fragment into smaller groups occupying pretty big ships, and head off

Brother-in-Law

[WED Fan (911325)]

It'd be interesting to add a few Einsteins to the world

The problem with clones is that to get an exact duplicate, they'd have to give them and exact life experience. Won't happen.

Clone Einstein, and you're most likely to get my brother-in-law. He is a genius. Smart. But the laziest son-of-a-bitch you are likely to meet. He was tested early, school came easy, everyone treated him like a prodigy. As a result, he coasted through life. Ended up NOT going to college and becoming a half-rate photographer. Witho

Slashdotted

[hey0you0guy (1003040)]

Here is the BBC News article since the original article seems to be down. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7094215.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Sometimes...

[faloi (738831)]

Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. I'm sure (or would like to believe) there was a spirited, well thought out debate on ethical issues, complete with people from all sides participating. I can't read the article to be sure because it appears to have been slashdotted.

Re:

[rucs_hack (784150)]

I'm sure (or would like to believe) there was a spirited

If there was a spirit, then it would be logical to assume it is the result of sentience. That being so, any clone of a human would have one. Any idea to the contrary is little more than the standard religious doctrine of 'hate that which is different', achieved by the simple mechanism of asserting that the target of that hate does not posses something required for acceptance by the group doing the hating.

Did you know that the catholics debated for cent

Re:

[dylan_- (1661)]

Did you know that the catholics debated for centuries whether black people had souls?

No, I didn't. Do you have a cite for this?

Re:

[presarioD (771260)]

If there was a spirit, then it would be logical to assume it is the result of sentience. That being so, any clone of a human would have one.

Heh, but you have to admit the terrifying conclusion of such an assertion. If cloned human beings are manufactured one day and they act, live, breathe, behave just like anyone of us, including having religious worries/sensitivities, then that means that the act of acquiring a "spirit" is internal and not divinely ordained... GASP!

Imagine a world after this makes a fr

Re:

[giorgiofr (887762)]

No, not really. It's what most people already believe. Or do you really think that nutjobs make up a significant portion of humankind?

To-do list...

[Wdomburg (141264)]

1. Clone monkeys.
2. Give them wings.
3. Fly my pretties, fly!!! Fly! Fly! Fly!

Postdated

[Empiric (675968)]

You'd think two-thousand-year-old questions would generally be easy, but I'm still working on this one...

On the day you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will will you do?

--Gospel of Thomas

"giant" step

[olman (127310)]

Not that huge step to be honest. They can create viable embryos easier, yay for them. However, they haven't been able to grow a baby monkey despite trying for 100 times so far.

Tech has "some" room for refinement right there..

Well the World does need. . .

[darnoKonrad (1123209)]

The world does need more human beings, the ol' fashion way is pretty inefficient, and of course reducing genetic variety is a good idea.

I helped build that!

[daoine (123140)]

I work for the company (CRi) that produced the polarized light imaging system (Oosight) that this guy credits for much of this new cloning success. In case anyone's interested the product website is here. [cri-inc.com] and has links to movies of actual monkey eggs being manipulated and having their original DNA removed.

The basic principle is that the highly-ordered molecules on which the chromosomes are mounted are birefringent (they change the polarization-state of light), so if you know what the original polarization state was and if you can measure the state afterwards, then you can detect those molecules, even though they are transparent. As the BBC article says, this means you don't need to use toxic dyes to find them (which is obviously a bad idea, if you want the egg to actually survive the process).

Re:Now if only...

[niceone (992278)]

Heh, not quite quick enough there. Need more monkeys.

and not only for the typewriters.

[edittard (805475)]

I'm sure there's a patent infringement there.

... and not only for the typewriters.

If you are interested in licensing any of our simian IP, please contact the departmental representative, Mr Anthony Abbot, directly.

Yours sincerely,

        God.

Your sig

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

Genesis 1:32- And God typed :wq!

No way. God would have typed ZZ which is quicker and saves about 2 keystrokes.

Re:

[ookabooka (731013)]

Yes well, atleast we know this business strategy has turned a profit even if it took a while, no ??? to fill in. Seriously though, The Wizard of Oz was made in 1932 and didn't make a profit for MGM until 1976, I can't think of any other example of media with that much of a delay.