[OT] Claim of first clone birth

[Mark]

When creating Dolly the cloned sheep, out of 300 attempts, only 3 of the eggs made it to the 16-cell stage. This means that the cloning process is so imprecise that only 1% of the eggs are viable through 4 cell divisions. So the chances that the cells that do make it past this point are "perfect" is? Quite low.

The result, any clone babies will, for some time, come out with significant problems. Sad they're playing with human lives when the mechanisms of the science are barely capable of doing it.

How many of the millions of male and many female reproductive cells survive the standard mating process and time leading up to it?

 

[Lizard]

Folks- I read only the first 15-20 messages and I couldn't take it any more. I don't consider myself religious or rightous but this is W-R-O-N-G. I thought there were international laws against this kind of crap. There is a difference between Role-playing a gawd and trying to be one.


'nuff said. I won't return to this message for the rest of tonight.

Once again, I ask -- how does this differ from in-vitro or fertility drugs or any other means of artificially inducing a pregnancy?

As for laws...they're only as good as the enforcement. What do you propose be done when the first human clone IS born? (I do not believe the Raelians succeeded) Kill the baby? Jail the mother? Both?

The technology exists, it will be used. Stop reacting emotionally and THINK. This is really no big deal.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Erik, as always, your post amuses the heck out of me.

All this talk of replacement body parts is probably the best thing that can come of it. It could be the cure for cancer. Is your liver looking more like a grapefruit because of a lifelong drinking problem? Don't despair, clone it! You'll be good for another 25 years of self abuse.

Seriously, the one thing that I keep hearing is that the original cells of a cloned animal are not (for lack of a better term) the same age as a newborn's would be. This means that a 30 year old who clones themself is going to have an infant made up of cells that are already advanced 30 years. This isn't the best idea in the world. By the time the clone's age is 30, the cells will be the same as a 60 year old's. Does this mean rapid aging? Shorter lifespans? More diseases like cancer showing up in younger people? Probably. That is the reason that I'm against cloning people until the process can be studied more.

As for the religious arguments that we're polaying god... us humans have been in the business of playing god for so long we don't know anything different. Nuclear technology gives us the power of the sun on earth. We revamp our landscape to suit our needs; look at what's stil happening to the rainforests. We build structures that reach the sky, dam up rivers, hunt animals to extinction, launch ourselves into space, and some even try to tell the rest of us whether or not we're fit to hang with the almighty in the hereafter. Had we never advanced civilization beyond the hunter and gatherer stage, we would spend no more than one quarter of our waking hours providing for the survival of our family/tribe, which would leave much more time for gaming

From my own pseudo-buddahist point of view, I find this whole debate kind of humorous.

 

[Lizard]

It will, when we become able to clone body parts, which is still far off in the future. When we can clone skin to heal burnt people, or hearts, whatever. For the moment, though, we can clone a single cell or a whole organism. Nothing in-between.

This is more stem cell research than cloning. Cloning tends to refer to an entire organism. Tissue cultivation is something different. Since an entire being is not involved, the moral issues (such as they are) are less.

Reading through these posts, I find myself more and more disturbed by how strongly people are reacting to something which they don't (based on the nature of the reactions) understand. Cloning, genetic engineering, brain uploading, mixed into random images from Mary Shelley and Aldous Huxley, all seasoned with knee jerk emotion. Wouldn't it be a good idea to understand the science before passing judgement on it?

Oh wait...this is America. "If it won't fit on a bumper sticker, it's too complex to bother with."

 

[Lizard]

Seriously, the one thing that I keep hearing is that the original cells of a cloned animal are not (for lack of a better term) the same age as a newborn's would be. This means that a 30 year old who clones themself is going to have an infant made up of cells that are already advanced 30 years.

Yay! Someone who's done some research! An intelligent criticism!

You got it. That's one of the main problems with cloning, and a very solid argument against bringing a human clone to term with present technology. No need to whine about 'playing god' or anything -- just point out that it's basically immoral, by any standard, to knowingly cause a genetically damaged child to come into existence, to willingly and purposefully condemn someone to a shortened, disease-ridden, life.

Please note I used the words 'to term'. The only way to improve the process is to do experiments, and that means creating embryos and checking their DNA until we have the issue solved. There's no need to implant them in a woman; a few cell divisions will probably tell us all we need to know. (I'm not a biologist, so I'm not certain of this.)

I do not like the Catch-22 often offered as a 'compromise' by luddites, which basically goes:

Luddite: "We must ban these experiments until we know the outcome."

Scientist:"How are we supposed to know the outcome unless we perform experiments?"

If, against all reasonable evidence, the Raelians have produced a true clone, AND it is genetically healthy, then I think that's a Nobel worthy achievement. I'd call the odds of this being the case roughly akin to the odds of me winning the lottery without buying a ticket.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Does anyone on this forum but me understand that cloning does not mean 'growing fully formed adults in a vat in a week'? Because most of the "Ooooo....scary!" responses seem to hinge on the idea cloning is somehow more efficient than two minutes of squishy noises+nine months of hard labor+eighteen years of torment -- which it isn't.

Yeah, I think a lot of people get that, more than you're giving credit for. The implications of cloning - covered for decades and decades in science fiction - have a sinister connotation that can't be glossed over. That is, since organs from a clone would be a genetic match, and therefore less likely to be rejected if transplanted, will there be extremely wealthy people who would be willing to take the long-term approach and have clones made of themselves which they can later harvest for organs? Will there be folk who will want to have their minds transplanted (once such a thing is possible, which I very much doubt will be in our lifetimes - but I could be wrong) into a cloned body, to replace their own sick or aging one? I'd say yes on both counts. There are plenty of hard-hearted, self-centered folk in the world. Hashing it out now, before the technology is able to accomodate such things, seems like a good idea to me. The technology isn't gonna wait on us to deal with it ethically.

 

[Reprisal]

A Hesitant Future, Nonetheless

I won't say anything about this cult and what-not, but I must say that I'm disappointed at the results (thus far) of their "What do you think of cloning?" poll...

Part of that 21%,

- Rep.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I've made a bet with myself that this thread can continue without descending into a flame war or posts that include insulting every poster that disagrees with the author.

Let's see, shall we?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Reprisal, don't put too much faith in internet polls. It's self-selecting, and pulling from a limited population on top of it. They're for entertainment purposes only--just like calling Miss Cleo.

 

[Alzrius]

Does anyone on this forum but me understand that cloning does not mean 'growing fully formed adults in a vat in a week'? Because most of the "Ooooo....scary!" responses seem to hinge on the idea cloning is somehow more efficient than two minutes of squishy noises+nine months of hard labor+eighteen years of torment -- which it isn't.

Dude, that is so totally unfair...

There's usually a good five full minutes of squishy noises at least.

EDIT: The poster of this post is not speaking from experience here. Which is not to say he has no experience though......I'm going to shut up now...