Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Monkey Cloning. Sort Of. 115

A whole slew of people have written about the announcement from scientists that they have "cloned" monkeys. Actually, in yet another case of bad science coverage (See my rant earlier today), they split an early-stage embryo. So, they really made artificial twins, which they then re-implanted into the mother. Still a heckuva a ways away from actually doing any sort of real cloning, IMHO.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Monkey Cloning. Sort Of.

Comments Filter:
  • I don't know.....this is so lame i wouldn't have even bothered posting the article...i guess this is thier way of telling us to "shut up" uh? *LOL*

    Seriously though, has any noticed that the news reports more and more non-news day in and day out? the side effects of 24hr cable news channels maybe? ah well...
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The artificial twin case smacks of Huxley. Why aren't more people raising a stink about that issue?
  • by dr_labrat ( 15478 ) <spooner&gmail,com> on Thursday January 13, 2000 @10:59AM (#1375288) Homepage
    cool. Now all we need is an assembly line doing this sort of shit and we can get that complete works of shakespeare going....




    or double the IQ of texas or something...
  • Maybe I'm just drunk on car fumes or something, but I did a report on cloning a while back and I swear we've been able to do this for some time. Am I right? Is the only reason you posted this article to make fun of the people that did the original article?
  • They even say that "the method is commonly used in animals such as cattle", so I'm not sure why the fact that it's a monkey this time would be all that important.
    Maybe what makes people nervous is how close monkeys are to humans; that raises implications. ("This is essentially the method of Brave New World" might be overstating it a little, though.) Otherwise, it's already a common practice.
  • by Apuleius ( 6901 ) on Thursday January 13, 2000 @11:02AM (#1375292) Journal
    Which in turn shows a measure of my own stupidity. There. I've said it. The rest of y'all can sit it out while I eat the crow. (Mm.. tastes like chicken.) I saw a headline, and thought the article reflected it. Pass the ketchup.

    The reason I'm stepping forward is to start this discussion: how can a techie community browbeat the media into reporting with a clue? It's frightening to see how the media mislead the general populace so damn stupidly and see the techie sector utterly unable to do anything about it.

    We've just made it out of the Y2K scare, and we're moving on the the usual fare (internet porn, et cetera, et cetera).

    It's also sad to see how many scientists and engineers agree with the phrase "I'm not superstitious in general, but I believe reporters are bad luck."

    *sigh*

  • Wow, they cloned monkeys... I'm still waiting to see scientists successfully get a single monkey drunk. Those poor little chimps are restrained from all the fun their human relatives can have.
  • by jabber ( 13196 ) on Thursday January 13, 2000 @11:04AM (#1375295) Homepage
    It's not cloning by a long shot, but creating identical twins on demand has huge benefits.

    For one, you can create a significant population for a 'nature vs. nurture' study.

    Two, with an identical genetic baseline, all with a specific genetic defect, you can do comparative studies of different treatments. Since treatment on the genetic level is likely to be affected by the genetics of the individual being treated, a 'same' baseline allows for much more reasonable studies of treatment effectiveness.

    Three, again a common genetic foundation in animals engineered to produce a hormone, or grow organs or whatever have you, is going to result in a much more consistent product. And Animal Farm (heh) can essencially be a mass-production assembly line, with little or no variance in the 'components'.

    You can tweak a brood of embryos, analyse the yield, terminate those that are not desirable for your needs, and 'twin' the ones that are. No need to repeat the original impregnation and creation of life - since nature will do that for you. You just pick the good 'fruit' and reproduce it on an assembly line.
  • Okay, despite the fact that this seemingly trivial article was blown way out of proportion by the word "cloning," I can see where this is newsworthy. I mean, if what the scientists say is true and this is the first time that we have been able to create a genetically identical population of rhesus monkeys, then I could see why the scientific community might be excited. Despite the fact that they can probably only get a limited number of offspring from any given zygote. I see this as news not because of the technical achievement but because of the research that it makes possible...if the same could be done with humans then the whole nature/nurture argument could be closed for good in many instances. Depending on how close these monkeys are, this development could end many of the same arguments.

    Invicta{HOG}
  • >Seriously though, has any noticed that the news reports more and more non-news day in and day out? the
    > side effects of 24hr cable news channels maybe? ah well...


    Somewhere, I imagine a room that looks like the engine room of a steamship. Lots of grimy people with hats that have a card labeled "Press" shovel lumps of coal in the shape of /. news icons into a great big furnace. A guy runs in yelling "I don't know how it happened, but the bins are EMPTY!" The Chief Engineer panics "Aww crap. Quick, get the cloned monkey droppings."


    Or at least that's what pops into my head whilst avoiding doing any real work.
  • The artificial twin case smacks of Huxley.
    From the article [cnn.com]:
    "This is essentially the method of Brave New World," said Ronald M. Green, an ethicist at Dartmouth College.
    So we have monkeys standing in for delta-minuses. Unless they all start posting to Slashdot, I don't think it matters.
    --
  • by Tyger ( 126248 ) on Thursday January 13, 2000 @11:06AM (#1375299)
    Did anyone notice the remark that they named it "Tetra" meaning "One of four?" Sounds like a borg monkey name.
  • If you follow the link on the story you will see this is a new technique. This is essentially creating twins rather than cloning. Instead of nuclear transfer(used with Dolly the sheep) they take the embryo after it has split into 8 cells and split it into four embryos each with two cells.
  • Beside the fact that they didn't actually clone these monkeys, cloning monkeys and, yes, even humans, has been perfectly possible for quite a few years now. The only reason it hasn't been done (or at least, hasn't been done and announced publicly) is because public opinion says that cloning of higher-intelligence animals is immoral. Nevermind that this belief is completely unfounded and illogical...even so, scientists are allowing a simple belief to stand in the way of scientific progress. This is akin to scientists refusing to endorse the theory of evolution because Christians don't believe in it. Sheesh.

    --

  • I guess since the world didn't end with Y2K, CNN is desperate for anything with a buzzword in it. I'm looking forward to the day when we see something like "Linux inventor combines DNA with well known athlete" and they talk about his daughter. Tabloidism is the order of the day.

  • by INT 21h ( 7143 ) on Thursday January 13, 2000 @11:11AM (#1375303) Journal
    In a sense, splitting an embryo IS cloning. In Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", this is exactly what's done (plus some other ethically very questionable things) to produce workers (gammas, deltas and epsilons) while higher caste embryos were left unsplitted.
  • For an example of a clueless reporter, check out this article [nytimes.com]in today's NY Times.

    I don't know if the reporters are dumb, or the write for dumbies, or both.
  • "Oh my gosh, a technological innovation that's similar to something in a dystopian SF novel! We're doomed!"

    The "mass produced people" thing was brought up when Dolly was cloned. This is just another technique. Whether it's abused or not depends on a lot of other factors.

    Send me to an island and give me my damn soma ration!

  • Wow. This would be really useful if you were only wanting kids to get the income tax write-off. Two kids for the price of one :)

    I'm sure they'll find a way to tax this.


    kwsNI

  • Regardless of whether or not monkeys have been oficially cloned, it is safe to say that eventually they , as well as humans will be cloned. There are only minor technical glitches to be worked out, if that. The True issue is a moral and ethical one. Do humans have a responsible enough nature to handle the implications of cloning effectively. In effect, we will be Creating life from something that would not have been alive, or something (or someone) that had been dead. Humanity would be venturing into the realm formerly the domain of gods, and it wouldnt be the first time we have done so either. Almost all technical advancements have some sort of morality problems with them, from the internet to contraception, yet morality does not advance. It seems to me that while Technilogy advances at an exponential rate, morality advances at a linear rate, or worse, doesnt advance at all. Our Civic and religeous leaders need to get caught up with the technological advances of the day, and realize the implications thereof, otherwise we get uncontrolled growth of things that are bad (MS) and have to wait longer for things that are good, that is things that are fair and equitable to the masses, things that prevent the destruction of things that ordinary citizens value, and the proliferation of peace and tranquility (or Quake II networks, either way). I dont think that technological advancements like cloning should stop, or that technological advancement in general should be slowed, but what should happen is that morality should keep pace with technology, so that we dont get silly people in congress saying censor the internet or down with violent video games. ok, thats my rant for today

  • Alright! All the monkey's we want! Cool!

    But I personally don't want a monkey, cloned or otherwise.(What you do in your own home is your own biz) What WOULD be cool is if they would clone part of a chimp (eyes, organs, etc) like was posted here [yahoo.com]. That would mean vat grown replacement parts for us human-types aren't too far off.

    I do not want what YOU haven't got.

  • Unless they all start posting to Slashdot, I don't think it matters.

    uh, too late.

    "f!r$+ p0$+!"

    ..end quote.

    --t
  • "What we're on the road towards is making identical twins, identical triplets, and the identical quads which could serve as the models for treating the life-threatening diseases that still plague us today," [Schatten] said.

    Wait a minute here! The article talks about monkeys, true, but how far is this really from the process of cloning humans? Sure, we'll split an early embryo now and freeze half. That way, later in life when the poor schmuck drinks himself half to death, we can bring the other half to term (splitting it again, of course) and give the guy a new liver.

    I'm certainly no right-to-life advocate, but once an embryo comes to term I don't think anyone would argue that it's now a living being.

    I'm rambling, of course. The implications of something like this are just too frightening to imagine.

    [this .sig intentionally left blank]

  • Before all this talk about "cloning" in the media, "clones" used to mean identical copies. The monkeys in the CNN article will indeed have identical DNA, so they will de facto be clones of each other. Sure, we could also call this identical twins but why this rant?

    People reading scientific papers are, just like everyone else impressed by buzzwords (like cloning). Like it or not. But they obviously do it to get attention. I see no reson to rant when someone actually uses a buzzword in with the original meaning. Sort of like replacing "going to the movies" with "having a multimedia experience" :-)

  • The reason I'm stepping forward is to start this discussion: how can a techie community browbeat the media into reporting with a clue?
    If the news service has a message board, you could post a nicely-worded but strongly negative response pointing out the reporter's errors in detail. To add further injury, you could add the URL's of discussions, FAQs or other resources where the facts have been hashed out already. If you can get the common reader to distrust the accuracy and spin of the news organization and/or reporter, the news organization will either have to improve or die. If this means dumping the reporter or sending all their material through a review process before publication, does it matter?
    --
  • by konstant ( 63560 ) on Thursday January 13, 2000 @11:32AM (#1375315)
    Clones are twins. And twins are clones. I understand that you'll reserve the term "clone" until I can take a clipping from your fingernails and grow a Hemos Mark II inside a bubbling vat, but in my opinion it's pretty important not to make this false clone/twin distinction.

    The reason is that, if we continue to think of a clone as different from a twin in some vague, undefinable way, then we are sure to treat clones as less than human if ever the technology becomes widespread.

    People are often arrogant about the things they create. If we allow ourselves to be deceived in considering clones "our creatures" rather than as human twins achieved at a rather late date :-) then we know what will result. We've all read the sci-fi: sex slaves, war drones, and second class status.

    Yes it would be stupid! Surely the origin of a genetic duplicate is irrelevant when determing the intrinsic worth or rights of the duplicate. But somehow I fear that logic wouldn't play a very large role in the decision.

    We have a chance to forstall all this if we try to change our thinking now, before clones are walking down the street alongside us.

    Clones = Twins
    Twins = Clones


    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
  • by Apuleius ( 6901 ) on Thursday January 13, 2000 @11:38AM (#1375317) Journal
    Too many reporters and media companies are not just clueless, but they don't care.

    It's going to take a bit more.
  • Unless you can convince me with one heck of a good reason why this is a Good Thing.
    .oO0Oo.
  • by jgrr ( 103745 ) <j-rosenau-11&alumni,uchicago,edu> on Thursday January 13, 2000 @11:41AM (#1375319) Homepage
    My cell biology text says that a clone is "a population of organisms derived from a single ancestor and therefore homogeneous." Which is to say, a population in which all individuals have no genetic difference.

    Cloning doesn't require that the original cells not be eggs. It is certainly true that the achievement is minor, since it imitates normal biological events that occur when producing identical twins.

    What made Dolly neat was that they made a clone from a cell that had differentiated and was therefore in theory incapable of producing anything other than udder cells. Dolly is no more or less a clone than this monkey, and I bet that more monkeys survive this kind of cloning than would if they cloned skin cells.

    Since so many monkeys are endangered, it isn't surprising that they want to be able to clone them, and this is cheaper and easier than what they did for Dolly.
  • I live on the same street as the primate research center... used to drive by it everyday going to work, found it amusing that almost every day there were protesters and a security van a few feet away keeping them all in check...

    I value monkeys and wildlife, I really do... but if those people spent half the energy they do trying to improve the human condition, maybe there wouldn't be any need for primate research... or maybe they could do it more humanely.

    Just a few thoughts. You know, the funny thing is, that here in Beaverton the primate research center isn't even given a second thought... all of the attention comes from elsewhere.

    I also think it's quite weird... just down the street from all the protesters are a bunch of restaurants, serving ground beef and chicken and stuff from lots of dead animals... I'm no vegetarian but I really think it's hypocritical to eat meat if yer going to protest primate experiments.

    Thought my geography could give a little perspective there... now back to your regularly scheduled trolling...


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
  • Yes, this has nothing to do with the cloning techniqe used to clone dolly, but I do really think that we have been able to do what was described for a long time, longer then we could clone sheep as well.

    "Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
  • I believe it, no problems. And Cloned Monkeys may fly out of my butt. What does hurled, cloned monkey crap smell like, anyway? So whaddya eventually get when you set an infinite number of monkeys banging away at typewriters? The photocopied works of Shakespeare? I'm guessing that Monkeys are closer to some other worthless mammal which are 'impossible' to clone because they're too complex... Any clues? Old news, apparently.
  • by |ckis ( 88583 ) on Thursday January 13, 2000 @11:48AM (#1375323)
    Yes! This is great! We are one step closer to genetically engineering a race of super-monkeys to serve us. No longer will the disabled be the only ones to get cute little monkeys to do all their daily chores for them. Just think, monkeys smart enough to serve us in ways they are incapable of now, but not smart enough to rise up against us. I can't wait until the day when I come home from work and there are monkeys mowing the lawn, cooking dinner, etc. God bless the US of A!
    -
  • Double the IQ of Texas? You mean... 4? (I'm kidding, don't kill me, please, put away the Desert Eagles, I'm sure you Texans are all smart)
  • Dead right. Gardeners have been "cloning" for a long time. Every time someone takes a cutting, dips the end into a plant-hormone to make it grow roots and stuffs it in a pot they've been cloning away like a mad Frankenstein ;) Not to mention the number of insane plants that do it naturally - stands of alder trees, raspberries etc. It's a conspiracy!
  • Does this strike anyone else as a waste of time?? Just about every civilized country is going to outlaw human cloning of any kind, including putting human genes in some other creature to provide implants/replacements. So why are researchers dumping all this money into it? how bout figuring how to cure cancer, huh?
    =======
    There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
  • On Cloning:
    Science is an evolutionary thing. Every step has to be proceeded by the step before. Consider this oversimplified example: In order to put your computer on your desk, two major lines of scientific research had to be done. First, we had to really understand how electricity worked(not just discover its existence)Thank you Nicola Tesla. [concentric.net] Second, we had to discover how to actually make a computer, which we can thank many people, but the one that comes to mind right now is Madam Currie. THEN we had to figure out how to make the two sciences compatible.
    My point is these are all baby steps getting the scientists closer to the end goal, actual cloning.

    On Media:
    The media is very much like a snake with its head cut off. It lashes out at anything it senses, and has no concept of what it is doing.
    Take for instance the story ran just yesterday about DeCSS and its "piracy" software, versus the "Good Guys," the DVD industry. CNN makes me wretch. By the way, the hearing is tomorrow(today, my time.) Big turnout, please! Nothing would make me happier than Open Source supporters standing in the streets because the entire courthouse was chock full. Anyone who can, go support the cause.

  • Unless they have at least four asses, they're useless...

    (sorry, couldn't resist)
  • With all due respect, if this is what you really believe, then you should read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

    Once scientists begin cloning animal 'parts' for testing purposes, what's to stop them from growing human parts to use for testing. And then, how do you decide when you're testing on a human, and when you're not. An assembly line of growing animal parts is scary enough. An assembly line of growing human parts really gives me the willies.

    As with your last point, analyzing a yield of embryos, and terminating those deemed to be imperfect seems to me to be pretty unethical. What sort of very intelligent people would we be losing if this were done. Would Stephen Hawking have been deemed imperfect and terminated?

    And then what do you do with your race of perfect people, when some imperfect people are introduced because they slipped through the system as an embryo? Do you set them up as a race of slaves? Send them to work in factories where they can't hurt anyone. In many places on Earth today, people are discriminated against, but this would only be worse if a race of 'more perfect' humans was created and a couple bad eggs slipped through.
  • I think the biggest problem with morality and technology is that people find it more difficult to apply the same rules to technology as they do to stuff in meatspace. In meatspace it's a lot harder to do certain things. And you're not anonymous. With technology, you can do a lot of things. But people just need to realize that just because you *can* doesn't always mean you *should*.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm no proponent of a rigid morality. But people need to think about who they're hurting before they do something, whether online or off. Those issues haven't changed. What's changed is the accessibility that technology offers...


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
  • by lisa ( 19611 ) on Thursday January 13, 2000 @11:54AM (#1375332) Homepage Journal
    "In 1993 Dr. Jerry Hall said he had cloned human embryos by splitting them, although he said the clones were destroyed."

    He destroyed the clones?? At what point in the lifecycle, I wonder. It seems to me this would have been a huge deal-even if the clones weren't born yet. The pro-lifers would have had a cow. So how come I've never heard of it? They mentioned it so casually here.

    Lisa
    www.grrl.org
  • to break the embryos of five-assed monkeys. That will be the obvious next step in all of this, two monkeys sharing ten asses...
  • Hmm... if they managed this by splitting a later-stage zygote in half, essentially creating two earlier-stage zygotes, what's to stop them from splitting those zygotes in half again? Basically you're limited by the amount of resources you need to grow the zygotes... but for all practical purposes there shouldn't be a limit on the number of possible offspring from a zygote.
    ----
    Dave
    Purity Of Essence
  • The news story is not "non-news." The technology described has great potential in research and production of medicines.

    The problem is in the terminology used. The process described is not cloning, and the reporters (and editors) should have gotten their facts straight. Cloning involves creating a baby animal that is genetically identical to a non-fetal "parent."

    The journalists simply need to use their buzzwords correctly.

  • I don't think I've ever seen such a jarring example of pathetically rehashed buzzwords, and random facts thrown together in a less coherent manner.

    You managed to type 288 (unformatted) words and say nothing."Technology advances at an exponential rate, morality advances at a linear rate" What the hell does that mean? how can you mesure morality quantitatively?

    that we dont get silly people in congress saying censor the internet or down with violent video games.

    Come again? that made no sense whatsoever. What does cloning have to do with video games? nothing you said nothing at all.

    I'm sorry to flame you like this, but presudo-intellectualism has always bothered me. If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything at all?

    At least Jon Katz has some point.

    I know, I know a lot of people don't like my posts ether, but at least I always try to say something even if its not that articulate.

    "Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
  • how can a techie community browbeat the media into reporting with a clue?

    I don't know that we can browbeat them. Most of the paranoia on the part of the public about science is due to the fact that our education systems produce a mandarin-like elite which even within itself contains specialized disciplines that are separated by vast gulfs of ignorance from each other. What we're looking at is a democratic defecit that is created by not educating everyone from birth onwards. Not enough attention is paid to kindergarten and primary schools and the early formative period of children's life. Hell - not enough attention is paid to them in childhood and adolesence. Our society has low expectations of its citizens and indeed for the upper-classes this ignorance is necessary to keep the peasants toiling away for them. We're caught in the contradiction of a non-democratic operational structure underlying a democratic constitution. Education requires resources, requires that the money comes from somewhere - taxes anyone? Who's first?

  • You're that same troll who was ranting over on that thread about Holland, MI, huh? Your writing style is remarkable similar, paranoid delusional, with just a touch of insanity.

    For the sake of all that's good and *cough*holy*cough* I hope you're just trolling.


    If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
  • four words ... planet of the apes ...

    'get your damn paws off me you stinking apes'

  • /. is the future of news, get used to it.

    (no I'm not joking, peer review works great for this stuff, so does hearing a variety of opinions)
  • Unless you can convince me with one heck of a good reason why this is a Bad Thing.

    All the ranting and raving about "weirdness" and "all those Sci-Fi books" is never going to convince me that splitting a Monkey embryo is a bad thing. We've been doing this for years, even on human egg cells. Its nothing new.

    "Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
  • For one, you can create a significant population for a 'nature vs. nurture' study.

    Try meeting some identical twins, it's the exact same thing.

    Two, with an identical genetic baseline, all with a specific genetic defect, you can do comparative studies of different treatments. Since treatment on the genetic level is likely to be affected by the genetics of the individual being treated, a 'same' baseline allows for much more reasonable studies of treatment effectiveness.

    I'd rather see computer models. Even with numerous identical subjects you still only have 1 set of genes, you are testing with a control, but one that isn't necessarily applicable in a real world setting.

    Read "Brave New World", the technique described in the book is the exact same thing these guys are doing and prozac could probably soma a run for it's money. Now we have to consciously decide to not go that route, or do, it's our choice.
  • Do humans have a responsible enough nature to handle the implications of cloning effectively

    I don't know why people always talk about the moral implications of cloning all the time. It dosn't seem to me like there are any: if you can not just cut off a persons arm because you need another one, so you will not be able to clone a whole person and cut off his/her arm because you need another one.. our existing morality deals with it just fine. If you can clone a persons arm (or a body without a brain) then there are no problems with taking bits and pieces.

    Now, there are some scientific ramifications like dose having 10 copies of a bunch of people runnng arround fuck up the gene pool, but that will be handled by scientifically motivated legislation.

    There may infact be some issues with genetically adjusting people's traits before birth, but I'm not too worried.

    It seems to me that while Technilogy advances at an exponential rate, morality advances at a linear rate, or worse, doesnt advance at all.

    There have been points in the past where our morals did not advance fast enough (industrial revolution), but I think that generally this phenomonon is restricted to technologies which (a) directly involve the stupid people (industrial revolution and windows) and (b) no one dose a good job of predicting. I do not feal that genetic engenering of humans will fall into these categories even when we begin to do minor experements on unborn children to see how they turn out (science is generally very careful about what it dose to people).

    Now, genetic patents and genetic engenering of products (like terminator genes) is going to have this problem. We should expect there to be starvation in thrid world countries which get hooked on geneticaly engenered corn which dies out (notice this satisfies both (a) and (b) above).. and we should prosecute the company execs which cause it.

    Generally, I feal that our moras to restrict the use of technology in bad was dose evolve fast enough.. or at least as fast as could be hoped (there is not much you can do about (a) and (b) execpt fix the problem when it happens).

    The much bigger problem is that we reject some applications of technology our of fear and stupidity.. witness encryption, evolution, etc. Example: Neural growth hormone can be used to cure all sorts of neurological diseases (paralisis, alshimerz), but we are not allowed to use it because it is only found in human fetuses, i.e. you need an abortion to get any. This is just moronic as many lives could have been improved with this stuff.. and there are plenty of people getting abortions. I assume the religious right is affraid that abortions would become free or soemthing if this stuff was obtained though them.

    Jeff
  • "We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
  • Too many reporters and media companies are not just clueless, but they don't care.

    It's going to take a bit more.

    I think you missed my point; I'm proposing to embarrass and discredit the clueless reporters (and implicitly, their editors) in front of the readers. If the readers start changing allegiance as a result, page loads go down, banner ad revenue goes down.... This hits the bottom line, and the organization is either going to notice, or bleed to death. Problem solved either way.
    --
  • Actually, researchers generally do a really good job of making things humane. There are a few that do not, but I think most researches would try and keep their animals from going to the places which are nasty. The point being if those protestors could just go to the researchers nicely and get commitments that the animals will only be sent to places with good conditions when theywere done with them, i.e. a black list of bad orginisations would be far more effective then those protesting loons could ever dream of being.

    The protests are especially silly when you realize that the beef industry is probable far more crule then any primate researcher. Who knows maybe all those protestors are vegans.

    Jeff
  • Actually, such philosophical rationalisation is hardly necessary. In Biology, any group of genetically identical organisms is referred to as a clone, no matter how they came about. The term was in use well before nuclear substitution came into practice. Some organisms (those which can reproduce parthenogenetically, such as aphids) will routinely produce a clone - a large number of offspring identical to the mother - when no mate is available.

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • The next thing you know the media will say that monkeys have taken over the capital, and are ruling us humans. Oh wait... they already have
  • An assembly line of growing human parts really gives me the willies.

    Which is very good news if you just happen to have lost yours...


    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • Oh Brave New World! That has such monkeys in it!
  • I don't know.....this is so lame i wouldn't have even bothered posting the article...

    Consider the source (CNN)...maybe the AOL-Time Warner merger is already a done deal and they're just "faking it" right now. :-)

  • But the article was right! Maybe unintentionally, but right all the same.

    The geek readership here have read so much about current cloning practises that many of the non-Biologists among us have wrongly assumed that "cloning"=="nuclear substitution". That assumption is false. In Biology, a "clone" simply means a group of genetically identical siblings. So any viable offspring resulting from a single embryo count as a "clone". This includes natural-born human monozygotic twins, parthenogenetically created batch of greenfly larvae from the same mother, and monkeys grown from the same dissected embryo in a lab experiment.

    All the ranting about bad journalism is not in fact justified on this occasion - and you shouldn't be eating your words.

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • You probably wouldn't be able to get infinite progeny from a single zygote, because you'd eventually run out of cytoplasm. In the early stages of development of most animals, cells divide rapidly but don't grow, so that each time you split the embryo, you'd get half the amount of cytoplasm you started with.
  • That sounds a lot like 'the book of creation', rewritten by Henry Ford. God|Nature on the assembly line... That contradicts the 'evolutionary' law

    Now if they find a cure against, say, hair loss, for genetically identical monkeys|guinea pigs|penguins|rats|geeks (pick your favourite), how much will that result be able to projected against a zillion of genetically different humanoids?

    The 'human health' business is a lot like the 'computer tools' business - they offer solutions for problems we wouldn't have it the first place without them. (Rememver Bhopal? Seveso? Nuclear tests everywhere? Viruses and Bacteriae resisting antibiotica?)

    Don't get me wrong: I am glad there's stuff like aspirine and gin (and tonic) and the like. OTOH, as medicine improves, people get older and lose their minds (Alzheimer, CJD) over poisoned beef instead of having a heart attack some months earlier. (I know I'll talk differently when I'm 80) Anyhow: Cui bono? I'm still waiting for some 'proof of concept'...

  • Earlier this month the New York Times (it's not online anymore) and the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] reported that researchers in Connecticut and Japan cloned six calves from skin cells taken from the ear of a bull and stored for months in the lab. A long ways away from cloning?! The interesting points are that they used skin cells, from a male, and stored them for a long period of time.
  • Once scientists begin cloning animal 'parts' for testing purposes, what's to stop them from growing human parts to use for testing.

    Nothing, I hope. An endless supply of transplants would do a whole lot to end the suffering of people on transplant-wait lists, and might ameliorate the organlegging going on in places like India ($5K for a kidney).

    Would Stephen Hawking have been deemed imperfect and terminated?

    History check: Stephen Hawking was born a perfectly normal baby. He got ALS in his early twenties. Regardless, gene therapy (aided by oh, I don't know, fetal/cloning research?) will go a long way towards repairing lots of minor genetic defects in utero, and make a lot of the unrepairable stuff bearable/fixable post partum.

    This 'race of perfect people' bs is a freaking pipe dream, people -- it assumes monolithic levels of organization in the human race, which there is zero evidence for. The Saudi Arabian parent-in-the-street's idea of perfection is quite different than the white suburban yuppie's version of same, not to mention the gay black yuppie's ideal offspring.

    Cloning in particular, and biotech in general, is not, repeat not, going to result in some bizarre Xerox version of the human race where we all come off some 'perfect' template. Social, political, and market forces make it improbable to the point of absurdity.

    gomi
  • The story behind xbill might become reality. Let's see: Bill steps down as CEO and starts his new project to clone himself into millions of litle men...
  • Yeah, I know...

    However the humour value of that, if I were to have included it in my post would have been limited ;-)


    Besides... How do you know its *not* true...

    If there is a website called www.monkeybagel.com anything is possible...


  • Yes, older than Dolly. Researchers have twinned a human embryo before. You basically just pluck a cell off, and that's it. With the monkey embryo, somebody stuck the plucked cell in a uterus. Most scientists are still a little wary of doing the same with a human embryo.

    This development has potential uses, of course, such as a brand of genetically identical lab animals for research. It's really not that big of a deal, though. Important things, like growing organs, are a lot more complex than twinning embryoes.
  • by Steve_OC ( 86079 ) on Thursday January 13, 2000 @02:13PM (#1375364) Homepage
    Leave the ethical questions to the lawyers, our job is to get the technology working.

    There are several steps to go before this technology can be truly useful ..

    Here is what I would do if I were in charge of the program :

    • Select a number of strong, healthy females.
    • Clone these females in large quantities (tens of thousands).
    • These cloned females become the 'mother units' - I would have them all placed into deep comas, rackmounted, and fed on a computer controlled drip feed of nutrients.
    • You then have a clone factory that can turn out large numbers of a given human genotype in parallel.


    This only provides the raw material though - sort of like a hard disk factory that pumps out 20 GB drives at a rate of 100 per hour.

    What we need to research is the ability to create clones that retain a pre-programmed memory. This way, we can run off a batch of clones that make up a ship's crew - Commander, Engineer, Navigator, Comms Officer, etc. The crew would have a useful lifespan, for operating the ship whilst the next batch of clones was growing in the tank.

    On graduation day, when the next batch of clones matures to age 21, and the generation following them are confirmed to have passed their initial tests, the older redundant crew perform 'The Graduation Ceremony' :

    • The (older) ships captain delivers a stirring speech thanking the current crew, and welcoming the new crew
    • The current crew hand over a large silver key, as a symbol of the official handover of responsibility to the new generation of clones
    • The Younger clones formally salute the older clones as a symbol of their respect and appreciation to the older generation.
    • To the beat of the drums, and the tune of the bagpipes, the older crew march off towards the airlock, where they are then jettisoned into space.


    This effectively solves the very-long-space-flight problem.
  • Wow, they cloned monkeys... I'm still waiting to see scientists successfully get a single monkey drunk. Those poor little chimps
    are restrained from all the fun their human relatives can have.

    Lab animals have it pretty good. Scientists get them drunk/high all the time. It's not too good to be in one of the test groups getting a lethal dose, of course. But except for that, there's some lucky monkeys out there.

    Consider these monkeys:

    Neurotoxicol Teratol 1995 Sep-Oct;17(5):531-43



    Behavioral and neurochemical effects of chronic methylenedioxymethamphetamine
    (MDMA) treatment in rhesus monkeys.

    Frederick DL, Ali SF, Slikker W Jr, Gillam MP, Allen RR, Paule MG

    Division of Neurotoxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research/FDA, Jefferson, AR 72079-9502, USA.

    Effects of chronic treatment with the putative serotonergic neurotoxicant MDMA were assessed in rhesus macaques using
    behavior in an operant test battery (OTB) designed to model aspects of time estimation, short-term memory, motivation,
    learning, and color and position discrimination. After an initial acute dose-response assessment, escalating doses of MDMA
    (0.10-20.0 mg/kg, im, twice daily, for 14 consecutive days at each dose) were administered, followed by three additional acute
    dose-response assessments.[...]

    That was probably a pretty happy group of monkeys. Now granted, the abstract does go on to say that the monkeys were killed and their brains sliced up. And there was a control group that wasn't lucky enough to get high at all.

    I'd worry more about the mouse that mad scientists grew an ear on the back of.
  • yum yum clone a clone
    clone a cone monkeys
    i love clone a clone
    clone a clone monkeys
  • I may be way off bounds, but I thought that true cloning was the creation of identical organisms that did not come from sexual reproduction. In this case, the egg was already fertilized... so, it is sexual reproduction. The monkey produced is NOT a truly equal to the opposite.
    Gazateer
  • There's always one of me just-a hangin' arou-hound.
  • by yet another coward ( 510 ) <yacoward@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday January 13, 2000 @04:56PM (#1375372)

    Animals fall into two broad classes, deuterostomes and protostomes. For protostomes, the mouth forms before the anus. Starfish, jellyfish and insects and protostomes. In deuterostome development, the anus forms first. Vertebrates are among the deuterostomes. The early cleavage of protostomes is spiral. For deuterostomes, it is radial.

    If one removes cells from a protostome blastula after the first few divisions, a deformed, partial organism will develop. Cell differentiation starts early. Deuterostomes differentiate later. An animal can develop normally after removing a few cells from a blastula even after the first few divisions.

    Once cells begin differentiating, it is hard to clone them. Dolly was such a feat because the managed to reset that cell differentiation clock removing the DNA from a zygote, putting in the parent's DNA and doing some chemical magic.

    This feat was accomplished with a mouse a long time ago. I saw it on Nova [pbs.org]. Those researchers also fused two separate, very tiny embryos. One embryo was from a line of white mice; the other from a line of black mice. They got a mouse with patches of both colors.

    Splitting a tiny embryo to make several embryos is an accomplishment. The work is difficult and delicate. Even though cell differentiation begins later in deuterostomes, I imagine it is still challenging to get the cells to survive and then to grow normally.

    Cloning usually means making a genetically identical copy. It comes from the Greek word for twig in reference to the horticultural practice of cutting and grafting small twigs to make clones. Most pecan trees in the USA actually have the roots of another species. Pecan trees do not have sturdy roots. Grafting them onto strong roots solves that problem. These scientists, however, did not make copies of an adult. They cannibalized an embryo. Cloning is still good enough, I think.

  • Twins and clones are not necessarily the same. Mitochondria have their own (small) genome, and mitochondria are inherited soley from your mother (via the egg cell from whence you sprang). So twins will share the same genome and the same mitochondria; clones could have different mitochondria if different host mothers are used.

    This difference would normally be insignificant, but there are some diseases that are inherited via the mitochondria.
  • Ok everyone, I have read Huxley. My post was purely on the scientific potential of this development. Right or wrong was never part of the equation.

    Do I think this can be misused, certainly. So can anything. Do I think that it holds huge potential for scientific advance? Absolutely.

    Two major points to respond to:

    First Using identical twins for Nature v. Nurture is a good step, but identical octuplets would be even better. Especially ones separated at birth, and raised in different environments. I've never met such people. Now, I'm not suggesting trying this with people. Primates will do just fine. Maybe even white mice.

    Then we can make, oh, say, a hundred. And subject groups of ten to different environments. Lots of mazes for one group. Nicotine and alcohol for another. An overcrowded cage for a third. Gay rat parents for a fourth... See where I'm going? Can't do a controlled experiment like this with people. Animals, while still iffy, are much more palletable. (arguably I admit)

    Here is where we visit the Brave New World, but try to prevent it. If we can identify the environmental factors responsible for social stratification (other than $$ obviously ) then, if nothing else, we have a better informed public who is aware of the effects of addictions, education, lifestyle, abuse, etc. It will give people a better understanding, and thereby CHOICES.

    If as a result of gene-restricted testing, we can prove the effects of chemical exposure, learning habits, peer influence - well we can definitively solve a lot of prejudicial and assumption-driven problems. For example, there are still people who feel that blacks are inferior to whites. I'm not one, but you must admit it's true (that there are such people).

    Genetic baseline testing could rule out environmental factors. We could also subject different gene-bases to identical environments and quantify definitively the influence of gene differences. I know it's far off, but we CAN work in that direction, and at least address some of the fundamental questions.

    Second We can't effectively model in a computer those things that we do not really understand. Minds are one thing (that's handled in the above paragraph), effects of gene therapy is another thing. We can make reasonable assumptions, take educated guesses, and run sim after sim. But eventually, we'll HAVE to do live tests before such treatments can be applied to healing people.
    It would be tremendously helpful to keep individual genetic variations of the subjects down to a minimum, so any changes we see are likely not the result of individual differences. I.E. if all your tumor-prone subjects in the control group develop one as a result of a carcinogen, but your test group (with the same genome) does not develop a single one, then you can be reasonably sure (if your sample is large enough - like the aforementioned 100 monkeys (or 12 Monkeys :))) that your treatment is successful.

    If you can not rule out individual differences, you need a bigger sample (to reduce probabilities) and more tests for consistent results.

    So this 'new' technique for pseudo-cloning has great potential, without the added complexity of actual gene-level cloning. It has a slew of moral/ethical issues attached - but no fewer than cloning on the genetic level. It's less 'pure' than cloning, since even identical twins have genetic differences (always confused me WHY, but it's true) so true cloning is better for my suggested applications than these 'tweens'. I suppose that even pure clones will have genetic variation due to mutations during gestation, yadda yadda IANAgenetecist.

    And if the cost of tweening is much cheaper than that of cloning, which way will it go first? Right.
  • Every time I see someone mention the "million monkeys" thing, I am compelled to offer this link:

    Monkeys, Numbers, and You [brunching.com]

    Enjoy.
  • Now I'm wondering what happens to all those unused frozen embryos. Are they destroyed, too, or kept so people can have children (through surrogates) years after they're dead? Does anybody know?

  • Here here! It the same ppl who have problems with this who have "moral" issues with cloning. (Although I will ride the wave of moderation and reply to your 5 instead of the "morality" threads 3...) People, even if you've got an embryo, you're NOT going to get a living (complex) organism out of it. If you clone a person, you still need a women and 9 months before you have a human being, and many years more before they'd be usefull as a soldier. They still need to be raised, educated, instructed... in short, they will need to live their own life.

    No, the problems won't come from cloning... in fact I see cloning as having no meaningfull effects beyond that of a "curiosity" and the previously mentioned scientific applications.

    Call me when you grow a super-soldier in a vat in 6 weeks. That will impress me.

    "God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstein

  • Jettisoned into space??? Are you NUTS? "Recycle" them for the nutrient drips!

    Solyent green is people!

    "God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstein

  • The pro-lifers would have had a major cow; if the destruction of human embryos in medical research wasn't so common that it would mean screaming 24/7. As it is, pro-life groups keep trying to cut off federal funding for all forms of human embryo research.
  • This is akin to scientists refusing to endorse the theory of evolution because Christians don't believe in it. Sheesh.

    Just FYI -- only a subset of Christians don't believe it. Pope John Paul II has publicly stated that neither the Big Bang nor evolution are contradictory to the Catholic faith.

    Biblical literalism is, after all, logically impossible. Matthew 27:5-7 established that Judas hanged himself, then the priests took his money and bought a graveyard henceforth known as the Field of Blood. Acts 1:18 establishes that Judas bought land and fell down on it (bursting open and dying from the impact), henceforth known as the Field of Blood.

    (Whatever logical contortions are done, it was impossible for Judas to spend his blood money on the land and then for the priests to spend Judas's blood money on the land.)
  • Madame Curie?

    I can see:
    Pascal (first mechanical calculator)
    Leibniz (first 4-function mechanical calculator, pointed out importance of binary numbers)
    Jacqard (punch-card loom)
    Babbage (difference and analytical engines)
    Thomas Edison (discovery of the Edison effect)
    Hollerith (punch-card census tabulator)
    Aiken (first general-purpose mechanical computer)
    Mauchly and Eckert (ENIAC)
    John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley (transistor)
    Kilby and Noyce (integrated circuit)
    Hoff (microprocessor)

    But Curie did all her work in radiation and chemistry. Perhaps she had some impact on the CRT in your monitor, but lots of people were investigating cathodes at the time.

  • Did anyone here Leno's comment last night?

    It was something like this:
    "It's the greatest breakthrough in cloning since The Backstreet Boys and 'N Sync..."
  • The original article appeared in Science [sciencemag.org], you can find the abstract here [cgi].

    As it was mentioned by other /.ers here, this is real cloning, because cloning, in generally, means "getting something genetically identical". In especially, in molecular biology you often say about "cloning a gene", which has less in common with getting a dozen of Einsteins out of a bunch of Einsteins' hair.

    The goal of the study was twofold. First, it is the first time a nonhuman primate clone was obtained. Second, the idea is of making a large scale experiment to look for possible abnormalities and/or distortions of resulting clones, as well as differences among them.

    Another question was, at what stage of development is it safe to do the embryo splitting, e.g. is it possible to get a 32 cell embryo and divide it into 32 single cells, each resulting in a viable embryo?

    The authors did not answer all the question fully, they rather prepared the ground for research yet to come. There are a lot of things to test, the goal not being necessarly cloning of humans (or even monkeys) itself, but rather basic research on development of primates and establishing cultures of embryonic cells (which are, as you know, very useful, because they are able to develope into any mature cell of a given organism).

    Of course, getting genetically identical monkeys for drug research is also an issue, although I personally consider research on monkeys very questionable. Chimpansees are much more close to humans then most of the people think - if you haven't read any of Jane Goddals books on chimpansees, do not answer to this point of my reply. What I want to say is that I consider it to be more human to do the phase I drug research on human volunteers, yes, or even humans which are forced to do so - but are conscious of what is happening to them. Doing experiments on chimpansees is something like doing research on children for me.

    Regards,

    j.

  • As usual the hot discussion is just a matter of definitions. So to clear things up here they are taken from http://www.phrma.org/genomics/lexicon/ [phrma.org]:

    clone: A term which is applied to genes, cells, or entire organisms which are derived from - and are genetically identical to - a single common ancestor gene, cell, or organism, respectively. Cloning of genes and cells to create many copies in the laboratory is a common procedure essential for biomedical research. Note that several processes which are commonly described as cell "cloning" give rise to cells which are almost but not completely genetically identical to the ancestor cell. "Cloning" of organisms from embryonic cells occurs naturally in nature (e.g. with the occurrence of identical twins). The laboratory cloning of a sheep using the genetic material from a cell of an adult animal has recently been reported.

    cloning: the process of producing a genetically identical copy - or clone.

    twinning: Two offspring developing with the same maternal parent and born at the same time. Twins can develop from the same zygote (monozygotic or "identical twins") or from separate zygotes (dizygotic or "fraternal twins"). Identical twins share the same genetic heritage whereas fraternal twins are no more or less related than are siblings born at different times.

    identical twin: Twins which have been produced by the division of a single zygote (monozygotic). Each twin has an identical genotype. While each twin begins with the same set of genetic information, the effect of the environment within which each individual grows up can cause differences in how their genetic make-up is expressed.

    No wonder people disagree so much on so many subjects when they don't agree on their terminology and don't tolerate the views of others! Twins from more than one eggcell is certainly not clones, while identical twins are usually called "clones" in the media when coming from laboratories. Wether they are truly clones or whatever they are is up to whoever judges them. Whatever reason they have for judging their neighbours. Also, wether a technical cloning has actually been perfomed remains a technical issue in each case. For the rest of us it's just words. I prefer to call them humans, or by their name if I get to know them.

    Human Identical Twins are still human.

    Human clones are still human.

    No Less.

    Not bad from someone from Microsoft though. I guess you're human too *sigh*.

    - Steeltoe

  • In fact, it's standard practice in the cattle industry. It's not even experimental -- big growers do it on a regular basis. It's also, I'm told, the way lab rats are produced. The only things that's different about this is that it was a primate. That's important because it can provide rtesearchers with genetically identical subjects. But as far as cloning technology is concerned, it's _way_ old news.
  • How about I just ignore you instead?
    Well you just couldn't do that could you....

    It's a Bad Thing because it is horrific. Plain and simple.
    What is the intended use of thse experiments? I still need persuading.
    My guesses :
    • Monocultural meat supply. Meat producers like uniformity and predictability. Aside from the questionable nature of meat farming (some other time) monocultures hold the potential for disaster. A disease that affects one will affect all. This is why GM foods are wrong and why cloning animals is wrong. Genetic variation is an essential aspect of the evolution of the flora and fauna of our planet.
    • Mythical right to breed. Most of the attempts at validating embryo research is to "help childless couples". If you can't breed there's a reason. That's life's lottery. I would like the $ spent elsewhere.
    • Breeding identical animals for experiments. As you obviously love animal experiments obviously it won't keep you awake at night. Try visiting one of these places or watch a video. If you still fail to be moved seek medical attention to have your empathy levels initiated.

    .oO0Oo.
  • It's a Bad Thing because it is horrific. Plain and simple.

    So what you are essentially saying is "Its bad because it's bad." Fantastic. That's exactly what I said I did *not* want to hear... oh well..

    Monocultural meat supply. Meat producers like uniformity and predictability. Aside from the questionable nature of meat farming (some other time) monocultures hold the potential for disaster. A disease that affects one will affect all.

    This is true, however most diseases effect all anyway. How many diseases do you know of that only effect a small portion of any given population? Can you name one? I doubt you could. Despite what you think meat producers "want" no one would be stupid enough to endanger the words entire meat supply. We would not be able to feed the world today with the food produced in 1970. Without advances in agriculture, there would be mass starvation.

    Population control? Great idea! Have fun trying to get the 3rd (where 90% of population growth occurs) world to stop fucking. Here's a hint: it ain't goanna happen.

    Mythical right to breed. Most of the attempts at validating embryo research is to "help childless couples". If you can't breed there's a reason. That's life's lottery. I would like the $ spent elsewhere

    It's not your money fuckhead. People can pay for whatever they want. Invitro fertilization is not an unprofitable field. And your "life's lotto" thesis is bullshit. Should we not cure people with AIDS, or give insulin to diabetics? I mean, that's life's lotto to right?

    Breeding identical animals for experiments. As you obviously love animal experiments obviously it won't keep you awake at night. Try visiting one of these places or watch a video. If you still fail to be moved seek medical attention to have your empathy levels initiated.

    I have no empathy for non-humans. On the other hand, I do have empathy for the humans who will be helped by this technology. Unlike yourself, obviously.

    "Suble Mind control? why do html buttons say submit?",
  • I agree...I happen to be a Christian who believes that evolution was the most likely course for the creation of life on the planet. I hadn't known about the Pope's declaration on the matter...that is certainly interesting.

    --

  • If you read the bible you'd know that humans and animals, such as monkey, are separate and different. We were made in God's image. Monkeys were made using a silly animal mold (with not enough butts).

    Anyways, just trying to weld your topic into that of your sig:

    "...knowledge forbidden? Suspicious, reasonless..." -Satan

    What is it suppose to mean? Are these thoughts going on in Satan's head. Is he saying them outloud? To whom is he talking? Is he playing devil's advocate?

    Well, I was hoping you could shead some light (or darkness really) onto this. I guess my ancestors didn't take enough bites of that Apple...

  • Cancer is all about cloning. In fact, cancer is caused by cloning. Certain cells develop an error in their genetic make-up which tells them to clone themselves, even when they should not. The initial cell's copy (a clone) then has the same error, so it too replicates (clones) itself.

    Eventually, you have a tumor. This mass of cancer cells (cells which clone/replicate when they should not) then either becomes malignant or begign. It's benign if it stops with all the unnecessary cloning, malignant if it keeps on cloning when it shouldn't and then spreads throught the body. Death follows.

    In sum, clone research is a Very Good Thing and necessary. In particular, it will lead to further developments in curing cancer. So you are wrong.
  • How many diseases do you know of that only effect a small portion of any given population? Can you name one? That isn't the point, in fact it's the opposite that's important. For most diseases there is a small portion of the population that is naturally immune. This comes from genetic variation. Do u get it?
    Population control? Great idea! Have fun trying to get the 3rd (where 90% of population growth occurs) world to stop fucking. Here's a hint: it ain't goanna happen.
    Go read Malthus
    It's not your money fuckhead. All money is my money. Burst ur own bubble plz.
    I have no empathy for non-humans. One small step from "I have no empathy for non-whites" wanna go there Chad? Nope thought not.
    Chad m8, go buy a monkey and torture it yourself.
    .oO0Oo.

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...