NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your views on cloning/genetic alteration (in plants, animals, pets, people)?

What are your views on cloning/genetic alteration (in plants, animals, pets, people)?

Cloning is possibly useful for biological research, but I don't like the idea of identical people walking around. Genetic alteration could be very useful.

What are your views on cloning/genetic alteration (in plants, animals, pets, people)?

Do more testing first. Genetic alteration would be good. Diseases could be kept to a minimum. The problem is whether genetic alteration would be used to benefit mankind or create 'superbeings'. Personally if the service was freely available to everyone I don't see what the problem would be.... you'd just have a world of attractive, healthy people right?

Modify plants by all means. Just test it first..... And I mean proper testing....

I think partial cloning techniques are a valuable and important source of medical advancement and should be researched to see where they lead. The ideas of replacement organs on demand and a pure, inexhaustible blood supply are attractive and deserve development.

I don't think that we, as a society, are ready for whole human clones at this point. There are far too many questions regarding the legal rights and responsibilities of a potential clone to rush ahead with the procedure. There is also far too little general understanding of what a clone actually would be in comparison to the original template to risk cloning an actual person. While the psychological and physiological understanding a clone would provide is indeed great, at the present moment, it is knowledge that would exceed our wisdom in dealing with it.

The same roughly applies to genetic manipulation. Many techniques are valuable and should be studied. Correcting genetic disorders and abnormalities in vitro would be an enormous benefit to the human race. However, the idea of "babies made to order" is highly disturbing, both from a societal view and from a scientific one.

I think partial cloning techniques are a valuable and important source of medical advancement and should be researched to see where they lead. The ideas of replacement organs on demand and a pure, inexhaustible blood supply are attractive and deserve development.

I don't think that we, as a society, are ready for whole human clones at this point. There are far too many questions regarding the legal rights and responsibilities of a potential clone to rush ahead with the procedure. There is also far too little general understanding of what a clone actually would be in comparison to the original template to risk cloning an actual person. While the psychological and physiological understanding a clone would provide is indeed great, at the present moment, it is knowledge that would exceed our wisdom in dealing with it.

The same roughly applies to genetic manipulation. Many techniques are valuable and should be studied. Correcting genetic disorders and abnormalities in vitro would be an enormous benefit to the human race. However, the idea of "babies made to order" is highly disturbing, both from a societal view and from a scientific one.Yes, I agree. Cloning people with "desirable" traits could lead to a super-rich neo-Nazi world dictator building up a master-race of whatever sort of people he wants. Genetic manipulation can be dangerous.

In pets, I think cloning pets so that they can live longer than one body is a good idea, but it leads to less genetic variation among animals. And genetically modified plants can be dangerous to susceptible people. I don't agree with cloning or genetic manipulation except for medical causes and the advancement of the human (and other) races.

Also, cloning humans? Do you know how many the earth has? Billions! We don't need any more. If anything, there should be fewer of them.

What are your views on cloning/genetic alteration (in plants, animals, pets, people)?

With people, I think more research needs to be carried out before we consider actually testing it on a human being. Same goes for cloning of a human embryo. However, once we can do it safely, then we should use it in moderation. Delete 'bad' genes, to rid ourselves of genetic disorders, such as Down's Syndrome and other such nasties

Which genetically modified plants are harmfull to some people? I've never heard of anyone getting ill through modified plants...

I want to be genetically modified. There are definite improvements that could be done.

Like a firm bony scrotum instead of a fleshy vulnerable one. *nod* That'd come in handy.

What are your views on cloning/genetic alteration (in plants, animals, pets, people)?


Cloning can be very dangerous. Did you know that Aids was created by a mistake while cloning? A lot more testing needs to be done in iscolation and no cloning should be performed before we know it's safe.

Cloning can be very dangerous. Did you know that Aids was created by a mistake while cloning?

Er, care to provide a cite for that?

Which genetically modified plants are harmfull to some people? I've never heard of anyone getting ill through modified plants...I have. Apparently an inexperienced scientist caused a polyploidal mutation in the plant, which originally had 2N = 24 chromosomes. With 95 chromosomes instead of 96 (6N), it caused many illnesses among people who partook of that plant. Unfortunately I've forgotten the name of the incident.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Er, care to provide a cite for that?Just what my teachers always told me.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Just what my teachers always told me.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Well, if your teachers are telling you that HIV entered the human population via a mistaken experiement in cloning, you might want to ask them where they're getting their information from. I have yet to hear any reputable source put that forth. Not saying they haven't, just that it hasn't made it into any journals I'm aware of.

Well, if your teachers are telling you that HIV entered the human population via a mistaken experiement in cloning, you might want to ask them where they're getting their information from. I have yet to hear any reputable souce put that forth. Not saying they haven't, just that it hasn't made it into any journals I'm aware of.They never told me that. HIV didn't exist yet. What they did tell me was to always cite my sources.

And about HIV? I invented it. ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

They never told me that. HIV didn't exist yet. What they did tell me was to always cite my sources.

And about HIV? I invented it. ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

What was it supposed to be?

What are your views on cloning/genetic alteration (in plants, animals, pets, people)?

Cloning people, dunno

The opposite, merging, now that would be very interesting. Imagine, BlairBush, ShaqRock, etc...

What was it supposed to be?You mean HIV? Or my citations?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

You mean HIV? Or my citations?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

HIV.

Cloning is possibly useful for biological research, but I don't like the idea of identical people walking around. Genetic alteration could be very useful.


You do know that twins will be more similar then a person and its clone?

HIV.In the '70s and '80s, it became obvious that there were just too many humans. We needed to do something before they took over the universe. The simplest way? Spread a deadly incurable disease among them. The disease was transported by sex, humans' favorite activity. We thought we could kill off all the human race.

Unfortunately, it didn't work. We're looking at a more short-term solution now, such as slamming a giant asteroid into the planet.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Hmmm, its an interesting arguement.

On one hand, I believe that life begins at conception, I don't like the idea of abortion, but do understand the need for it in certain situations. Cloning is taking that right to life away as soon as it's given. And the thought of identical clones and the possibility of cloning for organ harvesting, etc, etc, etc, it is scary. Then there's the problem with premature aging, imagine dying decades early just because your cells got old before their time...

On the other hand, the use of stem cell rich placental blood from a 'cloned' foetus, collected after birth, to combat certain types of anaemia, and the whole range of possibilities of stem cell research, curing diseases we currently consider incurable, like ME, cystic fibrosis and HIV/AIDS, discovering what causes genetic abnormalities like Spina Bifida and Downs Syndrome,it has many pluses...

I'm undecided on this debate...

I have. Apparently an inexperienced scientist caused a polyploidal mutation in the plant, which originally had 2N = 24 chromosomes. With 95 chromosomes instead of 96 (6N), it caused many illnesses among people who partook of that plant. Unfortunately I've forgotten the name of the incident.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Polyplodilism is present in many plants... corn and wheat for example.... I suspect it was the plant or the way it had been treated/grown (i.e with pesticides or something) which caused the illnesses rather than the modification per-se.

In the '70s and '80s, it became obvious that there were just too many humans. We needed to do something before they took over the universe. The simplest way? Spread a deadly incurable disease among them. The disease was transported by sex, humans' favorite activity. We thought we could kill off all the human race.

Unfortunately, it didn't work. We're looking at a more short-term solution now, such as slamming a giant asteroid into the planet.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Have you considered a whole bunch of smaller ones? Sounds more exciting. :)

Reducing cloning and genetic experiences to the simplistic form of "yes, ok, but not now, because there isn't enough study about it" or "it's good for new organs and infinite supply of blood", is cutting short the possibilities of discussion:

Question:
- Is there an X factor in the what makes what: human makes the technic or the other way around?

Possible answer:
- History tell's us no. The nature of human kind, volatile, changes with new discoveries and vice-versa. Cloning won't be an exception. twenty years from now, it won't shock anyone (except, of course, some religious freaks);

Question:
- Two persons equal?

Possible answer:
- That's simply stupid. There would be some similarities but there much more factors at stake: social relationships, education, other experiences, etc.

redhorizon

Hmmm, its an interesting arguement.

On one hand, I believe that life begins at conception, I don't like the idea of abortion, but do understand the need for it in certain situations. Cloning is taking that right to life away as soon as it's given. And the thought of identical clones and the possibility of cloning for organ harvesting, etc, etc, etc, it is scary. Then there's the problem with premature aging, imagine dying decades early just because your cells got old before their time...

On the other hand, the use of stem cell rich placental blood from a 'cloned' foetus, collected after birth, to combat certain types of anaemia, and the whole range of possibilities of stem cell research, curing diseases we currently consider incurable, like ME, cystic fibrosis and HIV/AIDS, discovering what causes genetic abnormalities like Spina Bifida and Downs Syndrome,it has many pluses...

I'm undecided on this debate...

The point is the cells would be fertilized artificially wouldn't they. They wouldn't be extracted for a woman. So the whole conception thing wouldn't really happen. It would be artificial.

I agree with you on some points red, People won't see it as anything strange 50 years from now.

The thing is, one person will try to clone themselves and they'll be disapointed with the result because it won't be anything like them other than in looks. people will realise that it's pointless and the cloned guy will get rich telling his story anyway....

Which genetically modified plants are harmfull to some people? I've never heard of anyone getting ill through modified plants...

No one really knows what the outcome of introducing GM foods into our diet is. Some research suggests that it might lead to certain types of cancer. That's who GM crops are illegal in Europe.

If I knew there were GM ingredients in something, I wouldn't buy it. There's a snack, Bacon Bites, they have, or at least had GM ingredients in them, I stopped buying them, hard coz they were so nice, but had to be done. Scary here in the US though, that sort of info doesn't have to be printed on the packaging... at least, to my knowledge...

No one really knows what the outcome of introducing GM foods into our diet is. Some research suggests that it might lead to certain types of cancer. That's who GM crops are illegal in Europe.

If I knew there were GM ingredients in something, I wouldn't buy it. There's a snack, Bacon Bites, they have, or at least had GM ingredients in them, I stopped buying them, hard coz they were so nice, but had to be done. Scary here in the US though, that sort of info doesn't have to be printed on the packaging... at least, to my knowledge...

Theres loads of things in Europe which are genetically modified.... Tomato paste has been gentically modified for ages....

Growing of genetically modified crops for commercial reasons may be illigal but the testing which is going on isn't. For a start that cnacer thing is just scaremongering... When you eat something you don't 'absorb' it's genetic makeup it just gets broken down into little bits. Plus, everything we eat has genes in them. We probably eat a billion genes a day. I doubt whether a few alterations to make them riper quicker will have an effect on us. I'm more worried about what they put into the p[roduct artificial (colourings and preservatives) than I am about it being genetically modified.

The point is the cells would be fertilized artificially wouldn't they. They wouldn't be extracted for a woman. So the whole conception thing wouldn't really happen. It would be artificial.

Well, for stem cell research, an egg is taken and fertilised. To clone a person, an egg is taken and fertilised with the nucleus of a cell from the same person. It fails a lot because it isn't (A) in the womb, and (B) isn't fertilised with what is supposed to be fertilised with.
So technichnically, conception does take place. One of the few things stopping me from going off on a 'Right to Life' rant is the knowledge that less than 20% of fertilised eggs go on to become a viable foetus. Maybe this lost cellular material could be put to good use preventing serious illness and disease...

Theres loads of things in Europe which are genetically modified.... Tomato paste has been gentically modified for ages....

Growing of genetically modified crops for commercial reasons may be illigal but the testing which is going on isn't. For a start that cnacer thing is just scaremongering... When you eat something you don't 'absorb' it's genetic makeup it just gets broken down into little bits. Plus, everything we eat has genes in them. We probably eat a billion genes a day. I doubt whether a few alterations to make them riper quicker will have an effect on us. I'm more worried about what they put into the p[roduct artificial (colourings and preservatives) than I am about it being genetically modified.

It's not the ones that just grow quicker or ripen quicker that worry me. It's the ones that have a natural immunity to being eaten by bugs. If a plant can kill anything that lands on it,would you eat it?

And thank God I have always considered tomato and tomato based products evil.... :)

Well, for stem cell research, an egg is taken and fertilised. To clone a person, an egg is taken and fertilised with the nucleus of a cell from the same person. It fails a lot because it isn't (A) in the womb, and (B) isn't fertilised with what is supposed to be fertilised with.
So technichnically, conception does take place. One of the few things stopping me from going off on a 'Right to Life' rant is the knowledge that less than 20% of fertilised eggs go on to become a viable foetus. Maybe this lost cellular material could be put to good use preventing serious illness and disease...

Yes but conception between two individuals in the classical sense wouldn't happen... Technical conception would take place. It's artificial conception, that was the point.

20% of fertilized eggs in 'normal' conception?

Therapudic cloning (cloning individual organs) - go right ahead with it.
Human cloning, I oppose however.

GEing is fine for diseases and such but otherwise I oppose it.

Reducing cloning and genetic experiences to the simplistic form of "yes, ok, but not now, because there isn't enough study about it" or "it's good for new organs and infinite supply of blood", is cutting short the possibilities of discussion:

Question:
- Is there an X factor in the what makes what: human makes the technic or the other way around?

Possible answer:
- History tell's us no. The nature of human kind, volatile, changes with new discoveries and vice-versa. Cloning won't be an exception. twenty years from now, it won't shock anyone (except, of course, some religious freaks);

Question:
- Two persons equal?

Possible answer:
- That's simply stupid. There would be some similarities but there much more factors at stake: social relationships, education, other experiences, etc.

redhorizon


I suppose the identical clone bit is very true, considering the differences in identical twins, which is basically cloning in its natural form...

As for what our opinion will be in twenty years time, probably true too, fifty years ago, a man on the moon was science fiction....

As for religious freaks, what in science doesn't shock them?!?

Yes but conception between two individuals in the classical sense wouldn't happen... Technical conception would take place. It's artificial conception, that was the point.

20% of fertilized eggs in 'normal' conception?

Technical conception, yes, but what's the difference between technical and actual, the end result is the same, you're still producing a fertilised egg with the possibility of producing another human being.

And yes, I think the percentage is 18% to be more precise, but don't quote me on that. Hence the average time taken to get pregnant is approximately 8 months - 1year for a woman under 30.

It's not the ones that just grow quicker or ripen quicker that worry me. It's the ones that have a natural immunity to being eaten by bugs. If a plant can kill anything that lands on it,would you eat it?

And thank God I have always considered tomato and tomato based products evil.... :)


errr... yes. Surely it can't kill anything which lands on it? Only the bugs. Besides I breathe in so many chemicals everyday from car exhausts and cleaning products that I doubt a little natural inscticide is going to harm me that much. Besides whihc they test that it's not poisenous to us before they change it.

Actually, there is a valid point in that without enough researcg the environment could be harmed... if that plant is the sole source of food (as happened with some butterflies in America a few years back) then the possibility of extincting a species could happen. Urgh.... what bad wording.

No one really knows what the outcome of introducing GM foods into our diet is. Some research suggests that it might lead to certain types of cancer. That's who GM crops are illegal in Europe.

If I knew there were GM ingredients in something, I wouldn't buy it. There's a snack, Bacon Bites, they have, or at least had GM ingredients in them, I stopped buying them, hard coz they were so nice, but had to be done. Scary here in the US though, that sort of info doesn't have to be printed on the packaging... at least, to my knowledge...

This is government scare-mongering.

We've all heard those arguments...

"GM foods aren't safety-tested enough",
"GM foods might cause cancer",
"GM foods are not natural"


"GM foods aren't safety-tested enough":

And yet, people were not given the same kinds of warning when foods were irradiated as a form of preservation... and artificial additives (like Mono-sodium Glutamate) that DO have health risks, were introduced with no controls... and are STILL required to not fully reveal health-effects.

Does it say on a bottle of Orange Juice that Tartrazine can lead to hyper-activity in children?


"GM foods might cause cancer":

And yet, government regulatory agencies allow chlorine to be added to bread to 'bleach it'. When I looked into this a few years ago, I found that Chlorine was being added (in one form or another) to bread at about seven stages during the production process... to kill microbes, to bleach flour, etc.

Chlorine has it's own health risks, but once it is reacted with organic material (like chemicals found in bread, for example) it can create some pretty nasty byproducts... MANY of which are carcinogens...


"GM foods are not natural":

Humans have been 'breeding' their own crop-strains for millenia. So - NONE of our foods are 'natural'. Line-breeding is a form of Genetic Modification... just a much slower one.

Theres loads of things in Europe which are genetically modified.... Tomato paste has been gentically modified for ages....

Growing of genetically modified crops for commercial reasons may be illigal but the testing which is going on isn't. For a start that cnacer thing is just scaremongering... When you eat something you don't 'absorb' it's genetic makeup it just gets broken down into little bits. Plus, everything we eat has genes in them. We probably eat a billion genes a day. I doubt whether a few alterations to make them riper quicker will have an effect on us. I'm more worried about what they put into the p[roduct artificial (colourings and preservatives) than I am about it being genetically modified.

Most likely, yes, that's true and GM foods are no more dangerous than conventionally farmed crops. However, splicing in transgenes can present a potential for side effects. The most famous example of this being Showa Denko.

I-tryptophan was sold as a sleeping aid in health food stores. In 1988, Showa Denko modified their non-GM method of producing I-tryptophan to a GM approach, splicing an I-tryptophan-coding gene into bacterial DNA to produce Strain V. The I-tryptophan from strain V was judged to be substantially equivallent to the regular-type I-tryptophan, so no additional testing was done and it went to shelves. After only a few months, I-tryptophan from strain V had killed 37 people, left 1,500+ permanently disabled with eosinophilia myalgia syndrome and temporarily disabled another 5,000+. The strain V I-tryptophan, while 99.6% pure, contained enough trace elements to still cause permanent injury or death.

Now, obviously, the I-tryptophan was the same, be it from a GM source or a non-GM source. However, the problem rested in the procedures around testing and harvesting that source. Until those are locked down for every GM food source potentially on the market, you run the risk of repeating a scenario like Showa Denko.

Therapudic cloning (cloning individual organs) - go right ahead with it.
Human cloning, I oppose however.

GEing is fine for diseases and such but otherwise I oppose it.

Cloning individual organs is a great idea, you immediately cut out the waiting lists for organ donation, there won't be any problems with organ rejection, but you still need stem cells which brings you back to artificial conception of human foetuses, which is where the controversy lies. Only stem cells have the ability to divide and become whatever they need to become, from brain cells to skin cells, or, in this case, whatever we program them to become.

Overall though, I agree with you on this point

Technical conception, yes, but what's the difference between technical and actual, the end result is the same, you're still producing a fertilised egg with the possibility of producing another human being.

And yes, I think the percentage is 18% to be more precise, but don't quote me on that. Hence the average time taken to get pregnant is approximately 8 months - 1year for a woman under 30.

Technical conception is what they do when screening for hereditable diseases when couples are having children. They take a bunch of eggs and a bunch of sperm and fertilize them all then screen for the disease to find which zygote dosn't have it. They do this now. The eggs which aren't viable are thrown out and the one that is is implanted in the womb.

Actual conception would happen without any mesisng around. With technical fertilization there is no way the egg is going to grow outside the womb.

Conception happens when a woman concieves.

Did you know that Aids was created by a mistake while cloning?

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about?

Most likely, yes, that's true and GM foods are no more dangerous than conventionally farmed crops. However, splicing in transgenes can present a potential for side effects. The most famous example of this being Showa Denko.

I-tryptophan was sold as a sleeping aid in health food stores. In 1988, Showa Denko modified their non-GM method of producing I-tryptophan to a GM approach, splicing an I-tryptophan-coding gene into bacterial DNA to produce Strain V. The I-tryptophan from strain V was judged to be substantially equivallent to the regular-type I-tryptophan, so no additional testing was done and it went to shelves. After only a few months, I-tryptophan from strain V had killed 37 people, left 1,500+ permanently disabled with eosinophilia myalgia syndrome and temporarily disabled another 5,000+. The strain V I-tryptophan, while 99.6% pure, contained enough trace elements to still cause permanent injury or death.

Now, obviously, the I-tryptophan was the same, be it from a GM source or a non-GM source. However, the problem rested in the procedures around testing and harvesting that source. Until those are locked down for every GM food source potentially on the market, you run the risk of repeating a scenario like Showa Denko.


Yes more testing must be done... I agree. I'm concerned about people who say no to it out of principal though.

What was the actual cause of the problem then? The trace elements?

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about?


I didn't even bother replying to this though this is exactly what I'd of said if I had... :)

You do know that twins will be more similar then a person and its clone?

identical twins yes because they are the same age, whereas a clone would be younger than the "parent"

Yes more testing must be done... I agree. I'm concerned about people who say no to it out of principal though.

Agreed. There's just too much promise there to dismiss it out of hand. But there's enough risk that stringint safety precautions and testing have to be done.


What was the actual cause of the problem then? The trace elements?

That's the assumption, but there wasn't a definitive ruling as Showa Denko destroyed all Strain V evidence before the FDA could examine it.

This is government scare-mongering.

We've all heard those arguments...

"GM foods aren't safety-tested enough",
"GM foods might cause cancer",
"GM foods are not natural"


"GM foods aren't safety-tested enough":

And yet, people were not given the same kinds of warning when foods were irradiated as a form of preservation... and artificial additives (like Mono-sodium Glutamate) that DO have health risks, were introduced with no controls... and are STILL required to not fully reveal health-effects.

Does it say on a bottle of Orange Juice that Tartrazine can lead to hyper-activity in children?


"GM foods might cause cancer":

And yet, government regulatory agencies allow chlorine to be added to bread to 'bleach it'. When I looked into this a few years ago, I found that Chlorine was being added (in one form or another) to bread at about seven stages during the production process... to kill microbes, to bleach flour, etc.

Chlorine has it's own health risks, but once it is reacted with organic material (like chemicals found in bread, for example) it can create some pretty nasty byproducts... MANY of which are carcinogens...


"GM foods are not natural":

Humans have been 'breeding' their own crop-strains for millenia. So - NONE of our foods are 'natural'. Line-breeding is a form of Genetic Modification... just a much slower one.


You do have a strong point here. I just believe that they don't and can't know the long term effects of these foods on the human body. Like smoking up until about 20 years ago, when people started to die off from cancers and other illnesses. We just don't know, and I choose not to partake of something I know to contain GM ingredients.
In Ireland, chlorine is added to the water to keep the pipes clean and free from algae, etc, etc. In the years 1992-1996, excess chlorine was added to the water to kill off a bacterial agent in the water supply that may have been causing stomach upsets. In that time, there was a slightly larger number of babies born with spina bifida in thearea, my sister being one.
I understand the risks of adding chemicals to food, and will try to buy organic whenever my purse and supply allows and will only drink bottled spring water. It tastes better, it looks more normal. My grandfather provides us with strawberries, potatoes, onions, carrots, sometimes cabbage and lettuce. And it tastes so much better than an ything I've ever had before. I've never tasted strawberries so sweet and juicy. It's amazing how much chemicals take away

That's the assumption, but there wasn't a definitive ruling as Showa Denko destroyed all Strain V evidence before the FDA could examine it.


Yes I just read about it on the web. They came to the conclusion that it was likely to be the modification that caused the problems as the tryptophan formed dimerisations, basically reacting with itsef because of the huge amount of it present in the bacterial cell. They couldn't be sure though because Showa Denko reduced the amount of charcoal used to filter the product at the same time. Tryptophan dimerisation dosn't occur natrally in the bacteria though so it is likely that it was the modification.

Morte testing then.... :)

errr... yes. Surely it can't kill anything which lands on it? Only the bugs. Besides I breathe in so many chemicals everyday from car exhausts and cleaning products that I doubt a little natural inscticide is going to harm me that much. Besides whihc they test that it's not poisenous to us before they change it.

Actually, there is a valid point in that without enough researcg the environment could be harmed... if that plant is the sole source of food (as happened with some butterflies in America a few years back) then the possibility of extincting a species could happen. Urgh.... what bad wording.

OK, bugs just die on landing, yes, only bugs. But being that potent, doesn't it scare you? As for breathing in chemicals, considering the concentration, unless you live in an industrial estate, it's usually not enough to be harmful...

And here's holding out for rocket fuelled cars!!! :)

Technical conception is what they do when screening for hereditable diseases when couples are having children. They take a bunch of eggs and a bunch of sperm and fertilize them all then screen for the disease to find which zygote dosn't have it. They do this now. The eggs which aren't viable are thrown out and the one that is is implanted in the womb.

Actual conception would happen without any mesisng around. With technical fertilization there is no way the egg is going to grow outside the womb.

Conception happens when a woman concieves.

Well, this happens when a couple can't concieve naturally, yes? In that case, why would you give a couple who are spending 1000's on a chance to get pregnant a foetus which has a higher probability of dying off in the womb?

Did you know that Aids was created by a mistake while cloning?

That's interesting, didn't know that!

I'd never say you have to buy GM foods. I would just say that it's more likely you'll get something form the products and chemicals that you add to it afterwards...

Anyway, I drink, smoke, and eat 'turkey twizzlers'. I've drunk water from unfiltered streams and reheated chicken twice. I've eaten meat thats been out on the side for a day and a half. I like beef dripping on toast (thats beef fat in it's most undisguised form for those who don't know what "dripping" is). I swallow gum. I also masturbate, blaspheme and covert my neighbours girlfriend.

I'm really not scared of GM foods. Though if you want to be, you can be. I just think caution, yes, but it's too good an opportunity to waste completely.

Cloning can be very dangerous. Did you know that Aids was created by a mistake while cloning? A lot more testing needs to be done in iscolation and no cloning should be performed before we know it's safe.
There's many theories about the origin of AIDS. A cloning miscalculation is one of them. There's a theory that it was created in a lab by some actual 'mad' scientists that released it into the world (perhaps to get rich off of an antidote to be released when the world is crippled by it or biological warfare). Theory of intrafamily mating is also one of the many guesses. The fact is, HIV/AIDS is still a disease that no one can pinpoint the source of.

Well, this happens when a couple can't concieve naturally, yes? In that case, why would you give a couple who are spending 1000's on a chance to get pregnant a foetus which has a higher probability of dying off in the womb?

I'm talking about when the parents both have a genetic disorder which could be passed down to there child... something like huntingtons disease, where the parents both carry the recessive gene and have a history of the disease in their familys. Then the gametes are screened for it.

When parents that can't concieve try to have children, it's maybe because of a low sperm count or some such thing. In these cases not that many eggs are fertilized because they don't have to be screened. They do it one egg at a time, implant it and hope it grows.

I guess there isn't really a difference between conception and artificial conception technically, but to me they are different things. Especially if the artificial conception is for stem cells. In this case it's like.... well there are no really good analogys that I can think of but it's just like growing something which we eat or use rather than creating a potential human.

I'd never say you have to buy GM foods. I would just say that it's more likely you'll get something form the products and chemicals that you add to it afterwards...

Anyway, I drink, smoke, and eat 'turkey twizzlers'. I've drunk water from unfiltered streams and reheated chicken twice. I've eaten meat thats been out on the side for a day and a half. I like beef dripping on toast (thats beef fat in it's most undisguised form for those who don't know what "dripping" is). I swallow gum. I also masturbate, blaspheme and covert my neighbours girlfriend.

I'm really not scared of GM foods. Though if you want to be, you can be. I just think caution, yes, but it's too good an opportunity to waste completely.

I drink (I'm Irish, it's expected), played in wet tarmac when I was young, swam in polluted rivers, land kayak, don't do anything dubious with food though, and don't like gum too much, and would have a problem if I coveted my neighbours girlfriend, considering I'm female, straight and married.

But GM foods scare me, because I don't really know what they're doing to me. Everything above, you know what it's doing to you, none of it too serious, apart from the smoking, and the coveting your neighbours girlfriend, especially if he catches you blaspheming and maturbating at the same time as you're coveting....

I just like to know what's going on, that's all.

There's many theories about the origin of AIDS. A cloning miscalculation is one of them. There's a theory that it was created in a lab by some actual 'mad' scientists that released it into the world (perhaps to get rich off of an antidote to be released when the world is crippled by it or biological warfare). Theory of intrafamily mating is also one of the many guesses. The fact is, HIV/AIDS is still a disease that no one can pinpoint the source of.

I think it generally came from SHIV (simean HIV). HIV is/was already prsent in other simean species but there was a cossover point some years ago when it began to become prevelent in humans too.

I'm talking about when the parents both have a genetic disorder which could be passed down to there child... something like huntingtons disease, where the parents both carry the recessive gene and have a history of the disease in their familys. Then the gametes are screened for it.

When parents that can't concieve try to have children, it's maybe because of a low sperm count or some such thing. In these cases not that many eggs are fertilized because they don't have to be screened. They do it one egg at a time, implant it and hope it grows.

I guess there isn't really a difference between conception and artificial conception technically, but to me they are different things. Especially if the artificial conception is for stem cells. In this case it's like.... well there are no really good analogys that I can think of but it's just like growing something which we eat or use rather than creating a potential human.


Actually, they tend to implant 5 at a time to maximise the chance of at least one egg taking hold. Quite painful as hormones have to be injected firstly to produce multiple eggs which are released all at the same time, then more injections are needed through the belly to extract the eggs from the tubes. Five are implanted because, as I've said before, statisically, only 18% of fertilised eggs go on to produce viable foetuses. Doesn't rule out multiple births, so any more than 5 might compromise all of the foetuses later if all of them take...

I think it generally came from SHIV (simean HIV). HIV is/was already prsent in other simean species but there was a cossover point some years ago when it began to become prevelent in humans too.


Wasn't patient zero found to be a gay American man?

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

I drink (I'm Irish, it's expected), played in wet tarmac when I was young, swam in polluted rivers, land kayak, don't do anything dubious with food though, and don't like gum too much, and would have a problem if I coveted my neighbours girlfriend, considering I'm female, straight and married.

But GM foods scare me, because I don't really know what they're doing to me. Everything above, you know what it's doing to you, none of it too serious, apart from the smoking, and the coveting your neighbours girlfriend, especially if he catches you blaspheming and maturbating at the same time as you're coveting....

I just like to know what's going on, that's all.

Yes, you are right of course. I guess I don't know what they are doing to me, but then I don't know what car fumes are doing to me. And dosn't everything cause cancer these days? Too much vitamin C can cause it, BBQ'd food contains carcinogens. Virtually everything you cook does. Why waste my time worrying about GM foods? It's just one more thing people can point at and say "ooohhh....bad". I studied biology and genetics for about three years and even before that I wasn't worried. As long as they do the testing (something the Showa denko people didn't) it dosn't worry me.

I agree with you on some points red, People won't see it as anything strange 50 years from now.

The thing is, one person will try to clone themselves and they'll be disapointed with the result because it won't be anything like them other than in looks. people will realise that it's pointless and the cloned guy will get rich telling his story anyway....

The clone actually may not look all that much like them either. A lot of the way we look comes from epigenetic, rather than genetic information. Have you ever seen the cloned cat? It's coloring is completely different from the cat it was cloned from. This is because of epigenetic traits.

Actually, they tend to implant 5 at a time to maximise the chance of at least one egg taking hold. Quite painful as hormones have to be injected firstly to produce multiple eggs which are released all at the same time, then more injections are needed through the belly to extract the eggs from the tubes. Five are implanted because, as I've said before, statisically, only 18% of fertilised eggs go on to produce viable foetuses. Doesn't rule out multiple births, so any more than 5 might compromise all of the foetuses later if all of them take...

Fair enough.... I stand corrected. Even so, It's different from growing stem cells or screening for hereditary diseases.

Well, for stem cell research, an egg is taken and fertilised. To clone a person, an egg is taken and fertilised with the nucleus of a cell from the same person. It fails a lot because it isn't (A) in the womb, and (B) isn't fertilised with what is supposed to be fertilised with.

That's not exactly true.

For most of the embryonic stem cell reasearch which has been done so far, an egg and a sperm are used to create the embryo. These are embryos which were created for an in vitro fertilization procedure but were extra. One team has managed to create a stem cell line from a cloned embryo. In this procedure, the DNA from an adult cell is moved into an egg. The egg is then induced to begin dividing (usually through electricity). Before that team, this procedure in humans had never resulted in an embryo dividing past the 8-cell stage. The Korean team that was successful didn't change anything basic in the process - they used better instruments.

As for reproductive cloning, that has not yet even been attempted in humans. The beginning process is pretty much the same as that described above. Then it would be implanted (like in vitro fertilzation). In animals, the best results we have obtained is about 1 in 100 live births. I doubt we'll be trying this in humans any time soon, as that gets even less likely as you go up in complexity.

The clone actually may not look all that much like them either. A lot of the way we look comes from epigenetic, rather than genetic information. Have you ever seen the cloned cat? It's coloring is completely different from the cat it was cloned from. This is because of epigenetic traits.

Yes. But it will probably still look alot like them. Some characteristics like hair coulour ing maybe slight skin tones and things like that but hey should still look preety similar...

Yes, you are right of course. I guess I don't know what they are doing to me, but then I don't know what car fumes are doing to me. And dosn't everything cause cancer these days? Too much vitamin C can cause it, BBQ'd food contains carcinogens. Virtually everything you cook does. Why waste my time worrying about GM foods? It's just one more thing people can point at and say "ooohhh....bad". I studied biology and genetics for about three years and even before that I wasn't worried. As long as they do the testing (something the Showa denko people didn't) it dosn't worry me.

I suppose. Everything you do, eat, and drink is going to kill you nowadays. We'd probably be better off going back to living in caves...

You do have a strong point here. I just believe that they don't and can't know the long term effects of these foods on the human body. Like smoking up until about 20 years ago, when people started to die off from cancers and other illnesses. We just don't know, and I choose not to partake of something I know to contain GM ingredients.
In Ireland, chlorine is added to the water to keep the pipes clean and free from algae, etc, etc. In the years 1992-1996, excess chlorine was added to the water to kill off a bacterial agent in the water supply that may have been causing stomach upsets. In that time, there was a slightly larger number of babies born with spina bifida in thearea, my sister being one.
I understand the risks of adding chemicals to food, and will try to buy organic whenever my purse and supply allows and will only drink bottled spring water. It tastes better, it looks more normal. My grandfather provides us with strawberries, potatoes, onions, carrots, sometimes cabbage and lettuce. And it tastes so much better than an ything I've ever had before. I've never tasted strawberries so sweet and juicy. It's amazing how much chemicals take away

Just a couple of points, off-topic, before I get back to the GM thing.

I work in the Water industry... so, I have some experience with Chlorine as a chemical, and with it's effects on water supplies.

The first thing you need to know - is that (unless you live in the Third World), tap water is almost always better quality, and usually 'safer' than bottled water... since the controls (in most countries) are AT LEAST as tight on tap water as they are on bottled water, and often tighter.

For a quick comparison test - try boiling samples of your tap water and samples of your bottled water. Boil away all of the water, until you have just residue left, and compare the results.

Theoretically, spring water should be pretty 'pure' - but there are characteristics about it that might not be... you can not know for sure what the Radon levels are near the spring, you do not know what chemicals the water had to leach through to get into the spring... and you have no idea what occured within the walls of the bottling plant.

Add to that - it is MUCH easier to introduce toxins into a bottled supply, than into a pressurised city water system.


Regarding 'natural foods', my family raised all our own food for many years. It does mean that I was the only kid at my school that had ever slit the throat of a pig, but 'naturally' raised food IS much tastier than mass-produced.

However - that is a little bit of a red-herring, Like I said... most of our food stuff is not 'natural', if you go back a few years. Our modern cattle or swine are almost nothing like their originators... the 'chicken' is entirely a man-made creation... derived from Jungle Fowl.

I will not say there are no risks to GM foods... but, I also believe that the issue has been reinforced by politics. We have been 'modifying' the genetics of our foods for centuries... there is no real reason to suspect that GM foods are more harmful in any way, than their more 'natural' opposite numbers.

Wasn't patient zero found to be a gay American man?

Please correct me if I'm wrong...
Patient zero was not the first to bring the virus to North America. There were plenty of people before him that were infected but it was not public. Another theory (SIV theory) is that humans ate infected monkey meat or some blood transfer in possibly a hunting expedition.

There's many theories about the origin of AIDS. A cloning miscalculation is one of them. There's a theory that it was created in a lab by some actual 'mad' scientists that released it into the world (perhaps to get rich off of an antidote to be released when the world is crippled by it or biological warfare). Theory of intrafamily mating is also one of the many guesses. The fact is, HIV/AIDS is still a disease that no one can pinpoint the source of.

Actually, the experts are almost completely sure that it is a variant of a simian virus which was passed into African tribes through the practice of killing and eating apes.

Right..... I'm going for my dinner..... With any luck it will not kill me. :)

In summary:-

GM foods: yes with more/better testing
Stem cells: Yes
Cloned humans: maybe for body parts. Why dosn't everyone just carry a doner card... I think I lost mine actually too....

That's not exactly true.

For most of the embryonic stem cell reasearch which has been done so far, an egg and a sperm are used to create the embryo.

Ah, But I never said that stem cells were created using cloned cells, just from a fertilised egg. Usually, all they require is cell division of 6 cells, more is better of course, so this I do agree with you on.


As for reproductive cloning, that has not yet even been attempted in humans. The beginning process is pretty much the same as that described above. Then it would be implanted (like in vitro fertilzation). In animals, the best results we have obtained is about 1 in 100 live births. I doubt we'll be trying this in humans any time soon, as that gets even less likely as you go up in complexity.

Maybe I should have mentioned that that is how it is done to date, not necessarily in human embryos though, but how it was done to produce Dolly the cloned sheep. The 1/100 success rate sounds quite reasonable considering the complexity of the procedure, again, I do agree... :p

I guess there isn't really a difference between conception and artificial conception technically, but to me they are different things. Especially if the artificial conception is for stem cells. In this case it's like.... well there are no really good analogys that I can think of but it's just like growing something which we eat or use rather than creating a potential human.

You are improperly using words here. Conception only occurs if an embryo implants in the womb. That is the definition of conception.

The word you are looking for is fertilization.

Actually, the experts are almost completely sure that it is a variant of a simian virus which was passed into African tribes through the practice of killing and eating apes.

Thats what I said! SHIV! Simean HIV!

I didn't say they ate monkey meat though ;)

Dinner beckons.... I'm seriously going now...

You are improperly using words here. Conception only occurs if an embryo implants in the womb. That is the definition of conception.

The word you are looking for is fertilization.

Thats what I meant to say.... I knew 'Artificial conception' didn't sound right.

Dinner!

Usually, all they require is cell division of 6 cells, more is better of course, so this I do agree with you on.

Incorrect. The embryo must divide to the blastocyst stage, at which point the cells can be removed. The cells are not useful at the 6-cell stage.

Thats what I said! SHIV! Simean HIV!

I didn't say they ate monkey meat though ;)

Dinner beckons.... I'm seriously going now...
Correction: SIV (Simean Immunodeficiency Virus)

SHIV would mean Simean Human Immunodeficency Virus.

Yes. But it will probably still look alot like them. Some characteristics like hair coulour ing maybe slight skin tones and things like that but hey should still look preety similar...

Yeah, like a sibling, or a child - but not exact, not even as close as identical twins most likely.

Just a couple of points, off-topic, before I get back to the GM thing.

I work in the Water industry... so, I have some experience with Chlorine as a chemical, and with it's effects on water supplies.

The first thing you need to know - is that (unless you live in the Third World), tap water is almost always better quality, and usually 'safer' than bottled water... since the controls (in most countries) are AT LEAST as tight on tap water as they are on bottled water, and often tighter.

For a quick comparison test - try boiling samples of your tap water and samples of your bottled water. Boil away all of the water, until you have just residue left, and compare the results.

Theoretically, spring water should be pretty 'pure' - but there are characteristics about it that might not be... you can not know for sure what the Radon levels are near the spring, you do not know what chemicals the water had to leach through to get into the spring... and you have no idea what occured within the walls of the bottling plant.

Add to that - it is MUCH easier to introduce toxins into a bottled supply, than into a pressurised city water system.


Regarding 'natural foods', my family raised all our own food for many years. It does mean that I was the only kid at my school that had ever slit the throat of a pig, but 'naturally' raised food IS much tastier than mass-produced.

However - that is a little bit of a red-herring, Like I said... most of our food stuff is not 'natural', if you go back a few years. Our modern cattle or swine are almost nothing like their originators... the 'chicken' is entirely a man-made creation... derived from Jungle Fowl.

I will not say there are no risks to GM foods... but, I also believe that the issue has been reinforced by politics. We have been 'modifying' the genetics of our foods for centuries... there is no real reason to suspect that GM foods are more harmful in any way, than their more 'natural' opposite numbers.


Regarding the water issue, I'd prefer to drink from a natural well/spring than to drink tap water, if only for the quality of taste. There's nothing worse than drinking something that smells and tastes like something scooped from a public swimming pool. Furthermore, flourine in the water is thought to cause teeth to turn black. Dentists in Ireland are asking to have it removed, but of course, our government 'knows best'. This is not proven, other people say it has positive benefits, but I've fallen so many times on my face and bruised my teeth, that teeth blackening isn't something I'd like to happen, regardless of how unlikely it is...
Also bottles water is usually taken from limestone regions where water seeps through the porous rock. The sediment left behind is natural salts which are absorbed in the body, usually minerals our body needs anyway, so that's not usually a problem.
And as for Radon levels, you could say the same about a towns water supply, but, considering the half life of radon is about 4 days, there's usually little of it left in your bottled water by the time it gets to you.
Besides, my mother was brought up drinking water from a natural well, nothing's happened to her. My great grandmother lived to the ripe old age of 92 on the same water. I'm not worried about it

Regarding farm animals, of course they're not natural, they were bred to be more docile, to breed more often, to produce higher quantities of milk/eggs, etc, and I know they're not what they should. Either are dogs. Or domestic cats for that matter. The point is, they were bred that way, not created in a lab. Mother Nature knows how to create a viable species, we, as yet, do not.

Ive read some of the responses and i have learned that many people dont understand cloning too much.

Plant clonning and alteration is very helpful.. it will help farmers and the lack of food everywhere. plants could be made to make toxins that affect certain insects and not us, they can be made to reproduce more, or grow larger, and produce more products.

animal cloning is a little different however. The animal -im gonna talk about humans here- will be genetically the same person. This is similar to having a twin brother or sister. The clone will be younger, and wont have the same personality. for example, we could technically clone hitler, the child with the same genetic code as hitler can grow up to be a rabbi. which brings me to the next point of cloning, it is basically, taking the cell of an organism (ie, female), and in a test tube, forcing it to be fertilized with an egg cell, hit it with hormones, and under the right conditions, the cell will grow and divide as if it were fertilized by a sperm, except the genetic information is 100% from the smae organism that provided both the egg and the "other" cell. After fertilization, the zygote is transplanted into the unterus of the same organism, and it may form into a clone (which is actually just as normal baby organism with the same physical traits as the donor).

We have successfully done this with Dolly the sheep -however, after a few weeks, Dolly died from nervous system complications. This will probably not be feesible with humans for at least another 50 years. so far, onlya few percent of animal clones (ie, rats, sheep, and other small organisms) actually survive for more than a few weeks.

Actually, the experts are almost completely sure that it is a variant of a simian virus which was passed into African tribes through the practice of killing and eating apes.
Wait, are you SURE that it wasn't developed in the MKNAOMI project, at the behest of the Club of Rome, to wipe out the blacks in Africa?
:D

Incorrect. The embryo must divide to the blastocyst stage, at which point the cells can be removed. The cells are not useful at the 6-cell stage.

How does it matter how many stem cells are produced by cell division regarding their viability?

animal cloning is a little different however. The animal -im gonna talk about humans here- will be genetically the same person. This is similar to having a twin brother or sister. The clone will be younger, and wont have the same personality. for example, we could technically clone hitler, the child with the same genetic code as hitler can grow up to be a rabbi. which brings me to the next point of cloning, it is basically, taking the cell of an organism (ie, female), and in a test tube, forcing it to be fertilized with an egg cell, hit it with hormones, and under the right conditions, the cell will grow and divide as if it were fertilized by a sperm, except the genetic information is 100% from the smae organism that provided both the egg and the "other" cell. After fertilization, the zygote is transplanted into the unterus of the same organism, and it may form into a clone (which is actually just as normal baby organism with the same physical traits as the donor).

This is mostly correct. Your description of nuclear cell transfer is a bit off though. The DNA (or the whole cell, in very limited types of cells) from the donor cell is transferred into an egg. This egg does not have to come from the same organism, but better results have been obtained that way. There are growth hormones given, but an electric shock is normally used to induce division.

The genetic information may or may not be ""100%". At the least, many epigenetic traits may be different. If the egg cell does not come from the same organism, the mitochondrial DNA will be different.

We have successfully done this with Dolly the sheep -however, after a few weeks, Dolly died from nervous system complications. This will probably not be feesible with humans for at least another 50 years. so far, onlya few percent of animal clones (ie, rats, sheep, and other small organisms) actually survive for more than a few weeks.

Dolly didn't die. She developed arthritis at an abnormally early age, leading scientists to believe that cloned cells retain the biological age of the parent...

How does it matter how many stem cells are produced by cell division regarding their viability?

It has nothing to do with how many stem cells are produced by cell division. The procedure to extract the embryonic stem cells cannot be carried out until the blastocyst stage. At this point, the stem cells are formed and clumped into one end of the blastocyst and can be removed. The cells at the 6-cell stage are not embryonic stem cells. They are even earlier cells which, if pulled apart and placed in culture, pretty much do nothing.

It has nothing to do with how many stem cells are produced by cell division. The procedure to extract the embryonic stem cells cannot be carried out until the blastocyst stage. At this point, the stem cells are formed and clumped into one end of the blastocyst and can be removed. The cells at the 6-cell stage are not embryonic stem cells. They are even earlier cells which, if pulled apart and placed in culture, pretty much do nothing.


OK, thanks for clearing that up...

Wasn't patient zero found to be a gay American man?

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

No.... but that would have been irrelevent, anyway.

"Patient Zero" is allegedly the earliest traced introduction point for HIV/AIDS (or GRIDS, as it was still known, then) into the US.

There is no way to prove whether he was in fact TRULY the first human vector of the disease into the country. It seems unlikely.

Patient Zero is a scapegoat.

No.... but that would have been irrelevent, anyway.

"Patient Zero" is allegedly the earliest traced introduction point for HIV/AIDS (or GRIDS, as it was still known, then) into the US.

There is no way to prove whether he was in fact TRULY the first human vector of the disease into the country. It seems unlikely.

Patient Zero is a scapegoat.

But it was found here first? And traced back to this specific person from multiple cases? I know lions carry the virus, but are unaffected by it, so it's a strong possibility that the first ever case popped up in Africa, but, like you said, was never detected.

Another possibility is that the AIDS virus fell to Earth with a meteor, something small enough to vapourise while passing through the atmosphere, or maybe leave something pebble sized at most, again, we don't know...
Interesting though...

But it was found here first? And traced back to this specific person from multiple cases? I know lions carry the virus, but are unaffected by it, so it's a strong possibility that the first ever case popped up in Africa, but, like you said, was never detected.

Another possibility is that the AIDS virus fell to Earth with a meteor, something small enough to vapourise while passing through the atmosphere, or maybe leave something pebble sized at most, again, we don't know...
Interesting though...

Since it is hard to ascertain for sure where the virus might have originated... and since there are many different ways you can die once infected... it is entirely possible that people have had HIV for centuries... possibly even millenia, in small pockets, ehre and there.

Patient Zero was the vector of the disease to a group of people... and was the figure that the government IDENTIFIED as the first human vector of the disease into the US. That doesn't mean it is true... he is just the publically accepted figure. Every buck needs to stop with someone.

Since it is hard to ascertain for sure where the virus might have originated... and since there are many different ways you can die once infected... it is entirely possible that people have had HIV for centuries... possibly even millenia, in small pockets, ehre and there.

Patient Zero was the vector of the disease to a group of people... and was the figure that the government IDENTIFIED as the first human vector of the disease into the US. That doesn't mean it is true... he is just the publically accepted figure. Every buck needs to stop with someone.

I suppose it's true regarding patient zero...

I doubt it's possible that people in small pockets have had HIV for any longer than a few generations, eventually, they'll all just die off...
For the disease to become so large a threat, a large population would have to be affected, infecting a small group of people cut off from the world, it wouldn't get very far, and if they weren't cut off, we would have heard about this disease much earlier...

I want to be genetically modified. There are definite improvements that could be done.

Like a firm bony scrotum instead of a fleshy vulnerable one. *nod* That'd come in handy.

Some of us don't NEED genetic alteration. *nods*

bump

I suppose it's true regarding patient zero...

I doubt it's possible that people in small pockets have had HIV for any longer than a few generations, eventually, they'll all just die off...
For the disease to become so large a threat, a large population would have to be affected, infecting a small group of people cut off from the world, it wouldn't get very far, and if they weren't cut off, we would have heard about this disease much earlier...

Actually, if you think about it... HIV could easily have been around, even in countries like America, for far longer than we currently 'know'.

Disease requires vectors... something must carry a disease from place to place, to expose others to contagion. Historically speaking, people haven't REALLY moved around much. EVen today, many of the people in any given locality are probably second, third, fourth generation IN THAT LOCALITY.

Go back a few years, and transportation was far more of a luxury than it is today. Go back a hundred years, and generations lived and died within throwing distance of their distan ancestors.

Under those conditions... very slow migration... a vector for a disease like HIV would occasionally enter a community, perhaps. The disease might make it into the local community, under favourable circumstances.

Bear in mind that our medicine is far more advanced today, than even a few decades ago.

So, a disease would spread, undetected, until it started to manifest terminal symptoms... which might not even be comprehensible to more basic science. Especially when you consider people do not die 'of' AIDS... they die from complications of the disease... and those 'complications' would have been the diagnosis in the community.

As you say... such disease would be devastating. That, in it's self, however, is a form of control. Very few vectors would thus infect futher communities.

Under those circumstances... there really is no reason to assume that HIV is 'new'... only that it is 'newly understood'.

Have you considered a whole bunch of smaller ones? Sounds more exciting. :)Yes, but this has a higher success rate. When we wanted to eliminate planets in the past, it always worked. ;)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Actually, if you think about it... HIV could easily have been around, even in countries like America, for far longer than we currently 'know'.

Disease requires vectors... something must carry a disease from place to place, to expose others to contagion. Historically speaking, people haven't REALLY moved around much. EVen today, many of the people in any given locality are probably second, third, fourth generation IN THAT LOCALITY.

Go back a few years, and transportation was far more of a luxury than it is today. Go back a hundred years, and generations lived and died within throwing distance of their distan ancestors.

Under those conditions... very slow migration... a vector for a disease like HIV would occasionally enter a community, perhaps. The disease might make it into the local community, under favourable circumstances.

Bear in mind that our medicine is far more advanced today, than even a few decades ago.

So, a disease would spread, undetected, until it started to manifest terminal symptoms... which might not even be comprehensible to more basic science. Especially when you consider people do not die 'of' AIDS... they die from complications of the disease... and those 'complications' would have been the diagnosis in the community.

As you say... such disease would be devastating. That, in it's self, however, is a form of control. Very few vectors would thus infect futher communities.

Under those circumstances... there really is no reason to assume that HIV is 'new'... only that it is 'newly understood'.Exactly. It started out as a disease among monkeys (SIDS), and spread to humans because they ate monkeys or kept them as pets. Unknown to you humans, the monkeys may have infected tigers, birds, bacteria, and the earth itself. That's why we haven't dismissed it yet and are waiting on our plan to use an asteroid instead.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Cloning is possibly useful for biological research, but I don't like the idea of identical people walking around. Genetic alteration could be very useful.
Are we just a generation removed from the Star Treks' Khan he asked jokingly?I mean with the pace of scientific knowledge ever increasing it is not going to be that surprising when it happens,when not if.

*snip*

As you say... such disease would be devastating. That, in it's self, however, is a form of control. Very few vectors would thus infect futher communities.

Under those circumstances... there really is no reason to assume that HIV is 'new'... only that it is 'newly understood'.

Considering the ~10 year incubation period, the normal controls against infecting other communities really wouldn't work. Something like smallpox, you get sick right away and stay at home - not likely to spread too far. Something like HIV would spread.

Of course, it could have been around, but in a different form. Perhaps, for instance, it could not be passed from human to human, but a mutation allowed it to do so. RNA viruses mutate very, very quickly. In a single person, the number of mutations of HIV can equate to the mutations that occur in other viruses over many years and many populations.

What are your views on cloning/genetic alteration (in plants, animals, pets, people)?
I support pretty much all research that conforms to ethical restrictrions on unnecessary pain and suffering. The only application for cloning or genetic research that I oppose is research that will be used for fertility purposes; I oppose all fertility treatments, and that would include any use of cloning or genetic manipulation to achieve pregnancy.

Cloning is possibly useful for biological research, but I don't like the idea of identical people walking around.
<--Puts out a bounty on all identical twins.

Considering the ~10 year incubation period, the normal controls against infecting other communities really wouldn't work. Something like smallpox, you get sick right away and stay at home - not likely to spread too far. Something like HIV would spread.

Of course, it could have been around, but in a different form. Perhaps, for instance, it could not be passed from human to human, but a mutation allowed it to do so. RNA viruses mutate very, very quickly. In a single person, the number of mutations of HIV can equate to the mutations that occur in other viruses over many years and many populations.

Well, I don't necessarily think that the disease would have had to be in it's current incarnation... it seems more likely that we are in the most virulent stage of this disease's lifecycle. (So far).

However - I did say HIV would spread... but it requires more than just coughing to transmit... and that might well have kept the transmission rate lower than MIGHT be expected. It would still decimate communities, and spread to others... but wouldn't necessarily spread like wild fire.

Of course - it isn't unusual to look at our histories and see huge swathes of death cut by plagues, for example... it isn't that unusual for much more 'immediate' diseases to do huge damage... perhaps, HIV (type) deaths are hidden within those figures?