Cloned Animals Show Grave Health Problems 173
selectspec writes: "According to this article in the nytimes, scientists are reporting unexpected levels of defects in sheep and other animals cloned in recent years. Apparently, the cloned DNA is more susceptible to damage during the procedure. This pretty much rules out cloning humans for now." The pivotal battle of bioengineering gets a rain delay.
telomeres? (Score:1)
Re:Hi /. The Matrix has you... (Score:1)
Re:Corrections...(a clarification) (Score:1)
Your post is a perfect example of how most people here DON'T post - it's well thought out, polite, inquisitive, and rational. As for an informed source, there are MANY better than me - I'm a senior college student majoring in both biology and computer science who is actually going into a graduate program in neuroscience.
My thoughts are that there ARE serious ethical questions to be discussed, but I don't think they are so serious as to stop research in the field. I think that issues can be handled by panels of people well versed in the problems (biologists, psychologists, ethicists). I don't think that it will ever be that someone can just get their dead wife cloned, but if human cloning does prove effective as a fertility treatment, it would be even more highly regulated than in-vitro techniques and euthanasia. As for the lesbian baby thing - I think that problems like that will be solved in Europe first, as they seem to be more socially-culturally liberal. But, I doubt that cloning HUMANS will prove to be all that necessary or desirable (although animal research cloning for endangered species, pharmecutical research, and agriculture has some very interesting applications).
I don't agree with the statement "Some questions should not ever need to be raised." If we don't ask questions, we don't grow. Even if those questions turn out to lead down dangerous paths, it is our nature as a curious sentient species to explore and grow along these paths. We need to be allowed to fail if we are to truly succeed. I guess in the end, I'm somewhat of an optimist when it comes to these things - I think that as long as we have rational debates on issues such as this, that the proper course will reveal itself.
BTW - you yourself sound quite informed, and that you've thought about this topic in some detail - may I inquire about your background as well?
Sincerely,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@wm.edu
The full lyrics (Score:1)
Of my own flesh and bone,
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And after it's grown,
Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.
(Chorus) Clone, clone of my own
With its Y chromosome changed to X
And when I'm alone,
With my own little clone,
We will both think of nothing but sex!
(2) Oh give me a clone
Is my sorrowful moan,
A clone that is wholly my own.
And if she's X-X
And the feminine sex
Oh, what fun we will have when we're prone!
(3) My heart's not of stone,
As I've frequently shown
When alone with my own little X.
And after we've dined,
I am sure we will find
Better incest than Oedipus Rex!
(4) Why should such sex vex
Or disturb or perplex
Or induce a disparaging tone?
After all, don't you see,
Since we're both of us me,
When we're having sex, I'm alone!
(5) And after I'm done
She will still have her fun
For I'll clone myself twice ere I die.
And this time without fail
They'll be both of them male
And they'll each ravage her by and by.
Re:Corrections... (Score:1)
Unfortunately, people who have knowledge in the field have repeatedly fucked up royally when messing with the environment. Two examples: pesticides that we were assured by specialists were "safe" nearly wiped out the bird-of-prey population in the U.S., and "safe" fertilizers have made most of the ground water in the midwest poisonous. Have your own well in rural kansas? Too bad, you can't safely drink from it.
While not a biologist, I've worked enough with biologists to know how damn little is understood about genetics. This "we know what we're doing" attitude is such crap. We don't have a freaking clue, and the potential disasters are much greater than the many that "experts in the field" have already visited upon us.
Re:Thinly-veiled anti-cloning propaganda (Score:1)
A human clone has the same rights as any other person. There are no ambiguities at all about this - clones aren't manufactured independently of humans, they're born, just like all babies.
You're definitely letting your irrational, emotional aversion to cloning obscure your ability to reason logically.
As for 'whether we should or not', that's another issue, but I tell you this - if a parent had to choose between allowing their child to die, or using cloning technology to save them, they'll absolutely save their child. Those who choose not to will be about as rare as the present-day monsters who let their children die because they don't believe in immunizations.
Like (Score:1)
Re:Do we need to clone humans? (Score:1)
Re:hyuk (Score:1)
Re:supportive (Score:1)
--
failure rate not acceptalbe w/ humans? (Score:1)
Isn't it a bit hypocritical of us to complain about the high rate of failure of artificial creation of life when the natural rate may not be all that much better?
Re:Furor over cloning: why? (Score:1)
1) Religious. To the vast majority of people, the power of Creation is God's and God's alone. A handful of atheist scientists and geeks don't count.
2) Ethical. What will we, as a race, do with artifical humans? Slave labor? Spare organs? Don't think it can't happen; it's a human conceit that to create a thing is to control a thing.
Re:Blessing in Disguise (Score:1)
Re:Moderate this up, PLEASE! :-) (Score:1)
Re:Bring on the clones (Score:1)
Re:THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION (Score:1)
My question about all of this... (Score:1)
Maybe that's already been answered here, but I didn't see anything off hand (but I've been told I was blind before).
SethD
Re:what about the already born human clones? (Score:1)
a sharp needle and a strong stomach, I would think
Re:hyuk (Score:1)
Gene error: Clone dumped
#
--
Re:redactions (Score:1)
One of the biggest problems with endangered species is a lack of genetic diversity. having a bunch of cloned endangered animals would actually make the problem worse -- not better. Once the funding ran out, you'd have a bunch of (semi) identical twins, (and sick, to boot, given current problems).
AKA. A breeder's nightmare.
--
Re:Apparently (Score:1)
--
Re:What's the problem? (Score:1)
As to the second half of your comment: If a clone makes it past the embryo stage, it won't necessarily get sick and die -- it might just get sick, and need continuous support after that. This is quite different than the ideal cdlone which would be a near identical copy of you (and supposedly just as healthy, intelligent, etc.).
Hmm... Blue face instead of blue screen..
--
Re:Corrections... Kinetics is NOT a binary switch! (Score:1)
The age of a cell, if you measured it by the length of the telomeres in its DNA, would decrease exponentially, not linearly, unlike how most computers tell time. Very few processes in biology are linear...so the way a lot of people on Slashdot think about biology is completely off.
Biological processes are all about parallel processing, with multiple rates of enzyme activity, binding, transport mechanisms all working at the same time, arriving at an 'event' (like cell replicating, or a muscle contracting) that seem linear from a general view, but are actually the result of an innumerable amount of competitive or cooperative cellular functions all working and forming a very complex pattern of results.
Blessing in Disguise (Score:1)
Re:No more free organs...? :( (Score:1)
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Re:Proof (Score:1)
Re:final rebuttal (Score:1)
Re:Proof (Score:1)
Re:Proof (Score:1)
But let's get back on topic. Would anyone want to see a clone of Clinton? I sincerely doubt it, as he didn't seem to have the foresight to avoid the current situation so I don't think he would be able to effectively deal with it now.
Re:Does this mean no dinosaurs? (Score:1)
Well, PA would be a really bad choice for this since she was really pretty bad looking before all the surgery.
Personally I'd say make 20000 Jennifer Love Hewitt clones.
---CONFLICT!!---
Not nanotech; BoiTech (Score:1)
But without a culling process that targets the out of control cells, cancer results.
Somehow, I think this is the long end of darwin; the guys and gals with the cool dna will live longer, have more fun than the ones with the really bad dna. Unfortunately, most of us have worse DNA than the guys who smoke for forty years and don't get lung cancer.
Re:Moderate this up, PLEASE! :-) (Score:1)
Absolutely on target! There is a lot of "chaff" on
My thanks to landley, too.
too lazy for a clever sig.
Re:Bionics is the Answer (Score:1)
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Oh My GOD...I Might be a clone!!! (Score:1)
Telomeres are probably not the problem (Score:1)
First off, so far, cloning involves taking out intact nuclei and putting them into an enucleated cell. We haven't gotten to the point where we can take naked DNA and stick it into an empty host nucleus.
This means that the proteins in the nucleus of the source cell will probably still have an effect on the development process, since, so far, there is no known technique that can remove all the proteins from the nucleus and still keep the structure of the nucleus intact. And it's already known that some of the proteins in an adult nucleus are different than what is found in the nucleus of a zygote.
The heart of the problem is this: a lot of embryological development is actually determined by elements in the cytoplasm, which must interact with elements within the nucleus (i.e., DNA plus proteins) What is speculated is that the different environment of the adult nucleus, particularly after the laboratory processing they undergo, causes all sorts of unpredictable interactions.
So in order to be more successful at cloning, we have to figure out how to reset the environment of the adult nucleus to match that of an embryonic nucleus.
But there is an even more basic problem than that: even natural fertilization and development is subject to a lot of random chance. Sometimes I think it's a wonder that life can reproduce at all. At least with humans, about 15% of recognized pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion and it is estimated that up to 50% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, often before conception has been recognized. It's probably not too different for other mammals. So if scientists continue to get low yields, it shouldn't be that surprising. Even Nature doesn't get it right nearly half the time.
Oh, and just a little quibble about telomeres--a short sequence doesn't automatically and immediately doom a cell. A lot of cells your body have short telomeres and will never divide again, but they'll last almost your entire lifetime anyway (for example, almost all neurons)
Dissappointing (Score:1)
Hopefully we will overcome these setbacks and find out the causes for the defects and weight gain in the clones. This can only further our knowledge and discovery.
Hm... (Score:2)
Now if only we could do something about the death penalty...
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Frankenfood (Score:2)
And it doesn't bode well for cloning animals either.
Re:redactions (Score:2)
Wrong DNA testing will hopefully address issues surrounding health and anyone who uses cloning as an argument is blind to science and the real truth surrounding cloning.
Testing will tell you that you have a problem, not fix it for you.
Given the current state of the art, cloning won't solve anyone's problems. The knowledge gained by experimental cloning will, however, eventually be more helpful. The full process of cloning is simply an 'interesting' and ethically challenging side effect of the real potential. The real benefit would be the ability to take a skin sample and grow a viable internal organ for someone who needs a new one. Even if the replacement DOES have the same unfortunate characteristics that caused the old one to fail, it will probably take as long (possibly decades) to fail as the first one did. That's gotta be worth something.
Later advances may allow any unfortunate faults in the DNA to be corrected before growing the new organ while maintaining perfect tissue compatability.
Much of this cloning research is closely related to stem cell research. Cloning (once improved) may turn out to be a good method for producing compatable stem cells for a patient. Other research may allow for a more direct process that doesn't involve implanting the nucleus into an ovum at all. Only time will tell. Even if so, knowledge gained from early cloning experiments will probably contribute to the solution.
The problems with public perception are an effect of the media which apparently prefers headlines like "Mad Scientists will make dozens of clones of you who will leave their dirty sweatsocks on your coffee table!" over "Cloning research may eventually lead to important medical advances. Limitations make unethical uses unlikely at this time".
Re:Question for those of you that know what's up! (Score:2)
Ansolute zero cannot be reached. It's a physical impossibilty. However, a sustainable fusion reaction should be technically possible.
2) Living matter versus inanimate objects. I know it doesn't seem to make sense, but if we can alter DNA and cell structure, what is the distance we need to go before we can actually alter the molecular structure of inanimate objects. (Lead into Gold)
Is this a troll? You can transmute lead into gold-- but not by chemical (molecular level) processes. A gold atom has 79 protons. A lead atom has 82 protons. Figure out a way to subtract three protons from each lead atom, and you're all set. Of course, the expense of atomic transmutation would dwarf the value of the gold so produced.
3) What do I, as a person, have to fear, or admire, about cloning. I know there is a "mass hysteria" over around the subject, but that doesn't mean much to me.
Some people are afraid of new things. A number of ethical dilemmas would be raised by cloning a person: Suppose Alfred decides to clone himself, and raise that clone (Alfred II) as his own child. Would Alfred II be able to live his own life, free of experiemntation. Or would Alfred attempt to resolve his own personal problems. "If only I practiced the piano from the age of three. Alfred II must be taught how to play full-time." Of course this happens all the time with today's children, but since a child shares genetic material from both his mother and father, both parents (in theory) have a genetic stake in the outcome, ending some of the egregrious "experimentation." My favorite ethical problem has to do with the raising of aencephalic clones for organ harvesting. (Obviously, if a clone were to be used for organ harvesting, genetically stoping brain develepment would be beneficial from a moral standpoint-- fewer problems with homicide laws, and from an energetics standpoint-- the brain consumes an incredible amount of food.) However, some people believe that genetically halting neurodevelopment is itself "playing god."
Hi /. The Matrix has you... (Score:2)
Second what do you think sex is? Just a oooh-my-Gooooooodddd-ooooh-mommmy??? Just ignore this factor for a moment and think. Nature shows that there are some points when even complex organisms may clone. However this occurs in moments when sex turns impracticable. Besides most organisms still try to find solutions to this situation in terms of sex. At least it is known that some birds have the capacity to change sex when there appears only and exclusively members of one sex in the community.
In other cases, on superior animals, such things as cloning can only apear as anomalies. Humans do clone naturally but that happens to women only and in very rare circumstances.
Now why this. For sex to be so stubborn in organisms there should be reasons that practically exclude any other forms of reproduction. Besides it seems organisms do everything to impose a sexist world in reproduction. What is exactly the reason, no one can surely know as natural cloning is very rare. However one can be pretty sure, based on a few theoretical basis, that cloning is real bad for beings. On one organism DNA may suffer tons of damages. Besides, under one organism, reproduction is already on the loose. To avoid serious mutations and rise the chance of survival there is sex.
What is happening with Dolly is the natural result of getting things through the sink. Dolly didn't pass the natural process of selection. God knows what possible mutations can be on the original DNA. Well they were small as Dolly managed to come to light. But they are enough to destroy the poor lamb in a very short time.
Of course one may say that the next step will be to search for "clean" DNA. However, in Nature, that sounds like searching for the "Arians" of genetics. If someone finds a "perfect" DNA for Dolly v. 2.0.1 then that will force the overwrite of the theory of Evolution.
Re:Proof (Score:2)
Re:Furor over cloning: why? (Score:2)
So that cell may be something like 95% of the original organism IN GENERAL.
Some years ago I read an article where some scientists considered that after the specialization of different organs, DNA becomes selective. That means, the organism will work hard to protect those specific sections supposed to answer to the work of a specific organ, however in that organ, all other DNA will be exposed to God knows what. I don't know if this has become a fact or not. But the idea is very interesting. That would mean that cloning would only be worth to reproduce organs. Everything else would be playing with dice.
Re:Hi /. The Matrix has you... (Score:2)
And our environment doesn't produce mutations? Hey they are probably even more in a order than the technological process.
Sex does not either prevent or cause mutations.
Yes it does not cause... However the large majority of mutations are tend to be recessive. That means that the original genes are generally dominant in the process of growth and development of the organism. Also the large majority of mutations are dangerous for organisms. But in this process sex also presents an answer. Truly this one already is distant from the genetic problem itself. It is the process of selection of a mate, from sex behaviours and down to thousands of spermatozoids fighting their path.
So the problem is not just a mixing of gene pools.
Re:redactions (Score:2)
--
Re:Wow... (Score:2)
I don't know about THAT...a typical human being comes from an hour (well, okay, 2 1/2 minutes :-) of "hot monkey sex", and we all know how defective a typical human being is... :-)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Apology (Score:2)
formatting after lokking at the HMTL source.
I'll try to avoid this in the future.
turning on egg cells with violence (Score:2)
turns on an alien nucleus in an egg cell
with an electric or chemical shock.
This is literally the Frankenstein technique- lightning.
This shock is the probably cause of damage
and 97-99% failure rate.
I predict methods will improve with time
to at least human IVF yields (25% success).
I'd recommend delaying human procedures until
this success rate is reached.
Re:Bring on the clones (Score:2)
"Oh give me a clone,
A-a clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X;
And when we're alone,
O-oh me and my clone,
We will both think of nothing but sex.
Clone, clone of my own
With your Y chromosome changed to X;
And when we're alone,
O-oh me and my clone
We will both think of nothing but sex!"
Re:failure rate not acceptalbe w/ humans? (Score:2)
What i was referring to was the high rate of failed development in growing clones. You have a lot who grow to a certain point before horrible deformities and such render it incapable of life anymore.
Natural fertilization has a low success rate, but the failure is right up front with the sperm and egg 99.9% of the time, not 6 weeks down the line after something has been growing (its more like a miscarriage, which of course we DO see as tragic)...
---------------------------------------------
Re:Corrections... (Score:2)
My impression is that the general slashdot population has no problem with cloning whatsoever. We (being non-geneticists) know just enough to understand that really you're just talking about twins, not identical copies of adult humans with all your memories and desires. Its not the creation of a person who could "replace" you, which is the concern of those who don't know anything more than what they see in the movies.
Hearing this more detailed information on the negative effects of cloning on the clone (shorter lifespan, greater suceptibility to disease) is really the first time that i've been "worried" about cloning in any way whatsoever (other than the obviously high initial failure rate, which would not really be acceptable when you're talking about human beings)...
---------------------------------------------
Proof (Score:2)
.max
Re:Hi /. The Matrix has you... (Score:2)
Re:Thinly-veiled anti-cloning propaganda (Score:2)
"What do you do with humans who are born with half a kidney or no immune system?" And, he said, what about the possibility of creating children who appear to be normal but whose genes for neurological development work improperly?"
Well, you know, people "create" children like this every day, through "normal" reproduction. There are children who are born without immune systems (think of the Boy in the Bubble), with half, or even no kidneys, with neurological defects. It's rather strange to assume that these "defects" were created only by the cloning process, since we don't actually know what causes these defects in the first place. Generally, the mice and sheep that are cloned don't have their full DNA analysis prior to cloning. So, maybe they were actually carrying these recessive genes for fatness or bad immune response, or what have you. In any case, assuming that having cloning create a human that has health issues is unethical, while not saying that creating such children through reproduction is a problem, is definitely propaganda.
Thalia
what about the already born human clones? (Score:2)
----------------------------
Re:Corrections...(a clarification) (Score:2)
Huh? I don't see how two homosexuals having a child, and loving that child are mutually exclusive. Is it only mutually exclusive for homosexuals? Does it apply to "unnaturally" conceived children, e.g. by in vitro fertilization, or test tube babies? And how is it any less selfish for heterosexuals to have children? I don't see the difference between the homo- and hetero- case. If it's selfish, it's selfish accross the board. The child will consume just as many resources whether it has hetero- or homo- parents. Births to bobo workaholic parents who leave their children to be raised by television and day care seem "selfish" to me.
"I sincerely do not get all excited about the possiblities of cloning."
Minus the religious bit there, I agree. Just because we *can* does not necessarily mean we *should*. Think of the case where we eventually figure out how to live forever. *Should* we? If we posit that there are finite resources in the universe (don't know if that is true), then we can't both live forever *and* reproduce forever. Is it "fair" to deny successive generations their chance to live? This is just one humongous can of worms that we are barreling towards full steam.
Re:Bring on the clones (Score:2)
Justin Dubs
Re:Proof (Score:2)
-----------------------
Why human cloning is unethical (Score:2)
"The primary problem is that cloning violates the unique identity and inherent dignity of each person. The clone will not be the genetically unique mixture of two parents, but an exact replica of only one person. This lack of individual identity will cause massive psychological scarring and familial disruption. How can one live in the shadow of one's older self and their reputation, accomplishments (good or bad) and physical ailments? How do we view ourselves if our sole reason for existence is not love, but utility? How do we make sense of our identity within a family? These questions suggest that our culture's sense of human development, personal identity and family relationships will be shattered."
Anyone who's considering cloning themselves should think very hard about this. The parents and other family members will always expect the clone to be "just as good" as the original. If a doctor clones himself, and the clone decides that he wants to be an artist instead, the doctor will consider his "son" (or daughter) to be defective somehow. I suspect that if human cloning does become possible, we'll have a collection of clones with such massive psychological problems that it will become illegal.
--
Lord Nimon
Re:redactions (Score:2)
So the technology at the current stage is imperfect. So what? This is not an argument against cloning, this is an argument against cloning TODAY... I am not arguing that todays cloning methods are perfect (I am not an expert by any means) but this is not an ethical argument again cloning!
We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives. Wrong DNA testing will hopefully address issues surrounding health and anyone who uses cloning as an argument is blind to science and the real truth surrounding cloning.
You have given no evidence that this is a misconception... in fact it is likely to be true. With perfect (or near-perfect) copies of cells, logically treatments can be tested much more efficently.
Assumptions and statements such as this are thrown in the loop by those who are in power to gain financially by supporting cloning by attempting to empathize with those suffering.
You don't know that. You CAN'T know their reasons! And again, your suspicions about their empathy have nothing do do with any reason for or against cloning.
Endangered species could be saved - Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species, including human beings.Animals and plants could be cloned for medical purposes - Through the research leading up to human cloning, we should discover how to clone animals and plants to produce life-saving medications. Personally I think DNA research is a better solution.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but that was not a response to the "misconception" at all. DNA research to save endangered species and plants??
I certainly don't want a world full of genetically identical people, but I do know that advances from cloning (and your precious DNA research) are going to improve the world around us. Further, the imperfect cloning technologies of today are also going to improve.
-rt-
Re:Why human cloning is unethical (Score:2)
A similar argument can be made against twins, and in fact, twins do have worse sibling identity problems than non-twins, especially if the parents overdo the twin thing.
Yield problem (Score:2)
OK, they have a process yield problem. The semiconductor industry deals with these problems all the time. First you figure out exactly what's being damaged, then you study the damage mechanism, and then you find a way to stop it. The cloning industry will have to develop similar solutions.
confusing info (Score:2)
yet some have said it's not the case, and now there are problems again.
i'm not a big fan of cloning...i think there are a lot of nasty issues when you start cranking out genetically identical populations.
i'd much rather see more work in lab-grown replacement organs and limbs...as well as bringing fetuses to term...although i have concerns about that too.
Re:what about the already born human clones? (Score:2)
I stumbled onto the "all your base..." phenomoneon on /., pretty much like you did except that I wasn't away very much. The .sig was my response to what I thought, at first, was just /. silliness, but there were hints of something bigger.
So, I typed "all your base are belong to us" into Google, just like that with the quotes and everything. I got the complete history of it, but I didn't save the URL.
To make a long story short, it all started with a Japanese video game with poor English translation. It snowballed from there, with the production of a slick photoshop/flash music video as one of the major catalysts for widespread popularity.
Why health defects happen (Score:2)
How does this apply to cloning? Well, DNA taken from an adult cell to make a clone has already begun to have it's teleomeres decay. So, while a clone's body may only be a few months old, it's DNA can be much older. Essentially, the aging process runs much faster.
This is not to say that making healthy clones is impossible, however. For several years, biochemists have been researching an enzyme called teleomerase. This enzyme repairs teleomeres, so that they never run out (cancerous tumors use teleomerase to grow beyond 90 or so cells). If teleomerase can be synthetically produced in mass quantities, not only will we have healthy clones, but we'll also have cured one of the most signifacant components of aging, dramatically increasing the human lifespan.
Re:Bionics is the Answer (Score:2)
A stell heart might be great, but they'll never make a steel liver. Natural replacement parts will be better most of the time.
I KNEW IT!!! (Score:2)
That explains everything -- why, when that guy sold me that Anna Kournikova underwear and I extracted the sweat to clone my own AK, out came a middle-aged Portugese woman with a lisp. I thought maybe I'd gotten swindled, but now I can be sure it was just a freak mutation. Phew!
Back to the lab...
Drink more tea
organicgreenteas.com [organicgreenteas.com]
Re:Corrections...(a clarification) (Score:2)
It is good that you agree that public discourse on the subject is not only valid, but vital. I grew up believing in the ideal of the pure scientist, one for whom questions of ethics didn't really exist because his motives were purely driven by his inquisitive nature. In this day and age, unfortunately, that isn't the case. One can never be sure of an individual's trustworthiness; in fact it is the danger in this technology being delivered into the wrong hands that is often a big argument for continuing research wherever it might lead, so that we might be able to combat the "Dr. Evils' of the future world when they discover the technology independently*. This was also the argument in the 1950's for continuing research on atomic weapons. I don't have to tell you where that led: Plutonium Injections [lanl.gov], the 'Green Run' [djc.com], and all sorts of environmental clean-up issues that persist today.
I don't know how to stop the incredible hubris of people, now that pure scientists don't exist so much anymore, or if they do, are overshadowed by greedy and evil men, or utter fools. But I can set them all up for one massive 'told ya so'!
What I meant about those questions should not need to be raised: hypothetically, sure, but perhaps not in real life. My kids have a cousin who was born to two Moms... so far, so good. Oh! That made me think of a fleeting thought I had about an hour ago. Such births to me (sorry if I offend) are not about loving a child, they are about people having a child for themselves. I actually do consider such acts selfish ones. Creation of a child out of Love comes only from God. There goes the Luddite side of me again. I sincerely do not get all excited about the possiblities of cloning. Genetics, sure, but not cloning. I am not a religious man, but I like to think I know God a little, and I am pretty sure that the job of creating life is still best left to Him. We are bound to cock it up!
BTW, you will almost Never see me comment on Linux issues or servers, although I read the posts. Programming in perl will have to be done in a future life. heh, maybe my clone will pick up on it...
One more personal note: you should not post as an AC, you have too much to offer this forum, and unless astute moderators pick up on your posts and elevate them, we might never get to see them.
*- and the fact that, as it turns out, cloning is not much more difficult than IV fertilization makes it especially dangerous. Very few people today can build a back-yard H-bomb.
Re:The telomeres are the interesting bit. (Score:2)
Now back to the topic: inasmuch as scientists are finding that they cannot completely duplicate the entire genomic sequence for a single creature, doesn't this mean that unless they have a way to accurately determine that the DNA matches exactly that of the adult, then they cannot legally, ethically, or morally proceed to clone humans (and PETA soon will speak up on the creation of animal monsters, I imagine)? Forgive my use of the perjorative 'monsters', but it is exactly how I see it. In this month's Wired we see the battles between an artist and a biotech firm over a glowing rabbit - a rabbit whose genes were spliced with (or somehow infused with) fluorescing bacteria. IMHO the genetic scientists have already crossed moral barriers in their research, but I suppose there is little we can do simply because corporations Want this technology. In the meantime we have recalls on genetically-modified corn (star-link?) in Trader Joe's food stores here, but corps are fighting for their FrankenFoods...
*sigh* Coming from Florida as I do, I know of the dangers of scientists' (and corps) meddling with nature. We have kudzu, supposed to be a boon for feeding goats, but instead a rampant consumer of everything in its path ("you have to close your windows at night to keep it out of your house" [ua.edu]); we have love bugs [theslant.com], which were bred for noble reasons, I'm sure; and we have recently, in the University of Florida, seen African Trout, imported to help process wastewater streams, take over the habitats of all other fish. In California we have mustard plants, and of course everyone knows the story of killer bees.
Not to stray too far off-topic, but it seems to me that we are headed for monstrous problems of biblical proportions, revealing the real lesson behind the parable of eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Mankind cannot be trusted with this information, because he can't help himself, even though he call himself a responsible scientist. Books are filled with the folly of arrogance, from Frankenstein (and don't tell me that it doesn't fit here) to Robin Cook's Acceptable Risk.
..and I'm serious when I say this: "God help us all." Wow, I've become a Luddite in five minutes.
Re:The telomeres are the interesting bit. (Score:2)
Re:Question for those of you that know what's up! (Score:2)
3) Eventually, we will learn to clone people without higher nervous systems, and (relatively) ethical people will get organs cloned like in all the near-future sci fi. A public outcry in the west will not prevent rich people from getting their cloned organs, sooner or later. I tell you, and you will believe me, that this will happen. The degree to which clones will be grown for organs and even-more horrifyingly slaughtered, I'm not sure of, but we'll see it at least attempted within our lifetimes. The ability to grown clonal organs (which will always require growing a whole bunch of extra body)
Cloning will also arise as a (hugely expensive) fertility alternative for the genetically chauvenistic. Because of the health effects on the young woman who are forced to repeatedly ovulate so that their eggs can be harvested, this is a BAD THING. If that angle can ever be eliminated by advances in biotechnology, then it'll become a harmless way for vain rich people to waste huge amounts of money.
Hope that's clear.
Re:Corrections... (Score:2)
For those slashdotters without a background in genetics, let me explain - most linear DNA chromosomes (like in people) have a bunch of gibberish at each end; this is because, when you duplicate something in the way linear DNA is duplicated, you lose a little off of each end. Telomeres (of which there are thousands, as I recall, on the end of each chromosome) are duplicated by a different mechanism. So, when a cell copies it's DNA, a telomere is lost, and telomerase (in those cells in which it is active) comes in and tags on a replacement telomere. Unlike other parts of the chromosome, this telomere is not a copy of what is on the opposite strand; it is copied from a special template that the telomerase enzyme carries with it. In cells without active telomerase, if and when they divide (which most cells in your body are not supposed to do) the telomeres are lost - if the telomeres ran out you'd start losing DNA on the chromosome itself. However, there are so many telomeres that a tumor, for example, would have to grow to the size of a small city before this happened, so it's not an issue. However, for complicated reasons which, I'm afraid, you computer types really wouldn't understand, it may matter how MANY telomeres you have on each end of a chromosome - no one's exactly sure why, but turning on telomerase in mice definitely does SOMETHING, and it IS NOT preventing the mice from "running out" of telomeres.
However, it is commonly agreed that a shortage of telomeres, even though these clones may suffer from it, is not what is causing these immune deficiencies or the mental retardation in the cloned mice.
On a side note, the NYtimes article talked down too much. "Reprogram the DNA" my ass. That's simplified to the point of being BS.
I agree with other posters that people with no particular background in genetics can, and indeed should, comment on this highly important topic. Cloning, I think, is perfectly ethical in and of itself, but there are a number of ethical issues, including in particular the health of the young women used as egg donors, and of the treatment of clones who may be grown as organ farms, that arise about and around cloning and the opinions of people with no background in genetics are as valid as the opinions of the previous poster and myself.
Dr. Preatorious is a character from Frankenstein. I'm still a graduate student. Wouldn't want to mis-characterise.
Re:Furor over cloning: why? (Score:2)
The post you're replying to...it's trying to point out exactly why this isn't a problem. Slave labor...yeah ok... how does that follow? Because we can do an artificial insemination where the the DNA is (mostly) identical to someone else's? Why does it follow from that that someone would say, "hey, this person isn't really a full-fledged person"? Do we say that about any "test tube babies"? No. And, gee...the DNA was always coming from someone before anyway, it's just that now it's coming from one person instead of two. Whoopty-do. Clearly that means that nobody will think they're actually full-fledged humans with real identities and they'll sell them to make soylent green.
Re:Trouble on the horizon (Score:2)
I mean, while I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion of genetically engineered humans, I must admit I'd rather see the American people focused on something that seems largely harmless. And is cloning harmless, or have I been watching too much "Dark Angel" and reading books like D.W. St. John's "Sisters of Glass"?
Re:Thinly-veiled anti-cloning propaganda (Score:2)
If a human clone dies will the scientists be held responsible for murder? If a human clone gets experiences other medical problems as a result of the cloning process...would the scientists responsible for the cloning be responsible for abuse?
Just because we have the scientific capability for cloning doesn't necessarily mean we should do it.
Wow... (Score:2)
Re:what about the already born human clones? (Score:2)
Kierthos
Bionics is the Answer (Score:2)
But why would you want to replace something so flawed and imperfect with something equally problematic? The fields of mechanical and materials engineering are very rapidly advancing. If instead of pumping millions of dollars into this ridiculous, trivial genetic "engineering", imagine what could be done by putting the money into researching powerful, reliable mechanical replacements for imperfect biological organs.
Imagine a steel heart. It would not have to worry about being rejected by the body. "Oh no, I am being attacked by T-Cells!!" the strong, reliable, mechanized heart would say as it steadily and rapidly pumped an abundant supply of oxygen-rich blood to the entire body for the next 400 years.
---
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod me down please (Score:2)
Failing that there's always the talking Apes...
last but not least (Score:2)
Conceiving a clone [thinkquest.org]
6 days [antioffline.com]
Mini-me for example... (Score:2)
Bring on the clones (Score:3)
Furor over cloning: why? (Score:3)
So I'd say this news is a good thing, if it means that the feasibility of creating human clones is delayed until the furor on both sides of the current debate has calmed down.
Re:The telomeres are the interesting bit. (Score:3)
Not to stray too far off-topic, but it seems to me that we are headed for monstrous problems of biblical proportions, revealing the real lesson behind the parable of eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Mankind cannot be trusted with this information, because he can't help himself, even though he call himself a responsible scientist.
Well, this is only "god awful" from the perspective of humans. Think about the human race from a meta-stance. When kudzu takes over the habitat, we throw up our arms and say "oh, look what it did!". When we take over the habitat of, say, himalayan black bears and they face extinction, it's "oh well, we've got to live somewhere".
Introducing foreign species to habitats is destined to wreak havoc on those habitats, no question about that. However, it is dumb to think of nature in terms of status quo. Nature constantly adjusts and reworks its balanced structure. Today kudzu took over half the Southern US, tomorrow another organism will make use of this vast amount of food supply and kill off most of kudzu. The nature will find a way to regulate itself.
We, as humans, should be less concerned about "preserving nature", but really we should concern ourselves with the fact that we are making the environment unfriendly to the survival of our own species. Life has many forms and even if we screw the environment many times over, some sort of life will continue to exist. The problem is that Earth won't be suitable to sustain Homo Sapiens Sapiens and we will have to either live under glass roofs in an artificial environment, or modify ourselves in order to be able to survive in a new habitat.
Either way is rather grim, although some people wouldn't see anything wrong with genetic modifications (think X-men). :)
Re:Corrections... (Score:3)
Bullshit. There's all kinds of evidence that telomerase is active in the vast majority of cancers. Even the most cursory search on Medline will show this to be the case. Just a few references (of literally hundereds):
Telomeres (of which there are thousands, as I recall, on the end of each chromosome) are duplicated by a different mechanism. So, when a cell copies it's DNA, a telomere is lost,
The "telomere" normally refers to the entire structure.
However, for complicated reasons which, I'm afraid, you computer types really wouldn't understand
Yeah, whatever. So you're a graduate student, are you? Please tell me it isn't in mol bio or anything medicine related.
Re:Corrections... (Score:3)
Thank you for clarifying those important points about cancer and the Adenine string, I suspected it was a little off, however interesting.
Anyway, cloning is not the END of the world, as neither are kudzu, killer bees, and love bugs. It is a powerful technology that has a great inherent danger, and it may very well lead to the end of the world as we know it. Already we are contemplating a world in which eating meat becomes somewhat rare, as a direct result of things such as cows eating their ancestors' brains (a genetically-related disease if I am not mistaken). Scientists are aware of these but it doesn't necessarily stop them. How are we (as uninformed script kiddies) to reconcile Wired magazine's recent cover article "You Again: A Human will be Cloned this Year" with the abovementioned article?
You sound like an informed source. What are your thoughts on the ethics of cloning in light of the current state of the art? It's more than just being able to stick a nanometer pipette into a nucleus. I agree that research should probably continue, but even though I am pro-choice, I shudder at the thought of creating cloned human life for any reason. Many are sanguine, including Matt Ridley. We experienced this sort of moral dilemma when we were able to make test tube babies, it is true (through a process much like cloning), and it is also true that we are all pretty much okay with that now. But with all the litigation about parental custody over frozen embryos and sperm today, with lesbian couples having children without the benefit of a father, you can't tell me it doesn't pose real and critical moral dilemmas.
Now we're going to get men who want to have their wife back at any price after she died in a car accident so he creates a girl out of his wife's DNA. Think about it - and very much in the Frankenstein sense, in the soliloquy where he confronts his creator on top of the mountain (highly recommended passage BTW, if not the whole book) - what Right did the good Doctor have to create the monster? And what claim does the man have over his daughter, er, baby wife, er, whatever he had created?
Some questions should not ever need to raised, do you agree?
Playing God, etc. (Score:3)
And so we need to examine the rules for playing God, what that is all about, and the reasons why we want to clone. Without examining this we leave ourselves open to all kinds of criticism, bullets, and other consequences. Of course, if you are a god, you might have the option of not caring, or you may care too much. Opinions vary.
Part of playing at a God in this is being totally responsible for the act and for the consequences. Now you will have some that will say "I want to do it, and not be responsible for the results." Aside from the illogic of this, there is a certain similarity to criminal thought that some will find disturbing.
So part of this is in determining what your definition of a God is, what is a god responsible for, etc.
You also have to determine why you are doing the clone in the first place.Why are you doing this?
You also have to determine the fate of the human result. This is very sticky because it gets into the abortion issues, and the fates of embryos, etc. And you have to decide your position on this, and the fate of the people if they are born. After all, there is the argument that you wouldn't try of some these things after the birth event.
You also have to inspect the fruits of all of these actions for all lines of consequences. It is very usual to argue towards a pre-defined end-result, putting on blinders to other consequences. Leading to the "I didn't know it was loaded" argument when things go bad. This leads into the political arguments about such things as cloned armies (star wars), body part banks, and paranoid visions from the third Reich.
Which means that you need to sort what is means to be a god to in order to cover all of the loose ends. Even if it is to say that you are not responsible for that disaster over there, that belongs to the henchmen.
Of course there's gonna be problems... (Score:3)
This is just another article to scare the general public. The media likes doing that, and this is laden with religious innuendoes and scenes from science fiction. Science has always been held up by those who don't understand it, those who don't want it (because of lost industry -- see the industrial revolution), and those who think it's evil for whatever arbitrary reason.
Cloning a person isn't anything bad, even if it doesn't work 100%. The natural body makes mistakes too, just look at all the birth defects, genetic disorders, etc. It's just matter, so what would be different?
I think cloning was an issue which was just another area of research in genetic engineering until it became a political issue on the back of candidate cards, and they let the average Joe-blow hole and his frizzy hair wife have their 20 seconds of fame telling the world how bad it is. Or the president who uses such creative analogies as "...the warning light on the dashboard of America." have his say in it.
Ultimately, human and animal cloning will become the norm., despite the "errors" of first generation technology. I don't see it hindered by it at all; More like annoyed. All we need now is someone to make the first step, which you know is going to happen, before cloning starts to happen en masse--pretty soon it'll be at your local hospital.
Then, there will be another issue for everyone to concentrate on (e.g. world keeps turning, life goes on, blah blah)...
Love the media and frizzy haired, completely homogeneous general population.
supportive (Score:3)
D.N.Army [sciencewise.com]: the Implications of Human Cloning on Future Military Forces
Bioethics of Cloning [antioffline.com]
HumanCloning.org [humancloning.org]
I have a shitload more so if anyone wants any email me for em. (you surely can find my email address now can you)
Well I know it has little to do with Dolly, but many people have taken the wrong views and assumptions of what cloning really is.
Speedy's not a clone [speedygrl.com]
final rebuttal (Score:3)
Um unless you haven't had a full understanding of this, Dolly was supposed to be the perfect clone of a sheep. Maybe its me misreading or something, but DNA testing holds the fixes for bad DNA and its DNA which makes the building blocks for life. Cloning something out of the blue will not fix any imperfections within anythings DNA
Ever notice that those in support of cloning either have extraordinary gains from it, finances, a loved one who is sick or died. Ever notice how they;re the ones to wholeheartedly vie for cloning. Last time I saw anyone outside of these means say "Hey why not just make a clone for the hey of it" was.... never Am I allowed to infer or must my opinion on the matter be revoked because someone doesn't neccessarily like what I say, or maybe misinteprets or misunderstand it?
It was a misprint but now that you mention it, lets take a close DNA exam of a Panda, how its body is composed, what illnesses is it succeptable to and act from there, you don't neccessarily need to clone an animal to save it if its endangered. You could study up on it and determine better situations for the remaining animals to survive in greater fashions.
You assume cloning will make things better whereas DNA is already there, its the building blocks of life not some copy or shoddily produce replica of it. So heres for your arguments sake...
Lets create say 10,000 clones to create, watch as they grow, learn, etc. Then lets watch these people (remember they're still people your clones) suffer through sicknesses and diseases while we play with copying life.
You have such a great idea
Do we need to clone humans? (Score:4)
It's because... (Score:4)
--
In other news... (Score:4)
Before Linux's debut in 1991, scientists thought UNIX could not be cloned.
"With cloning a UNIX, you are asking a kernel to recompile in minutes or, at most, in hours," said Dr. Echalan, a professor of CS at the Whitbread Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "That's where the major problem is."
Some scientists say they shudder to think what might happen if Windows(TM) is cloned with today's techniques. While arguments over the ethics of cloning Windows have dominated the debate, these scientists say the real issue is the likelihood that clones would have source abnormalities that could result in stable and reliable operation. Until that problem is solved, they say, cloning Windows should be out of the question.
--
Corrections... (Score:5)
Telomeres are not just Adenine repeats - you're thinking of the "Poly-A" tails added to mRNA transcripts after DNA transcription. They *are* however, AT rich (i.e. composed of more Adenines and Thiamines than Cytosines and Guanines).
Also, the presence of telomerease in NOT the standard definition of cancer, although cancer cells certainly must have a way of preventing telomere degradation. There is a LOT of other important cellular machinery that also goes wrong in cancer, and thus you simply cannot sum up and "define" cancer so easily.
The effect of telomere maintenence is not fully understood yet. Mouse cells with telomerase expressed when it normally isn't DO live for quite a long time, certainly much longer than normal mice somatic cells, but NOT forever.
In any case, cloning will NOT be the end of the world, nor will genetic engineering, as so many on Slashdot predict. If people are going to make statements about the effects of a field, they'd do best to actually have some knowledge in that field (like the author of the parent post) rather than a bunch of code-monkeys who can hack Perl and then think they know more about nature, genetics and the enivronment than people who've spent most of their lives studying it.
Sincerely,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@wm.edu
Thinly-veiled anti-cloning propaganda (Score:5)
I don't think I buy the argument that it is really the 'rapid' duplication causing the problems, although it can certainly be one source of error. There is already a substantial body of scientific evidence of DNA deteriorating over time within a healthy organism. Every time a cell divides, errors are introduced, and every genetic error increases the possibility of a medical problem.
When you clone an animal, you are starting with 'corrupted' DNA, which understandably causes a lot of problems after further duplication. This was thought to be the source of many of the problems with 'Dolly' the sheep.
This problem could be possibly be solved by using DNA extracted from the very young.
But, of course, the article doesn't want you to consider this as a possibility, and uses subtle language to undermine the credibility of those who may support the cloning of humans.
For example, after decrying the evils of human cloning, they say that there are scientists proposing the cloning of humans (Dr. Zavos and Dr. Antinori) but that "Academic scientists say they would not dare to think of cloning a human at this time." Are these two not academic? Then why was their recent workshop sponsored by a Rome university? Zavos is even a Professor Emeritus from the University of Kentucky. His credentials are solid, but the article attempts to paint him as a quack.
The end of the article reminds us that House hearings will be starting shortly regarding human cloning. Is this a bit of a 'call-to-arms' by the NYTimes?
The telomeres are the interesting bit. (Score:5)
Each time the cell divides, the telomeres get shorter. The the DNA strands aren't copied all the way to the end, and they down like a fuse. Right next to the telomeres is vital metabolic proteins, so when the telomeres are exhausted the next cell division damages those genes and kills the cell. This is, fundamentally speaking, the cell's aging process.
There's an enzyme called telomerase that protects the telomeres during cell division so they don't get shorter. This means cells with this enzyme in them can divide an unlimited number of times. In the body, this is used during early fetal delopent, for the production of sex cells (so the next generation doesn't die sooner than the previous one), and in a few other places like bone marrow stem cells where unlimited cell division is pretty much required to keep the blood supply up.
The presence of telomerase in any other cell is pretty much the definition of cancer. Cancer cells divide an unlimited number of times because they have a genetic flaw that switches on the gene for telomerase, which is present in most cells but not enabled. (This is why testicular cancer and lukemia are so common: those cells use telomerase normally, so if their division process gets damaged and runs out of control they don't die off. There's no such thing as a benign bone marrow tumor, it won't use up all its cell divisions and die off normally.)
The problem with cloning is you're starting from a cell that's already aged, and so has shorter telomeres. The baby starts out with a much shorter lifespan, and a much slower healing process because its cells don't divide as easily (due to shorter telomeres being a smaller target for the division triggering enzymes to find).
What you need to make a good clone is some way to repair the telomeres AFTER they've already partially burned down. Gluing extra AAAAA sequences onto the end of each gene.
Active telomere reconstruction basically requires nanotechnology. On the bright side, it would be about 50% of the way to extending human lifespans indefinitely. (Limited cell division's half the problem. The other half is that our DNA is a recipe, not a blueprint, which means that it lists the steps required to make something but not what the finished product should look like. With a blueprint, you can fix the finished product because you know what it should look like. With a recipe, you have to start over from the beginning and build a new one, and see what you get.)
Now you know where my email address comes from. :)
Rob
Re:Corrections... (Score:5)
Ok, for the code monkeys: it's the TTL.
Each cell has a TTL field, just like a network packet. If the TTL hits 0, the cell dies (TTL is set to TTL-1 every time the cell is reproduced). If the TTL gets set to -1 or something, it will never be 0, and the cell will never stop reproducing. That's cancer.
The problem with cloning is that they get the original cell with a low TTL, and use that to create the new individual, who will have less time to live. They can't reset it.
They must have some kind of problem with their routers or something.
--
redactions (Score:5)
Some of the things people tend to either overlook, ignore, or just not know, is that cloning is not creating a perfect replication of life of any form. These findings will now support this.
Misconceptions:
We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives.
Wrong DNA testing will hopefully address issues surrounding health and anyone who uses cloning as an argument is blind to science and the real truth surrounding cloning.
Medical tragedies - Many people have suffered accidental medical tragedies during their lifetimes. Read about a girl who needs a kidney, a burn victim, a girl born with cosmetic deformities, a man who needs a liver, a women who is infertile because of cancer, and a father who lost his only son.
Assumptions and statements such as this are thrown in the loop by those who are in power to gain financially by supporting cloning by attempting to empathize with those suffering.
All these people favor cloning and want the science to proceed. To cure infertility - Infertile people are discriminated against. Men are made to feel like they are not "real men." Women are made to feel as if they are useless barren vessels. Worse, being infertile is often not considered a "real medical problem" and insurance companies and governments are not sympathetic.
Again when dealing with situations like this, people are apt to just fall wholeheartedly into ideas presented by people without knowing underlying factors. No scientist who expects to gain finances will tell someone "We can create a beautiful person who looks like your son, but he will still have all the issues that killed him in the first place for $30,000.00"
Endangered species could be saved - Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species, including human beings.Animals and plants could be cloned for medical purposes - Through the research leading up to human cloning, we should discover how to clone animals and plants to produce life-saving medications.
Personally I think DNA research is a better solution. Many people think of cloning as something of a Unix command:
for file in * ; do cat TOBECLONED | sort | uniq | grep -v PROBLEMS >> NEWTHING
Samples were taken from HumanCloning.org [humancloning.org]
crackbabies cloned [antioffline.com]