First Human Clone Eight Weeks Along 551
Vegeta99 writes "An Italian researcher is claiming ground-breaking progress, and has successfully cloned a human, and the mother is now 8 weeks pregnant, according to this article. Now how long until I can buy my own clone?" It's worth noting that the Roman medical associations bioethicists denied Dr. Antinori permission to proceed with these experiments last month. So doing the math, Rome was a little late... If the pregnancy continues without miscarriage, the tyke may share a birthday with Marie Curie
Let me sum this all up (Score:2, Insightful)
That'll be nice for the kid then (Score:4, Funny)
Nice.
Re:That'll be nice for the kid then (Score:2, Interesting)
Relaxing moral views (Score:3, Insightful)
These are all logical steps. Maybe not within 4 days, 4 years or 4 generations, but they are certainly possible.
The loss of high moral standards is not always a good thing.
Re:Relaxing moral views (Score:5, Insightful)
Reference to Hitler? Check
Slippery slope fallacy? [nizkor.org] Check
Utterly unsupported reference to "logic"? Check
You sir, are a troll.
Re:Relaxing moral views (Score:5, Interesting)
He suggests that euthanasia will soon be allowed for clones. You think it's improbable.
The article mentions that there's about a 4% chance of deformation. I'm guessing that's a low estimate. The scientist is trying to sell people on the idea, so he's going to say something that sounds good. What if 5 of the next 20 cloned humans are badly deformed?
If we don't "slide down the slippery slope", then those deformed children will be kept alive. Cloning of humans will be discouraged, because of the poor success rate (4% is a poor success rate too, IMNSHO), but it will still happen. Fertility drugs are discouraged for women who are fertile, yet they're abused from time to time too.
In any case, neither option (euthanasia or deformed children) is good. You live in a dream world if you think that guy's worry is implausible. It certainly is worth discussing. I think you, sir, are the troll.
Re:Relaxing moral views (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, I challenge the assumption that euthanesia would not be controlled by the patient (I'm from Oregon, we're funny that way) and that killing unhealthy old people or people with incurable diseases is "logical". In the end, whether people live or die has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with value. The fact that you see all of these items as logical steps says more about your value structure than about reality.
And whoever modded this tripe up as "Insightful" must truly be illogical.
Re:Relaxing moral views (Score:3)
Personally I don't have a problem with any of this, so don't take offense, just look at this from a purely logical standpoint.
Who will feed this giant new geriatric population? How will they be supported? Is the quality of life overall better for everyone or for the geriatrics now?
The main question you have to ask yourself is this: is living longer better? I don't know if it's a good idea to have everyone living well into their 90's. I don't know if it's good to help chronically ill people survive. Given the tendency of nature to kill the weak and support the strong, some science and medicine is circumventing the bonuses to genetic propagation. If the weak and strong both survive, if the terminally ill pass their genes on to their children, what's the outcome in a hundred years? I'm all for gene therapy but extending lifespan of an entire continent is not really a good idea.
This is a fascinating topic and I'd love to go into more detail but I already feel a flame, a troll and whatever other bad mods coming down on me.
As Johnso14, I have to agree (Score:4, Funny)
Re:As Johnso14, I have to agree (Score:5, Funny)
Birthday (Score:2, Funny)
what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:5, Interesting)
-e
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:2, Funny)
Offcourse if, one day, the kid finds out he's got exactly the same little wiener as his dad, lorena bobbit might actually start a proffitable bussines
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:3, Insightful)
Until the chance of creating a kid who will die in (say) 5 years has not been minimised, i think this is very unethical..
How will they explain him, that he was born to die in 5 years? That they knew hi will die, and still made him?
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:5, Insightful)
Arthritis and Obesity (Score:5, Interesting)
I read an article some time ago that Dolly the sheep had developed arthritis and was suffering from obesity, both of these conditions being extremely rare for her age.
This person that has been created may suffer from intense health problems. I consider this action to be extremely unwise, as it will play into the hands of extremists seeking a ban.
I personally would like to see cloning technology developed, but used on humans only when it is both safe and effective.
Re:Arthritis and Obesity (Score:2)
Even if the cloning industry perfects the cloning of certain animals to the point where it's "both safe and effective", it doesn't follow that human cloning will automatically reach that state. Every animal is different, so to reach a state where human cloning is "both safe and effective", actual human cloning experiments are required to allow it to reach that state. I'm not saying that I condone the experiments; I'm just pointing out that your logic is flawed. If you want human cloning to someday be "both safe and effective", you must concede to allowing human cloning experiments that involve a certain amount of risk.
Re:Arthritis and Obesity (Score:3, Interesting)
What would be useful now is a way to clone a specific part of the human anotomy. Hearts, livers and kidneys should be where the experimentation is done. It also has the benefit of not treading against any morals.
I have problems with cloning a human being but not the body parts.
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:2)
Apparantly this doctor wants everybody to think that he knows a lot more than anyone else in the world about cloning. And given his alreay *very* doubtful reputation, this statement must be considered a little besides the truth.
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, then maybe the RIAA has something to say about it!
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:5, Funny)
First we clone just the music, then we clone the performers themselves! If a musician has a contract with the RIAA, is that contract also binding for all his clones?
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, this is a good argument against the SSSCA. If the SSSCA were passed, every living organism on the planet would be an unlicensed copying device.
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:2, Insightful)
Whould you want to be one?
But apart from that, this 'researcher' is playing with the live of this kid. As said by previous posters, the risks are very big. Would you like to test a 'bullet proof vest' that had bad results when tested on animals? That like the thing that is happening to this child, he might be born, will be subject to all kinds of research for the rest of his life and risks all kind of very serious health problems. I woudn't want to explain that to my child!
Besides, what's the use of it? We'll might some day have 'time-shifted identical twins', so what? The only use there I see are things like a spare president, are a new Bin Laden every year, just in case somebody catches him. And ofcourse it's good for the huge ego of Dr. Antinori.
It's not worth it...
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? (Score:2)
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? Bad Science. (Score:2, Informative)
I think the scientist should be executed the same day as the experiment dies because of "unforseen" defects. Yes, the human birth experience is a roll of the dice, but in this case, the scientist rolling the dice is doing it with the knowledge that there is next to no chance that things will turn out just fine. It would be another issue if we understood and corrected the problems with the other clones.
I personally have nothing against the idea of cloning. I do have a problem when science willfully ignores the individual upon which it inflicts suffering.
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? Not really (Score:2, Insightful)
No, that should be reason to "mess with these things". You make it sound like this is some hack mixing DNA in pails in his garage.
Progress in medicine depends on experimentation. We'd still have shamans if people weren't willing to take risks and explore the unknown.
-Kevin
Re:what's wrong with clones anyways? Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Jonas Salk developed technologies which led to a vaccine for polio. With a vaccine you're injecting a weakened version of a dangerous virus into a person to combat that same virus. That to me seems terribly dangerous, yet its now one of the most basic elements of modern health care.
Both Fleming and Salk are examples of people cautiously exploring dangerous areas. I don't know that Antinori (the person responsible for this cloning attempt) did proceed cautiously. The United States, the Vatican and other governments share the blame for this however. They've banned research in the area and by doing so they've ensured that only the more cavalier will carry out investigations. Any suffering which does result from this is the fault of both Antinori and the governments who try to ban the research.
I'm not a biologist or doctor, but it seems to me the proper first steps would be the cloning of individual human cells then clusters of human cells and possibly functional organs. After problems were solved through these steps then it would be time to investigate a human clone, in the mean time perhapas diabetics could be cured with cloned pancreas tissue or people with heart disease aided with cloned heart tissue. We've jumped to the most lucrative possibilities of cloning but skipped over the most therapeutic.
Re:What I want to know is: (Score:2)
Orgazmo! (Score:2, Funny)
Is it his quest for glory?
What makes a man, is it the woman in his hands,
Just 'cause she has big titties?
Or is it the way, he fights every day?
No, it's probably the titties!
Now you're a MAN! (MAN!)
Now you're a MAN! (MAN!)
Now you're a MAN! (MAN!)
MAN MAN MAN MAN M-A-N MAN
YOU'RE A MAAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN!
Now you're a MAN!
Re:What I want to know is: (Score:5, Informative)
Each ovum has an X chromosome. Each spermatozoa has an X xor Y chromosome. The only determiner of sex in baby mammals (and in birds afaik, as well) is which, of set (X,Y) chromosome the fertilizing spermatozoa carries. XX = female, XY = male (okay, this occasionally breaks, creating humans with XXY, XYY, etc combinations. If you want to know more, I highly recommend google [google.com].
For a clone, the *only* determiner of sex is the sex of the original cell, which will *always* be the same sex as the original donor.
There is evidence that temperature (as well as the amount of time between coitus and ovulation, and a few other things) affects the likelihood that a particular ovum will be fertilized by X-bearing or Y-bearing sperm in humans, and I suppose a similar thing could happen with chickens, but while I know of many lower animals (amphibians are, I believe, the highest order animals that do this) change sex in response to environmental change, I know of no birds or mammals that do so.
So two people with the same DNA will obvious not be reproducing in the usual way.
There have been experimental techniques involving fusing the genetic material in two ovum, and if this was used to produce offspring that had the same genetic-mother (or genetic-father, if a similar technique could be used for sperm, but that problem is more complex) then what would happen would depend largely on the genetic specifics of the person(s) involved. But the same thing could be done with two ova from a (non cloned) woman, so...
Re:What I want to know is: (Score:2)
Re:What I want to know is: (Score:4, Funny)
Uh, no. What determines the sex of a baby is whether daddy kicks in a Y-chromosome (boy) or an X-chromosome (girl).
Of course a clone doesn't have a daddy, so somebody might imagine doing a little test-tube magic to change the gender of a clone. In fact, a couple of obscure SF writers (Randall Garrett and Isaac Asimov) did just this. They even wrote a song about it. Get out your guitar and sing along with me now, it sounds a little bit like "Home on the Range"
Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With its Y-chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown
Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.
Chorus: Clone, clone of my own,
With your Y-Chromosome changed to X
And when I'm alone
With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.
Oh, give me a clone
Hear my sorrowful moan
A clone that is wholly my own.
And if she's an X
Of the feminine sex
Oh, what fun we will have when we're prone.
(Chorus)
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.
(Chorus)
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.
(Chorus)
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 ravage her by and by.
(Chorus)
(Chorus)
He'll have a cool introduction at parties (Score:4, Funny)
Cute Chick: Well hello hansome! What star sign are you?
Clone: Pyrex
Cute Chick: Ohhh baby!
And things go downhill from there.
Hmmm, confirmation?... (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe there was no announcement due to potential illegality but then surely you wouldn't leak the news in any way!
Re:Hmmm, confirmation?... (Score:3, Flamebait)
Thanks to the late hour (Score:2)
I must say I'm a little torn on the issue. It's great if the technology can grow livers and hearts and kidneys and bone marrow and what have you, but I'm not sure there's any good reason to clone entire people. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out, in any event.
Slashdot at 5:51 AM... (Score:2)
BRx.
All Mammal clones possible so far are FEMALE ! (Score:3, Insightful)
You will never see this fact cited ever in a non-journal article.
I have looked carefully in every news release since the original Dolly wave of press hysteria.
Cloning will never be popular or interesting until telomere ends can be repaired in the zygote to prevent bio-clock failures (aging too fast).
Cloning will also never be popular unless the person paying for the service (a rich white or asian male) can replicate himself, or his son.
You read it here first... In 2002 only female mammals are capable of being cloned.
(maybe they try to reduce rna conflicts from differring mitochondrial dna)
These clones only clone the genes in the chromosomes alone and not the mitochondrial entities (entombed bacteria from billions of years ago in evolution).
Re:All Mammal clones possible so far are FEMALE ! (Score:2)
Well if these scientists have the same problems with women that computer geeks have, then it's no wonder...
Wrong, for a few years now (Score:5, Informative)
You will never see this fact cited ever in a non-journal article.
You will never see this "fact" because it really isn't a fact.
See this article [wired.com] from way back in 1999 about the first male mouse clone.
Re:All Mammal clones possible so far are FEMALE ! (Score:3, Informative)
Somatic cell nuclear transfer is what most people are talking about when they talk about "cloning", and it can produce a clone of either males or females. However, with the current technology these clones have health problems throughout their (short) life. It is downright evil to use the technology to produce humans right now, since you're condemning the progeny to a short and unpleasant life. I have no ethical problems with cloning per se, just with any technology that makes people who will have a crappy quality of life.
Re:All Mammal clones possible so far are FEMALE ! (Score:2)
Re:All Mammal clones possible so far are FEMALE ! (Score:2)
First, as women age their bodies become less adapted to bearing children. Evolutionarily speaking, prime childbearing years are 16-28 or so. After 30-32 there is a much higher rate of complication.
Second, all the male has to do is make his "contribution". His little swimmers don't degrade over time. AFAICR, they don't reproduce themselves so thus aren't subject to generational mutation/degradation. Aren't they more, uh, "manufactured".
(Dislcaimer: Yeah, yeah, biology was never my strong suit. I can maybe name the two dudes that are credited with DNA and what it stands for. I can tell you how to cut open a worm. And I can tell you that you need to be careful with a scalpel so you don't slice a schoolmate's hand open. It was an accident, honest.)
Clarification, Sorta (Score:2)
Think twins. Sorta.
Disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
It is ever-so-slightly worrying that the doctor in question, Severino Antinori, admitted in a press conference that Dolly, the cloned sheep, was suffering from premature aging. His defence, that the experiments were not conducted well, and that sheep cloning is vastly different to human cloning, does not inspire confidence.
This child (presuming it survives) is nothing more than a guinea pig for Dr. Antinori's ego. Will this child be able to live a normal life? No. Look at Dolly -- how many tests do you think she goes through on a daily basis?
Whilst I am reluctant to encourage animal testing, would it not be better for those in the same field as Dr. Antinori to perfect cloning of non-humans before moving onto humans? It seems the doctor is in a hurry to stake his name in history. If he is not careful, he'll get his wish, but it will appear closer to Josef Mengele than Marie Curie.
Why do people still want to clone? (Score:2, Insightful)
If only human beings knew their limits when messing around with technology some of the worst atrocities wouldn't have happened, but some revolutionary things that have enabled to prolong life and welfare on higher age wouldn't be discovered either. Fortunately I am no philosopher, or I would be driven mad when trying to decide whether technology is a blessing or a curse.
Quote from Blade Runner:
Replicants are like any other machine, they are either a benefit or a hazard, if they are a benefit it is not my problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why this is good (Score:5, Insightful)
But anyway: Let's just assume this is an actual clone. Evidence is now coming through showing that dolly isn't quite as healty as we first expected.
Apparently she ages a lot faster [newscientist.com], and has a number of diseases [theglobeandmail.com]. Now imagine that, when the baby is born ('prototype clone'), (s)he starts getting all types of horrible diseases, limbs missing and what have you. That is when Joe Schmoe will understand you just can't copy people like you can copy a CD [slashdot.org]. Too bad someone has to suffer for it.
Concerning the success rate (Score:2)
He has 500 women available for his experience! I am pretty sure he had his share of failure, miscarriage, abortion...
Nowhere is it said he has 100% rate, on the contrary. The first weeks are the one where he is most likely to have trouble, so after 8 weeks, chances are good that the baby is healthy and will get to term...
Re:Concerning the success rate (Score:2)
Chances still aren't "good" that the baby will go to term. If success is only 1% likely (according to the BBC interview someone posted), then even if 75% of the embryos terminate in the first eight weeks (which is just what I recall), that means that only 1%/25% = 4% of the remaining embryos go to term. I wouldn't call those odds "good".
As far as being healthy; of the animals cloned so far I believe the healthy total - Dolly was about as healthy as they come - is more like 0%.
That said, it's entirely possible that they have an eight-week old clonal embryo; for one thing, the success rate in humans may be higher than in other species; everyone is keen to point out that it might be lower but we don't know. If the baby is brought to term I'd want to see genetic tests to prove it was really a clone, of course.
In any case, this is monstrous. The babies are likely to be deformed, and this should be stopped immediately.
Re:Concerning the success rate (Score:2)
The 1% success rate is for implant/early miscarriage... The actual success rate you want to use is 75%. This is IMHO a good chance.
Do you really think that at 8 weeks they would still have not detected big anomalie? He has 500 guinea pigs to play with. The 99% failures were seen on other people. You can bet there has been hundreds of early failure, miscarriage to get to that one 75% chance.
Re:Concerning the success rate (Score:2)
Like Dolly has proven there is still much we ignore about cloning and it's consequences. Life is more than just DNA and the women who participate in the experience are in for a big disappointment. They will get their baby alright, but this will be more of a Dr Frankenstein kind of story...
What about the 'failure rate'? (Score:4, Insightful)
The failure rate was mostly failures to implant, spontaneous abortions as well as some very deformed births; mostly some that died in a few days, and some that were euthanised.
If this translates into humans in the same way, for every successful clone we can expect several deformed, live, births.But there are questions as to whether Dolly is really 'successful'; the sheep is suffering from arthritis at an unusually young age for example. If you accept this as a cloning problem, then the failure rate runs at 100%.
Ignoring the ethics of successful cloning; given this deformation rate, given we do not allow euthenasia of human infants; is this really ethical right now?
Re:What about the 'failure rate'? (Score:2)
Well, I guess the failure to implant is not relevant anymore! So goes spontaneous abortion and deformed birth (you can do most viability tests at 8 weeks.) Remember, he has 500 women to 'play' with so I am sure he has got already is fair share of failure.
But then, I agree about this not being ethical... The baby is most likely to be born with some anomalies (like Dolly has) and doing that to a human being is wrong. Just plain wrong!
Re:What about the 'failure rate'? (Score:2)
Some of the abortions occured unusually late IRC.
>and deformed birth (you can do most viability tests at 8 weeks.)
One sheep came out looking perfectly normal, but it was panting all the time. They decided it was better to euthenise it.
What about mental issues? What about subtle immune problems? The number of things that can go wrong and make the kids life hell and yet be completely undetectable are pretty scary.
Re:What about the 'failure rate'? (Score:2)
I believe that you would have to be a monster to be willing to conceive a baby that way, and that you are surely headed for trouble (big time.) All I wanted to point out is that the chances very fairly good (about 75%) that this baby will come to term. But it surely won't be healthy!!!
Vanity publishing with a human face (Score:4, Insightful)
Prison should beckon for all involved.
TWW
Haiku (Score:2, Funny)
La vita no e bella
Cloning humans bad
Uh oh.... (Score:4, Funny)
me.clone(); (Score:5, Funny)
How much did George Lucas pay the guy? (Score:3, Funny)
Backups (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Backups (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer the old school way myself (grin)...
This Guy is Nuts... (Score:4, Interesting)
Linus Clones and Open Source DNA (Score:3, Funny)
"Normal operating system developers suffer greatly from obsessive compulsive disorders, which causes many problems with other team members. Now we have access to the DNA for Linus, we are able to determine the causes of these disorders, and develop a fix" said Dr Jeckal, a leading expert in developer cloning.
Microsoft, who have no plan to make Bill Gates DNA available to the public have been strongly opposed to this idea.
"Imagine a world where every operating system was designed by a slightly different Bill Gates, each with its own quirks and eccentricities. It would be total chaos."
Microsoft are currently fighting a court case in which Sun, Oracle, Netscape and RedHat are all demanding access to Bill Gates DNA.
"How can we possibly compete with Microsoft unless we are able to clone our own version of Bill to run on our projects."
Name that species! (Score:2, Funny)
Homer Sapiens
HS-V2R1
Homo-XP
Homo OhNo
Re:Name that species! (Score:2, Funny)
Man 2.0 (AOL guy: "You've got opposable thumbs!")
I don't buy the infertility issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Until they clone Elvis (Score:2, Funny)
It's all just practice!
Quote (Score:3, Funny)
I'll leave it to you to comment on that.
selling out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:4, Interesting)
What's so fucking terrifying about it? I'm not being facetious or trolling here. Seriously, what's so bad about it?
I don't see it as any more unnatural than testtube babies which have been aroud for a long time and no one seems to have any problem with it.
Clones WILL grow up to be their own individuals, just like identical twins do. It's not the freakshow the movies portray it as. So... why not?
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2, Insightful)
The selection process, for one.
Once the technique is perfected, we'll have a supermarket of acceptable clone sources. Which person do you wish to clone? The smart one or the dumb one? The beautiful one or the plain one? The white one or the black one?
And, given the choice, would you rather have a child the natural way, or a clone of someone with admirable genes?
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:3, Funny)
The natural way please. There's more jiggy jiggy
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2, Interesting)
apart from that rather obvoius troll, won't this be a good thing, natural selection isn't what it
used to be is it?
The ability to pass genes on is no longer limited to those that are best suited to survive (the fittest).
So what is the modern day equivalent of survival of the fittest?
Won't the race be improved?, especially if we could raise the average IQ a little, after all the traditional model would have had Steven Hawking eaten by a dinosour and his intellectual value would not have been realised.
(yes I know we wern't around with the dinosours, please it's just a way of emphasising a point)
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
It reminds me of a survey once down about drug use. People were asked, "if drugs became legal tomorrow, would you use them?" 90% said no. Then when asked, "If drugs became legal tomorrow, would your neighbor use them?" 70% said yes.
Why are people so eager to believe their fellow human is more likely to do somthing they wouldn't do? Why are people so afraid of the unknown?
Cat
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2)
Furthermore, most cloned embryos are miscarried on implantation, so this is a low-percentage gamble at best.
Sure, when it's perfected then it'll be a great technique for childless couples - as you say, just bcos someone's got the same DNA as you, it doesn't mean they'll be anything like you in personality. But until they've got it right, it's just too damn risky.
Grab.
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Cloning is just another technology. What's hard to swallow for religious people is that it shouldn't be possible to do according to their beliefs and being proven wrong might have consequences for the validity of other things they belief (like having a soul, reincarnation, heaven, getting access to 70 virgins if you blow yourself up in a shopping centre,
Technology by itself is not bad. However certain applications of it can certainly be evil. A box of matches can be used to light a candle and it can be used to set fire to a house full of people. Does that make the box of matches evil technology? Of course not! Similarly cloning has a lot of applications where it's use would be beneficial. I, for instance, would love to have a clone of my heart available when my own one needs replacement in a couple of decades (not entirely unlikely given the number of heart deseases in my family). Of course I wouldn't want to kill a full grown living and breading clone of me to obtain that heart but that may very well be unnecessary.
There are religious and ethical people who want to attach full human rights to arbitrarily small clusters of human cells (fertalized eggs, tiny embryo's, etc.). From a scientific point of view this is of course complete nonsense. Based on this they would consider it murder if such tiny clusters of cells are manipulated. However, often the same people eat meat (requires killing of much larger clusters of non human cells) and have no problems with getting rid of annoying insects, which is very inconsistent to say the least.
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2)
Technology is not evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2)
-me
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I am not religious and still believe that cloning is a bad idea.
Why? Well, not because it is "evil," but because I fear that it endangers basic democratic principles like human dignity. Think GATTACA, without the happy end. There are also biological consequences of cloning, like the reduction of biodiveristy.
My concern is mostly that everyone is excited about the possiblities of genetic technologies (as am I), but there is no real public discussion about the long-term social and biological consequences of the use of technologies, except the religious concerns that you've mentioned. In other words, one of my major fears is the fact that so many religious arguments are used in the public debates concerning genetic technology, and that valid scientific concerns are silenced alongside with the religious critics.
Exactly. Yet whenever someone criticizes cloning, they are silenced as some religious freak who dimisses technology and wants to halt progress. I am not opposed to the technology that allows cloning, I am opposed to its application for cloning. I am certain that the same technology allows many legitimate medical uses, like the growing of human organs for implantation you've mentioned, and should be used for those.
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2)
One of the biggest pushes for research into cloning and stem cell technology is for this kind of thing. Being able to grow a new organ, either cultured from your own cells, or from a stem-cell line that closely matches yours, would result in a vastly reduced rate of rejection. And the reason transplant patients die is not because of some inherent medical/surgical issue from the transplantation, but rather the body's attempts to reject the transplantation as a foreign body. There are drugs to combat this, but take too little and you get rejection. Take too much and you open up your system to real infections. Either way it's fatal.
The support for full on human cloning is relatively small. And it's not just due to religious reasons - there are ethical and societal reasons why full cloning is reprehensible to some people.
Of course I wouldn't want to kill a full grown living and breading clone of me to obtain that heart but that may very well be unnecessary
Well that's good, because doing that would be murder. Your clone is not you. He does not belong to you. Believing otherwise is simply a new twist on slavery, nothing more. Odds are, your clone won't even think like you, because he is an entirely separate and independant person.
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2, Informative)
Don't oversimplify the problem for the sake of reinforcing your biases.
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2)
It is these technological issues, and nothing else in your post, that, IMHO causes ethical issues with creating human clones.
There's the high failure rate, the health problems that existing non-human clones, such as Dolly, have experienced such as premature ageing and arthritis.
Are we ready to push cloning to humans when it has proved dangerous to both the health of the child and the mother? No, I don't think so.
No one would be hot to trot to push out a new cholesterol lowering drug (for instance) if it caused 149 out of 150 of its users to die, and those that did live experienced arthritis and premature ageing. We would say go back to the drawing board and refine your drug until you get it right!
And that's what I'm saying... we need to get this technology right before we try it out on humans. Just because we CAN do a thing doesn't mean we SHOULD do a thing, especially if its something that hasn't been perfected yet.
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2)
Where would you draw the line then? When the baby is born? Well, it could survive on it's own much earlier than that. When it's capable of breathing air? Well, there may soon come a technology that would allow that to be done earlier. When the collection of cells looks more "human"? What defines the look of a human? You? I hope not. You end up being in a very hard to defend spot when you say that life is worth saving only when it has progressed to a certain point. The person who makes that decision better have some pretty exacting determining points.
I know "religious" points of view are not popular on
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
Technology by itself is not bad.
Yes, because Science and Ethics are two separate domains. One is about Truth, the other about Good. (And art is the third: Beauty).
There are religious and ethical people who want to attach full human rights to arbitrarily small clusters of human cells (fertalized eggs, tiny embryo's, etc.). From a scientific point of view this is of course complete nonsense.
And as all you can do with Science is just count, you cannot get Science to tell you what is better or worse. A big number is not better than a small number. They're all just numbers. 'Better' and 'worse' are value judgements. Science has no business making value judgements. That's the domain of Ethics. Science is a separate domain. So please don't mix arguments about scientific numbers with arguments about ethical value judgements.
I agree with you that we have the ethical problem of at what point an embryo is a 'person'. But being an ethical problem, we can't just count cells -- otherwise we could just compare counts of a cow and a human's cells, and figure that it's better to eat people than it is to eat cows.
So drawing the line, ethically, at a few cells, is not necessarally stupid just because small numbers are 'inferior'. Ethically we're trying to figure out what is Good, and whether at this point in our development, with free markets, universities, tv, wars, the internet, famines, nuclear power, comfortable lifestyles for some, B.F. bombs, diseases, dodgy education, Atheists, Fundamentalists, a youth who don't see any meaning in life, a youth who are drafted to kamikaze missions, globalisation, red China, global warming, medical treatments for many ailments (but not available to all), McDonalds, wind power, etc. etc. etc. -- whether given, basically, the state of the world, good and bad, it is good for humanity to have more technology in this area, or whether, given our track record in other things, we should wait, or proceed with a different focus.
Now I don't suppose the Catholics look at it this way. Their religion says that bunch of cells has a soul. Something which by definition we can't check scientifically. When a person experiences their Soul, an inner illumination or a vision, the only thing science can say is that you brain waves have changes, or that your heart rate has changed. For all you can tell from your instruments, the person could just have food poisoning. Spirituality is simply not accessible to objective measurement. It may exist, it may not... but you can't tell with instruments. But that's another problem -- Science has totally trashed Christianity. Beaten it to a pulp. And while Science was correct to do so in the areas where the Church had said all sorts of nonsence about the age of the Earth, etc. etc., we need to recognise that at a certain point in people's lives, they need something to believe in. At least as a basic moral guide. So we have to be careful not to totally destroy Religion. It helps to hold societies together. The common Myth. A basic bond.
Of course, when you no longer need the Myth, then you should be free to forget it. But just remember that Science cannot tell you what is Good. And to live only by science is to live in a world devoid of values. I could rob and kill you and say it's survival of the fittest etc.
So we can ask questions about Values -- do we value having more technology, or do we value more stability in human affairs? If stability is more valuable right now, can we forsee how cloning may alter things... will it prevent diseases, reducing medical bills, and be used throughout the world? Or will it have negative side effects that destabilise our country? Can we even answer these questions? Are these questions important? Or do we value getting results as quickly as possible, and say, "whatever, just keep doing the science, and we'll probably be ok?"
So the problem isn't that some religious zealots are making ethical complaints -- it's that not enough intelligent and talented thinkers are botherting to make ethical considerations! Including the scientists!
We've generally gone beyond religious dogma, and science has given us many answers. But that doesn't mean science can give all the answers. We've forgotten Ethics because it used to be associated with religion, and also because it doesn't show up on an oscilloscope.
Um, this post is way to long. :(
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2)
The technique of an electric chair is obviously intended to kill human beings. But does that make electicity bad? You might argue that such a chair is specifically designed to kill but not destroy the body, however I counter that that knowledge has also been used to slaughter cattle in a less cruel way. Electric chairs are typically considered cruel instruments in most of the so-called civilized world (except for isolated parts of the world where state approved lynching is still being practiced).
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's stand up for the haploids! (Score:2)
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2)
This excuse for a doctor has gone against all laws to do this. He's just wanting to get something to experiment on and get his name in the papers. The man is another Mengele and should be treated as such.
Grab.
Re:Stopping because of ethics (Score:2)
In the 3 sentences that comprise the body of your post, you begin with an outright lie (born of equal parts ignorance and malice), move on to a meaningless and inane observation of the sub-motivations of all scientists, and close with an ad hominem attack so misinformed as to reveal the lazy, irrational, knee-jerk nature of your expressed opinion. Looks like you scored a shrub "trifecta" of obnoxious blathering.
Re:I guess its time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:a better look?... (Score:2)
I've always wondered about finger prints.. perhaps this will shed some light.
If you're referring to the finger prints on your hands (as opposed to DNA finger prints) and you mean "Will they be the same on the clone?" then... probably not. Identical twins can have different finger prints because of differing environments, etc. I don't see why it would be any different for other types of clones (yes, I consider identical twins clones, they were just cloned at the embryo stage). In fact, the environment of the clone will be *very* different to the environment the adult it was cloned from developed in so I'd expect the difference to be even larger. But, I'm not a doctor so I could be wrong.
Re:a better look?... (Score:2)
Re:a better look?... (Score:2)
Re:Anybody care to comment on involuntary cloning? (Score:2)
However, you may be able to claim for assault against the person who took a sample of your cells to produce the clone.
Grab.
Re:for the love of science (Score:2)
Certainly abuse _can_ take place, but it doesn't mean that "the world" will sit idly by. Josef Mengele and others conducted experiments on humans in WW2, and "the world" decided that they should be strung up for it.
Grab.
Re:Unethical! (Score:2)
Rouge scientist? You sure he's not a puce scientist or a maroon scientist?
Why oh why do so many people on Slashdot have this deep inability to spell ROGUE?