data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fccd1/fccd117fc491c2630cb87fac4abcef24e2bfb6e6" alt="Science Science"
Is Human Cloning Easier Than Thought? 29
The Angry Clam writes "Yahoo has this story about how human beings might be easier to clone than sheep like the (in)famous Dolly. Since most of the "cloning is unethical" arguments hinge upon the high rate of defectives produced during attempts to create Dolly, I wonder what this will mean for things like the Cloning Ban, that Italian doctor, and so forth."
Why clone?? (Score:1)
Re:Looks like... (Score:1)
clone the old guy, wait a few years and you have them as a kid. In fact, start cloning all the actors out of episode IV now, so they will be about the right age when episodes VI - IX come out...
with careful planning you could have actors that don't appear to age at all...
Re:Looks like... (Score:1, Funny)
I wasn't too impressed (Score:3, Interesting)
``It's like an airplane with two jet engines. You see two nice jet engines and you like it,'' Jirtle said. ``Why? Because you feel comfortable that there's redundancy. In mice and rats, you only have one engine. If it blows, you're done.''
For example, Killian said that only one in 300 cloned sheep embryos takes hold, and up to half of these embryos experience large offspring syndrome.
Basically they're saying that because sheep have "one engine", they're harder to clone. But they're losing half of them! I'm hardly willing to accept that "two engines", each with a fifty percent chance of failure is a significant improvement.
Re:I wasn't too impressed (Score:1)
Re:I wasn't too impressed (Score:1)
From sheep to humans? (Score:1)
Thoughts on Cloning (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Cloning has too high a failure rate, and the destruction of all the zygotes/embryos and/or the birth defects make it immoral to clone at this time. The problem I have with this is that it runs up into the old pro/anti-abortion argument over when a fetus becomes a person. Since the prevailing legal belief over the status of an unborn fetus in the USA is that it is not a full human being and does not have the rights of a human being, I believe this argument must be rejected.
2. It is not right to decide for the fetus when it will be born. (or some other permutation of the "We shouldn't be playing God" argument). See, here we go again trying to define this little cloned fetus as a person. However, this case is a bit different, since it assumes that the fetus will be carried to term and born. My resonse is that since this is built entirely out of my own DNA, that it is as much my right to decide what to do with it as it is my right to be or to decline to be an organ donor, since those organs are pieces of my body as well. The interesting question is, of course, "then what happens when it's born? Will it be a slave, since it is, in a real sense, yours? Or will it be free, and then what does that mean for people who refuse medical treatments or refuse to be donors?" All of which are, indeed, tricky problems.
3. This research takes us into realms we've never been before and should be stopped. I've actually heard this one. To which I respond, where is the sense of adventure? Of discovery? Sure there will be casulties, but for what good? Imagine if people didn't explore medicine because it was "playing God with who lives and dies" or if they never bothered to see what lay beyond deserts or oceans because it was a place they'd never been before, or if we halted all space exploration because we were afraid of meeting an alien which would make us question our place in the Universe! I say bring it on! These are part of the neverending quest of humanity to discover and explore, and should not, and must not, be denied by the small-minded politicians in Congress.
Re:Thoughts on Cloning (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thoughts on Cloning (Score:1)
Or in other words, since this arguement is in conflict with what you believe, it must be rejected. It was illegal for women to vote. It was illegal for blacks to vote. That doens't mean it was right or that you shouldn't push to change those laws. You can't reject an arguement because it goes against the 'prevailing' (ie your own) belief.
2. It is not right to decide for the fetus when it will be born. (or some other permutation of the "We shouldn't be playing God" argument). See, here we go again trying to define this little cloned fetus as a person.
Or in other words, you don't think that a fetus can be considered a person, therefore anyone who does think so is wrong and therefore we can reject this arguement as well.
3. This research takes us into realms we've never been before and should be stopped. I've actually heard this one. To which I respond, where is the sense of adventure? Of discovery? Sure there will be casulties, but for what good? Imagine if people didn't explore medicine because it was "playing God with who lives and dies" or if they never bothered to see what lay beyond deserts or oceans because it was a place they'd never been before, or if we halted all space exploration because we were afraid of meeting an alien which would make us question our place in the Universe! I say bring it on! These are part of the neverending quest of humanity to discover and explore, and should not, and must not, be denied by the small-minded politicians in Congress.
By "small minded" politician I assume that once again you are saying "those who don't believe what I believe."
There is a cost/benefit ratio to everything. Even if the only cost to people is the fact that many don't like it you cannot that throw that away as an arguement against something.
You really don't seem to be talking about pros or cons of cloning. You are simply saying that those people who disagree with you are wrong, or 'small minded' or using 'that old arguement'. Step away from your rhetoric and say something useful.
After he or she is born... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think after the cloned baby is born it will be a baby. Just because she is the sibling (most likely it will be a she in the US since there is a preference for daughters among mothers) of one of her relatives, doesn't change things. She will have all the other rights that a much younger baby sister would have.
I think it is interesting reading the way you males discuss cloning. When I think of human cloning I think of it as a fertility treatment. If a woman can't produce her own eggs, the treatments available to her are rather messy. To harvest eggs from a donor requires pumping the poor woman up with hormones. To take cells to be cloned requires a quick biopsy. Producing a child via cloning does not put an egg donor's health at risk.
I am all for human cloning. This is a therapy that when it becomes safe enough will be one more choice for couples that can't reproduce. Clones will be wanted children. What's not to like?
Re:After he or she is born... (Score:1)
A better solution would be to get an ovary of a voluntary (you have two!, or sometimes it might be necessary to remove one because of an illness) and to cultivate it. But whether this is possible i don't know.
Humans easier to clone than cloneing news stories. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Humans easier to clone than cloneing news stori (Score:2, Informative)
Being able to clone ones with the consciousness module disabled might pacify all the ethics weenies, on the organ factory front ?
Possible downside (Score:2)
Remember, you don't get adults when you make clones, you get babies. So if you need a new heart, you can't wait 18 or even 16 or 15 years for the clone to become an adult; a baby's heart won't do you much good. If 'organ factory' clonning becomes practical, it will be for the rich, those whose parents can afford to buy them a clone when they're young enough that the clone would be the right age when they might need some parts. An insurance policy, if you will.
OK, so then what happens when your clone needs a part and goes after you to get it?
Re:Possible downside (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Possible downside (Score:1)
Re:Possible downside (Score:2)
Re:Possible downside (Score:1)
And of course, you would never give him the parts from the original.
Re:Humans easier to clone than cloneing news stori (Score:1)
Re:Humans easier to clone than cloneing news stori (Score:1)
Another article (Score:1)
"Some researchers who say it is not safe to clone humans have told CNN they fear those who do will use the Duke study to validate their claims that cloning a human will not create a grotesquely disfigured baby."
Cloning for infertility (Score:1)
1) back up organ production and,
2) children for infertile couples.
For case number 1, could they not perhaps focus their attentions on less ethically-questionable tissue culture methods, and if they ever resolve the stem cell debate I'm sure they could make some wonderful break-throughs there.
It's really 2 I'm wondering about. For years I've been hearing about all these fabulous technological improvements allowing infertile couples to have children of their very own. To me, this is silly. I'm adopted, my birth parents were younger than I am now, and my adopted parents could not have children, for no reason the doctors were ever able to discover. So, they went to the adoption agency, went through rigorous screening, and were able to adopt cute little ol' me. This is an option open to anyone. And, as the various international outreach groups point out, there are thousands of children in this world that would probably kill for a chance to have a family that loves them that much, and can obviously afford to take care of them if they can spend that much on all the infertility clinics. To me, infertility is nature's way of weeding out the species. If you can't reproduce, nature probably thinks you shouldn't. Nothing personal, no harm meant, but your genetic makeup is no longer needed in the genome. This system has been working for millenia, why mess with it? Oh, wait, we're humans, we're above nature... sorry, I forgot... Question, though, wouldn't a complete genetic clone have the exact same infertility problems as the parent or original? Why not just adopt, and give a child a chance it would otherwise not have. Would you love that child any less because it is not, in a genetic sense, 'yours'? I know my parents love me, I am their daughter, blood relation be damned. So, rather than add another, possibly 'flawed' individual to an already overcrowded planet, why not take in another, already living, fellow inhabitant, and make their world a better place?