NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your thoughts on Human cloning? It just seems like an interesting topic

Ahh... Silly little nooblets making thread about debates we've had too many times already...

Against.

Right now, the success rate is quite low and most clones we have made of other animals tend to have serious defects and health problems. Even if we could master the technique of cloning people, I don't like the idea of photocopying individuals. Heterosexual reproduction is prevailent in nature because of its benefit to the gene pool. More importantly, God will smite you.

Once we can, sure. Full reproductive cloning won't have too huge a market, but therapeutic looks quite promising.

Sure, then we can have a debate as to whether a clone is a true human desrving of rights. And we can build armies of clone soldiers instead of recruiting kids from high school. It would make the Star Wars fans giddy.

Once we can, sure. Full reproductive cloning won't have too huge a market, but therapeutic looks quite promising.

Theraputic human cloning? How can cloning a person be therapuetic?

Theraputic human cloning? How can cloning a person be therapuetic?

It's not cloning the human, it's cloning part of a human in order to replace a body part which is in a bad condition.

The real question is: can you molest your own clone?

The real question is: can you molest your own clone?
you can love your clone, you just can't LOVE your clone :p

ah, procrastination beats programming a 68000

Sure, then we can have a debate as to whether a clone is a true human desrving of rights. And we can build armies of clone soldiers instead of recruiting kids from high school. It would make the Star Wars fans giddy.
it's not as good an idea as you think. how else are we meant to get rid of all the people we don't need in society?
not that i'm for war, just entertained by it EDIT: and then, only in movies

Sure, then we can have a debate as to whether a clone is a true human desrving of rights. And we can build armies of clone soldiers instead of recruiting kids from high school. It would make the Star Wars fans giddy.

Except that at this point it would be incredibly hard to deny clones rights. Unlike racism, sexism, etc., we don't have thousands of years of practice. We aren't going to be able to dehumanize people who walk, talk, look and act just like us, and can argue as such.

Except that at this point it would be incredibly hard to deny clones rights. Unlike racism, sexism, etc., we don't have thousands of years of practice. We aren't going to be able to dehumanize people who walk, talk, look and act just like us, and can argue as such.
you obviously haven't had any practice at it. i know people that can make anyone feel dehumanised with only a few minutes of speech. then again, half the time they don't even realise it.

The idea of cloning people sends alarms in my head for some reason sure cloning great thinkers might be a good idea (though it would give newer scientists a harder time) but other than that I don’t think there could be any point even if your building an army because you may as well create genetically engineered clones with robotic add-ons and such

I’m all for cloning body parts though the idea of eating my own heart sounds fun and nutritious (so why not clone animals to I say…oh right more chance of disease wiping them out)

Of most people there shouldn't be even one, why make more?

you obviously haven't had any practice at it. i know people that can make anyone feel dehumanised with only a few minutes of speech. then again, half the time they don't even realise it.

That's not the issue, I'm talking about people viewing others as nonhuman. It's very hard to do when the "nonhumans" look and act much like you.

Of most people there shouldn't be even one, why make more?
think about it, your own private george bush. imagine the fun you could have with one of those...

That's not the issue, I'm talking about people viewing others as nonhuman. It's very hard to do when the "nonhumans" look and act much like you.
the thing is that there are enough people who can look at people as non human. remember what the nazis did? they got as far as they did by teaching people that jews are not human and they succeded at least part of the time.

The idea of cloning people sends alarms in my head for some reason sure cloning great thinkers might be a good idea (though it would give newer scientists a harder time) but other than that I don’t think there could be any point even if your building an army because you may as well create genetically engineered clones with robotic add-ons and such

I’m all for cloning body parts though the idea of eating my own heart sounds fun and nutritious (so why not clone animals to I say…oh right more chance of disease wiping them out)

People wouldn't clone great thinkers, because that would do next to nothing. People wouldn't make clone armies because they wouldn't be any more effective than normal armies. And people would probably not clone mass amounts of animals from the same source, there would be little point to it.

the thing is that there are enough people who can look at people as non human. remember what the nazis did? they got as far as they did by teaching people that jews are not human and they succeded at least part of the time.

But again, it's much easier to dehumanize Jews than it would be to dehumanize clones. There were thousands of years of prejudice backing up what the Nazis did. The Jews had different religious practices, different cultural practices, and in some cases differences in appearance. We don't have any experience dehumanizing clones, and they wouldn't look or act any different from anyone else.

But again, it's much easier to dehumanize Jews than it would be to dehumanize clones. There were thousands of years of prejudice backing up what the Nazis did. The Jews had different religious practices, different cultural practices, and in some cases differences in appearance. We don't have any experience dehumanizing clones, and they wouldn't look or act any different from anyone else.
if you need them to look or act differently, that's not that hard a thing to achieve. we could always put a barcode on their forehead, which will definitely freak most people out. to have them act differently, we just need to raise them to act differently in a way that equally freaks people out. it's not hard to do and will give you the results that you want.

I'm for it. It would basically generate an endless supply of perfectly matching organ transplants.

There wouldn't be any point in cloning entire humans anyway. The only difference with normal people would be that its genes would have been copied from someone else. The clone would still have to be raised from an embryo into an adult just like everyone else.

if you need them to look or act differently, that's not that hard a thing to achieve. we could always put a barcode on their forehead, which will definitely freak most people out. to have them act differently, we just need to raise them to act differently in a way that equally freaks people out. it's not hard to do and will give you the results that you want.

You'd get the same results if you messed with non-clones. Problem is, people would know what process you took to make them outsiders, and would view it as extraneous to who they are. Like when we run into instances of slavery in today's world, we tend to think "poor, shattered mind" rather than "nonhuman that deserves it".

I voted against it. Only because the idiot who created the poll forgot to put an "other" or smilar option.

I am against full human cloning. I however, am not against cloning body parts. I wouldent want to be waiting on a organ donor list for god knows how long when I could have some dna taken from me and have it cloned.

You'd get the same results if you messed with non-clones. Problem is, people would know what process you took to make them outsiders, and would view it as extraneous to who they are. Like when we run into instances of slavery in today's world, we tend to think "poor, shattered mind" rather than "nonhuman that deserves it".
the thing is that it's not that hard to condition humans to believe that they are not human. many people still will react differently to them despiite knowing that them being like that is not their fault. there are enough people that don't think logically in the world.

I voted against it. Only because the idiot who created the poll forgot to put an "other" or smilar option.

I am against full human cloning. I however, am not against cloning body parts. I wouldent want to be waiting on a organ donor list for god knows how long when I could have some dna taken from me and have it cloned.

Teh agreement.

the thing is that it's not that hard to condition humans to believe that they are not human. many people still will react differently to them despiite knowing that them being like that is not their fault. there are enough people that don't think logically in the world.

...

Its quite hard to dehumanize humans (people). You are confusing it for duhumanizing a person. If it was so easy to dehumanize people you wouldent have so many uprizings. It's the individuals. Not the masses...

Therapeutic - absolutely.

Reproductive - absolutely not.

=)

Ahh... Silly little nooblets making thread about debates we've had too many times already...

Of course, from where I'm sitting... you would be a noob, and you'd have been repeating debates I'd seen long, and many times, before.

As if a subject like this can ever be over-debated, anyway...

Therapeutic - absolutely.

Reproductive - absolutely not.

=)

agree.

I have no problem growing random livers and such, but there are way too many moral, ethical, legal, medical and spiritual problems with cloning people for reproductive purposes.

What are your thoughts on Human cloning? It just seems like an interesting topic

At the moment, there seems little point in attempting to clone whole people, except to show that it can be done.

Thus - the current advantages to cloning would be in 'partial' cloning... reproducing human tissue that is a pretty-much identical match to the tissue you need to replace.

If the technology is ever fully functional for 'total' cloning, I can see disadvantages... not least being the fact that every time you perfectly replicate one person, you limit the genepool potential a little more. The other main disadvantage would be assuming the continuation of our current capitalist model - which is that cloning would be a form of reproduction most readily available to the rich - discriminatory babymaking.

There are situations where cloning might be very advantageous, but such scenarios would rely on science that can 'carry' clones to term, rather than having to impregnate human females. An example would be the (possibly) far-off prospect of space travel and colonisation - if you only need to carry a standard pack of clone-seeds to grow to potential, you can save a lot of space that would otherwise be needed for full life-support systems.

Obviously - you could just as easily carry non-clone 'seed' stock, but the cloned stock can give you a basic template that can be tested and 'proved'.

I'm for cloning humans and chemically retarding them from birth, so they are not conscious beings. Perfect organ transplants for existing, sentient beings are much more important than retarded clone rights.

agree.

I have no problem growing random livers and such, but there are way too many moral, ethical, legal, medical and spiritual problems with cloning people for reproductive purposes.

I don't think so... unless the science is 'abused'... like eugenics, or clone-the-rich scenarios.

Really, it depends on who gets cloned. And you can bet it would be rich narcissists first.

So, that would be Tom Cruise, Rosie O'Donnell, Rush Limbaugh.

On second thought, we should make it illegal. ;)

I don't think so... unless the science is 'abused'... like eugenics, or clone-the-rich scenarios.

Why do you consider eugenics an "abuse" of science?

I don't think so... unless the science is 'abused'... like eugenics, or clone-the-rich scenarios.

do clones have legal rights?

who are their guardians?

are they seperate entities?

what happens if someone wants to clone someone who has a genetic disorder?

what happens if a person commits a crime and you have DNA evidence, how do you prosecute them if they claim the clone did it?

are clones people?

if clones are not people can we make them slaves?

do they have human rights?

are they citizens?

I could go on for hours....but I would rather watch star trek.

Why do you consider eugenics an "abuse" of science?

Because it is an abuse of science. There are certain things that you could do that could be considered 'eugenics'... like wiping out the genes for hereditary diseases... but you start getting into thornier area the more you attempt to 'meddle'... the more you conform genetics, the less diverse the genepool. Eventually, you create a 'lethal' race.

Science shouldn't become the pawn of racists.

agree.

I have no problem growing random livers and such, but there are way too many moral, ethical, legal, medical and spiritual problems with cloning people for reproductive purposes.

To be fair, many people believe that many of those problems (moral, ethical, spiritual, at the very least) come into play the minute an embryo is created - which is necessary for therapeutic cloning - even if that embryo will never grow into a human being. It's a point of view I don't agree with, but if someone believes it, I'll completely respect their opinion. I just expect them not to force it on others unless they can give me a better reason that, "This is what I believe."

I'm for cloning humans and chemically retarding them from birth, so they are not conscious beings. Perfect organ transplants for existing, sentient beings are much more important than retarded clone rights.

This really raises too many ethical questions in my mind. Not to mention the fact that it would be even more difficult than the idea of therapeutic cloning - which would be to form an embryonic stem cell line from the person who needs and organ and simply grow them that organ, rather than growing the whole body at all.

Really, it depends on who gets cloned. And you can bet it would be rich narcissists first.

So, that would be Tom Cruise, Rosie O'Donnell, Rush Limbaugh.

On second thought, we should make it illegal.

I don't know. If we raised him right, we might get a guy who looks like Tom Cruise, but isn't batshit crazy.

Because it is an abuse of science. There are certain things that you could do that could be considered 'eugenics'... like wiping out the genes for hereditary diseases... but you start getting into thornier area the more you attempt to 'meddle'... the more you conform genetics, the less diverse the genepool. Eventually, you create a 'lethal' race.

Science shouldn't become the pawn of racists.

Why should we be slaves to the slow process of evolution? Once the technology matures sufficently why shouldn't we alter our own genetics to improve future generations? We could boost intelligence, life span, quality of life.

To be fair, many people believe that many of those problems (moral, ethical, spiritual, at the very least) come into play the minute an embryo is created - which is necessary for therapeutic cloning - even if that embryo will never grow into a human being. It's a point of view I don't agree with, but if someone believes it, I'll completely respect their opinion. I just expect them not to force it on others unless they can give me a better reason that, "This is what I believe."
the only reason I can reconcile it is that embreyos aren't considered people by the law now, to be completely truthful.

Why should we be slaves to the slow process of evolution? Once the technology matures sufficently why shouldn't we alter our own genetics to improve future generations? We could boost intelligence, life span, quality of life.

Yours... is... superior...

do clones have legal rights?


If you create 'entire' clones, then you create a new human being. As such, clones should be subject to the same laws as non-clones.

If you mean 'partial cloning', the question is only as relevent as whether or not a transplant organ has it's own 'rights'.


who are their guardians?


The guardians of a clone would be assumed automatically to be the genetic parents, unless the genetic parents have farmed out their material. In which case the guardian would be assumed to be the birth-mother. I assume - based on how the current law seems to work.

There is, of course, always the possibility that organisations like the army would wish to 'purchase' clone material. I can't speak with certainty for what the legal system might decide, but it seems a safe bet that the corporation would become collectively the 'guardian' of the clone.


are they seperate entities?


The clone and the cloned? Yes. Cloning does not photocopy people. A clone would be no more likely to have the exact same features and mannerisms as it's 'original', than a twin is with it's twin.


what happens if someone wants to clone someone who has a genetic disorder?


As the law stands today, I assume that is up to the 'parent'. We allow people with genetic disorders to reproduce, now. I'm not familiar with the legality of allowing genetically disordered people to use IVF, but I see the sitauation as about parallel... so, the current IVF law seems like a good idea of what the law would be.


what happens if a person commits a crime and you have DNA evidence, how do you prosecute them if they claim the clone did it?


The same way we do now. What DNA evidence really does in courts, is EXCLUDE people from suspicion. If Person A says their clone murdered Person B, but Clone A was in a bar in Tahiti at the time...

are clones people?


If we are talking full clones, then yes. If we are talking anything less (from a cloned organ, all the way up to the ghoulish prospect of an entire brainless cloned 'body') then I would assume not.

if clones are not people can we make them slaves?


If machines are not people, can we make them slaves? If animals are not people can we make them slaves?

The term 'people' defines the term 'slaves'. If the material we clone does not make a whole person, it wouldn't be a slave. But then - an arm with no body wouldn't be much use as a slave anyway.

If we are cloning people in entirety, they are people, just like us. The only difference is, to paraphrase Heinlein, that their parents would be a scalpel and a petri-dish. We don't allow slavery based on who your family was.

do they have human rights?


If they are full clones, they are human. So - yes, they have human rights.

are they citizens?


If they meet the requirements for citizenship, the same as anyone else.

Why should we be slaves to the slow process of evolution? Once the technology matures sufficently why shouldn't we alter our own genetics to improve future generations? We could boost intelligence, life span, quality of life.

We shouldn't be 'slaves to the slow process of evolution'. But then, we shouldn't just rip up the textbook, either. There are lessons to be learned.

A good scientist is always aware of the fact that, for every reaction you SEE, there may be many you don't.

Eugenics is a ridiculous idea, because it assumes we somehow know what would be 'best'. Pride goeth before destruction, remember... I can just see our 'eugenic' world without disease, when we suddenly encounter some new illness to which we have engineered out ALL of the possible saving responses.

The clone and the cloned? Yes. Cloning does not photocopy people. A clone would be no more likely to have the exact same features and mannerisms as it's 'original', than a twin is with it's twin.

Less likely, actually, as it would be exposed to different levels of hormones, etc. in utero (even moreso than a simple gradient) and would definitely grow up in a different environment.

As the law stands today, I assume that is up to the 'parent'. We allow people with genetic disorders to reproduce, now. I'm not familiar with the legality of allowing genetically disordered people to use IVF, but I see the sitauation as about parallel... so, the current IVF law seems like a good idea of what the law would be.

What if the reason for cloning such a person was medical testing?

Edit: Meanwhile, one of the biggest problems I see with human cloning is the idea of expectations. Many people already have insanely high expectations for their children, but behind that, they know that their children may or may not be born with the capacity or willingness to live up to them. Cloning, however, would open up a whole new can of worms. If we cloned Michael Jordan, for instance, and then the kid was bookwormish and hated sports, do you think that would go over well with the people who decided to clone him? Perhaps they would push him into sports at an early age and he would end up hating it. These types of problems are only magnified by the possibility of cloning.

Another is health issues. Telomere shortening certainly could be a problem, unless we found a way to counteract it. All of the epigenetic changes made to DNA are not necessarily reversed in the cloning process. Development could be hindered by genes that have been "turned off" as it were, even though they are needed.

And then there's the fact that, even in the animals in which we have "perfected" the process, it is extremely inefficient. The closer we get to humans, the more inefficient the process gets. I don't think we need to play around with human lives that way.

the only reason I can reconcile it is that embreyos aren't considered people by the law now, to be completely truthful.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that therapeutic cloning is ok because embryos aren't considered people by the law, but it wouldn't be ok if the law changed? Are you saying that you think the law should be different? :confused:

We shouldn't be 'slaves to the slow process of evolution'. But then, we shouldn't just rip up the textbook, either. There are lessons to be learned.

A good scientist is always aware of the fact that, for every reaction you SEE, there may be many you don't.

Eugenics is a ridiculous idea, because it assumes we somehow know what would be 'best'. Pride goeth before destruction, remember... I can just see our 'eugenic' world without disease, when we suddenly encounter some new illness to which we have engineered out ALL of the possible saving responses.

Yeah, that'd be why I said "When the technology matures sufficently". At the moment we don't know enough about anything to be playing with the human genome. There's no pride in genetic manipulation, the point is acknowleding our flaws and trying to fix them.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that therapeutic cloning is ok because embryos aren't considered people by the law, but it wouldn't be ok if the law changed? Are you saying that you think the law should be different? :confused:

morally I think that embreyos are people, but in a legal sense they are not, and I don't think they should be because I am unable to objectively prove that they are.

If they were legally people then I would morally be double sure to speak out against cloning, but as the law sits, I can't currently come up with a good arguement (meaning good enough that I wouldn't have to kick my own ass for being idiotic)

Less likely, actually, as it would be exposed to different levels of hormones, etc. in utero (even moreso than a simple gradient) and would definitely grow up in a different environment.


Indeed. I was just pointing out that the idea that pulp sci-fi has perpetuated... that my clone would actually somehow be ME, at the same time I am... is not a reality.


What if the reason for cloning such a person was medical testing?

Again - it depends what our material is... are we talking partial cloning? In which case, the 'restriction' would be the same as one might find for the same organ, tissue, or whatever, obtained through 'conventional' means.

If we are talking 'entire' clones, we are talking about human-brothers-of-another-mother... do we allow the medical industry to raise children for the purpose of medical testing, now?

Next poll, put in a "Gee, I'm not sure" choice and maybe one for "Pie!"

I'm not sure. Copying people doesn't seem like a really good idea, especially if people start having themselves cloned for spare parts. Still, we might learn something about biology from the experiments, so ... gee, I'm not sure.

Indeed. I was just pointing out that the idea that pulp sci-fi has perpetuated... that my clone would actually somehow be ME, at the same time I am... is not a reality.

He could sure look like you, but years later. We have natural clones today - it's called identical twin. Except that those are at the same time.

Yeah, that'd be why I said "When the technology matures sufficently". At the moment we don't know enough about anything to be playing with the human genome. There's no pride in genetic manipulation, the point is acknowleding our flaws and trying to fix them.

This creates an condition that can never be fulfilled... how could we ever KNOW that technology is 'sufficiently' mature? We can't... we should never assume that we know EVERYTHING about anything.

And - as you illustrate - acknowledge our flaws and fix them... and then, what if it transpires that the 'flaw' we spent all that time 'fixing' is actually sometimes a survival characteristic?

I'd be as wary of the idea of 'medical' eugenics as I would of antibiotics.

Again - it depends what our material is... are we talking partial cloning?

No, that's why I said cloning a person. Therapeutic cloning never involves an actual person, unless you consider a blastocyst a person.

If we are talking 'entire' clones, we are talking about human-brothers-of-another-mother... do we allow the medical industry to raise children for the purpose of medical testing, now?

No, but, in some sense, a clone of me would be my tissue - and there are those who would argue that way. If I make a culture of my own cells, do those cells get rights? What sets a clone of me apart, especially considering that, being a woman, a clone of me could come entirely from my own tissue.

And can a parent, now, sign their child with diseases up for medical testing? IIRC, they can.

No, but, in some sense, a clone of me would be my tissue - and there are those who would argue that way. If I make a culture of my own cells, do those cells get rights? What sets a clone of me apart, especially considering that, being a woman, a clone of me could come entirely from my own tissue.

One could make the same argument that if you're my natural, identical twin, you ARE entirely from MY own tissue.

So, in your opinion, does that mean I get your liver if I wear mine out?

He could sure look like you, but years later. We have natural clones today - it's called identical twin. Except that those are at the same time.

The identical twin is actually much closer genetically than a clone would be, if we take into account mitochondrial DNA and epigenetic changes. Much of the way we look is controlled by epigenetics, rather than genetics. There is some difference between identical twins in epigenetics, but it is generally pretty small, as they have had many of the same exposures and experiences. However, most epigentic changes are reversed in the cloning process, and new such changes can be made in development. In truth, a clone might look very little like the person they were cloned from.

The first cloned cat looked pretty much nothing like the cat it was cloned from or like the "mother" cat that bore it. It's coloring was entirely different, because the coloring in cats is largely epigenetically controlled.

He could sure look like you, but years later. We have natural clones today - it's called identical twin. Except that those are at the same time.

Exactly... except that the 'clone' tissue has had whatever duration of degradation it was in the body BEFORE it was collected for cloning. (Plus any other effects... mutagenic/teratagenic agents that have been handled or in proximity, for example...)

A clone derived from anything other than a conceptus (which would, in effect, just yield an artificially stimulated twin), would be rooted in a 'different seed' to that that generated the 'original'. So - a 'clone' will be less like 'me', than my twin would.

One could make the same argument that if you're my natural, identical twin, you ARE entirely from MY own tissue.

So, in your opinion, does that mean I get your liver if I wear mine out?

No, you really couldn't. An identical twin doesn't form from another human being, or even another set of tissue. They form from the same tissue - and thus neither has ownership of the other's tissue.

A clone, however, would be formed entirely from cells taken from my body. From a certain viewpoint, creating a clone would be no different than taking my skin cells and starting a culture from them. In fact, in a sense, that is exactly what is involved in cloning. As such, I would have much more claim to "ownership" of a clone than I would over a twin.

It isn't the idea of identical DNA that makes this argument. It is the idea that the clone was actually grown entirely from one person's tissue. What causes that person to give up their rights to said tissue?

Exactly... except that the 'clone' tissue has had whatever duration of degradation it was in the body BEFORE it was collected for cloning. (Plus any other effects... mutagenic/teratagenic agents that have been handled or in proximity, for example...)

A clone derived from anything other than a conceptus (which would, in effect, just yield an artificially stimulated twin), would be rooted in a 'different seed' to that that generated the 'original'. So - a 'clone' will be less like 'me', than my twin would.

The question being, if I make multiple clones at the same time, they'll all be "twins" - and exactly like one another genetically.

So while I may not end up with an exact copy of you, the sci-fi idea of an "army of clones" could be possible.

No, that's why I said cloning a person. Therapeutic cloning never involves an actual person, unless you consider a blastocyst a person.


Not the root... the end-product. You coudl theoretically 'clone' tissue or an organ alone. This would not be a person. On the other hand, if your cloned 'product' was the whole thing, it is a person.


No, but, in some sense, a clone of me would be my tissue - and there are those who would argue that way. If I make a culture of my own cells, do those cells get rights? What sets a clone of me apart, especially considering that, being a woman, a clone of me could come entirely from my own tissue.

And can a parent, now, sign their child with diseases up for medical testing? IIRC, they can.

Well, in theory, a clone of you is not 'your' property at all... although you could argue it 'belonged' to your parents... so - you might be able to claim some 'ownership' if you bore your own clone...

But then - we don't allow 'owning' people. What differentiates the clone from the cell sample? Probably the simple matter of self-determination. If you clone a 'whole person', you clone a self-determining unit - as such, you cannot 'own' it.

The question being, if I make multiple clones at the same time, they'll all be "twins" - and exactly like one another genetically.

So while I may not end up with an exact copy of you, the sci-fi idea of an "army of clones" could be possible.

They'll start out identically... they will essentially be multiple copies of the same 'egg' (even if that 'egg' was not originally derived from a 'sex-cell'). But, from that point onwards it is a crap-shoot. Your 'army of clones' may look almost nothing like each other, by the time they are grown... and, if you cloned again from THAT generation, your next set of clones might be an even 'fuzzier' copy.

Not the root... the end-product. You coudl theoretically 'clone' tissue or an organ alone. This would not be a person. On the other hand, if your cloned 'product' was the whole thing, it is a person.

Exactly my point - and the reason I used "person" in the first place.

Well, in theory, a clone of you is not 'your' property at all... although you could argue it 'belonged' to your parents... so - you might be able to claim some 'ownership' if you bore your own clone...

Wait, are you saying that my tissues are not my own, but they instead belong to my parents?

But then - we don't allow 'owning' people. What differentiates the clone from the cell sample? Probably the simple matter of self-determination. If you clone a 'whole person', you clone a self-determining unit - as such, you cannot 'own' it.

Here we run into the same problem that all the discussions of personhood run into, however. If by self-determination, you are referring to conscious decision-making (which I assume you are), an infant doesn't really have that capability. So we still have to fall back on something else that sets them apart.

If you are just referring to it actually being another unit, separate from my body, that doesn't really matter. A culture of my cells is a separate unit, but still belongs to me, unless I choose to sign ownership of it away to someone else.

Wait, are you saying that my tissues are not my own, but they instead belong to my parents?


If you really want to use terms like 'mine', 'own' or 'belong'. It's kind of a grey area, because we have conflicting thoughts... a history of being allowed to 'own' anything, including other people, versus a realisation that you could keep chopping parts off of someone without ever finding the part that was definitively 'them'.

How much of 'me' IS 'me'... and how much do I 'own'? Do I really 'own' any of 'me' at all... or is it less about working out what is 'mine', and more about working out what is 'me'.

We feel proprietary about it.. but the law already gives us a guideline that might be helpful.. I do not own my children, I am their 'guardian'. Even an infant is not 'possessed', just 'looked-after'.

So - while you could argue you 'own' your blood sample... once you get enough material collected to characterise as a 'person', you can be it's 'guardian'... but I don't think you can 'own' it... not unless we re-institute slavery.



Here we run into the same problem that all the discussions of personhood run into, however. If by self-determination, you are referring to conscious decision-making (which I assume you are), an infant doesn't really have that capability. So we still have to fall back on something else that sets them apart.

If you are just referring to it actually being another unit, separate from my body, that doesn't really matter. A culture of my cells is a separate unit, but still belongs to me, unless I choose to sign ownership of it away to someone else.

No - by self-determination, I am referring to a whole spectrum... from "screw you dad, I'm moving out" all the way 'down' to whatever self-awareness and reactiveness made my little boy chase a flashlight around mommy's tummy, two months before he was born.

If you really want to use terms like 'mine', 'own' or 'belong'. It's kind of a grey area, because we have conflicting thoughts... a history of being allowed to 'own' anything, including other people, versus a realisation that you could keep chopping parts off of someone without ever finding the part that was definitively 'them'.

How much of 'me' IS 'me'... and how much do I 'own'? Do I really 'own' any of 'me' at all... or is it less about working out what is 'mine', and more about working out what is 'me'.

I think, in the end, self-"ownership" boils down to the fact that you are made up of certain parts and that, since those parts are part of you, you own them. You alone have the right to determine what happens to them (so long as you are capable).

No - by self-determination, I am referring to a whole spectrum... from "screw you dad, I'm moving out" all the way 'down' to whatever self-awareness and reactiveness made my little boy chase a flashlight around mommy's tummy, two months before he was born.

Ah, I see.

I do have one question though. Can you own a dog?

What are your thoughts on Human cloning? It just seems like an interesting topic

i can think of no reasonable need for it, so i am against it. science for it's own sake is stupid.

i can think of no reasonable need for it, so i am against it. science for it's own sake is stupid.

Are you referring to all cloning, or reproductive cloning?

I can certainly think of a need for therapeutic cloning - all the people sitting on organ donor lists and/or on permanent immune suppression due to transplants come to mind immediately.

Theraputic human cloning? How can cloning a person be therapuetic?

Copying people can be very relaxing. :)

I think, in the end, self-"ownership" boils down to the fact that you are made up of certain parts and that, since those parts are part of you, you own them. You alone have the right to determine what happens to them (so long as you are capable).


And, I think 'ownership' is a strange concept to apply to the whole thing. But, while it applies to 'parts of' people, it has been seen to not apply to persons in toto


Ah, I see.

I do have one question though. Can you own a dog?

As the law stands at the moment, yes. But then, a few years back, you could 'own' the coloured folk. The whole idea of 'owning' living things is a bizarre concept anyway. Try explaining to your cow why it has to stay in that field.... it cares not a jot for ownership, only the fences.

But, on topic... a dog is not a human clone, a human, or even human tissue. I can own some marbles, but it doesn't affect the 'access to human rights' of a single individual. And, if you would argue 'you can own a dog, why not a person'... well, I didn't make that law.

And, I think 'ownership' is a strange concept to apply to the whole thing. But, while it applies to 'parts of' people, it has been seen to not apply to persons in toto

Indeed. But then we get into the question of what makes a person a person. The discussion often boils down into things like "self-determination", "sentience", "sapience", etc., but there really has to be something more, or we would have no reason to restrict "personhood" to human beings (or we would have to exclude some human beings).

But, on topic... a dog is not a human clone, a human, or even human tissue. I can own some marbles, but it doesn't affect the 'access to human rights' of a single individual. And, if you would argue 'you can own a dog, why not a person'... well, I didn't make that law.

No, but if the 'access to human rights' is dependent upon a level of self-determination that includes in utero response, then there is no reason to deny human rights to most animals.

I tend to find myself fascinated by this debate, although I admit I don't have a more rational answer to it than any other person.

Once "born" any clone of you is no more "your tissue" than any other "born" individual is. The rights of pre-born clones should be subject to the same debate that is waged over the unborn already.

Provided that cloning doesn't introduce any defects to a person, it is no different than any other reproduction that is used, in vitro fertilisation for example.

If "test tube" babies are people without debate, I can't fathom how anyone can question the status or rights of so called clones.

I am curious as to why Dem feels that as a female any clone of her is more hers than a male clone would be to the appropriate male.

The other kind of cloning mentioned in Star Wars - Jango Fett cloning himself and raising said clone as his son - seems OK to me once we can produce clones without defects.
Recall that due to the considerable age difference, Boba was not clearly a clone of his father - he looked like his father's son. There would be few - if any - self-confidence problems.
Now, raising said son as a bounty hunter, I have a problem with that.

Levels of Cloning/Artificial Reproduction and Their Reactions (normal):

Organ-by-Organ= :)
Test-tube babies= :|
Clone children (boba Fett)= :(
"The Island" type cloning= :mad:

me:

:D , :) , :) , :mad: :upyours:

One of my supervisors wants to clone me.:eek:

I support cloning of spare parts. For complete human specimen - no reason. Traditional reproduction is simpler and cheaper. And, actually, more reliable.

I support cloning of spare parts. For complete human specimen - no reason. Traditional reproduction is simpler and cheaper. And, actually, more reliable.
Cheaper? It atkes a prole..er employee out of the market for 9 months. If we go balls out on cloning, the corperations would have to learn to mass produce people. Then, after the initial buzz goes away, they will start adding new features to people: like graphing a canon to there chest...

I wouldn't make a whole clone of me though. I'd make a few extra hearts and livers and at least one of everything else including several feet of skin, just in case I need it and there is no donor available. :)

I wouldn't make a whole clone of me though. I'd make a few extra hearts and livers and at least one of everything else including several feet of skin, just in case I need it and there is no donor available. :)

Would you keep it in the freezer next to your regular meats. Or would you store it in a seperate area in your garage. I would hate to make that mistake.

Once "born" any clone of you is no more "your tissue" than any other "born" individual is.

The question is what difference makes a "born" set of tissue taken from my body different from any other cultured tissue.

((I'm arguing this for the sake of devil's advocate, really. If reproductive cloning actually began - and I don't think it should - I would argue that any clone would have the same rights as any other human being))

Provided that cloning doesn't introduce any defects to a person,

That's a pretty big if.

I am curious as to why Dem feels that as a female any clone of her is more hers than a male clone would be to the appropriate male.

It would be entirely derived from my tissue. To clone someone, you need an egg cell and a somatic cell from that person. If that person is female, both the egg and the somatic cell can be taken from her - making the tissue as close to identical as possible and involving only her tissue. Even the mitochondrial DNA is the same. She could even conceivably carry and give birth to her own clone.

With males, on the other hand, you must take an egg cell from someone else (obviously). Thus, a clone of a male would actually have different mitochondrial DNA (unless the egg cell came from the cloned person's mother) and would not come entirely from the cloned person's tissues.

The question is what difference makes a "born" set of tissue taken from my body different from any other cultured tissue.


The very same difference that makes a child born different from any other tissue in the mother in a natural birth.
Just because the cloning process kicks off life in a slightly different manner, it is still beginning a new life, separate from you just as your natural children grow from your tissue and become their own person.

Honestly, the question is only raised because of the warped influence bad sci fi cloning stories have had on public perception.


((I'm arguing this for the sake of devil's advocate, really. If reproductive cloning actually began - and I don't think it should - I would argue that any clone would have the same rights as any other human being))


Understood.
Why don't you think it should though?

I don't think it should either, but only because we can't reasonably assure anyone that these people will enoy normal healthy lives.


That's a pretty big if.


Matter of opinion.
It's a definite if today, but not an insurmountable one.


It would be more directly my tissue. To clone someone, you need an egg cell and a somatic cell from that person. If that person is female, both the egg and the somatic cell can be taken from them - making the tissue as close to identical as possible. Even the mitochondrial DNA is the same. With males, on the other hand, you must take an egg cell from someone else (obviously). Thus, a clone of a male would actually have different mitochondrial DNA (unless the egg cell came from the cloned person's mother) and would not come entirely from the cloned person's tissues.


I understand the cloning process, but I believe it is far more likely that the egg cells in any cloning process would be taken from a proven stock and not necessarily from the clonee.

The tissue of the egg cell will be irrelevant in a matter of days as cellular division and growth mean that the originnal tissue will be a miniscule fraction of the person.
Mithochondrial DNA makes for a fascinating method to study ancestry, but it does not appear to have any role in defining a person.
If it was discovered to have a currently not understood role, either male or females could have their mitochondria extracted in much the same way their nucleus DNA is extracted and inserted into the egg cell.

Cheaper? It atkes a prole..er employee out of the market for 9 months.

First of all, no it doesn't. Very few women take off work for the entire 9 months of pregnancy, or even the entire amount of maternity leave posisbly afforded to them.

Second of all, cloning would be no different, unless we developed some sort of artificial womb. The clones of animals that have been made have been implanted in the uterus of an animal and brought to term that way. Human beings would be no different.


Understood.
Why don't you think it should though?

I don't think it should either, but only because we can't reasonably assure anyone that these people will enoy normal healthy lives.

That's certainly part of it. I think human clones would be much more subject to all sorts of possible problems - some of which I've talked about in this thread.

The other problem is that, to even get there, we'd have to do some *incredibly* unethical things. We'd have to have hundreds of women going through failed pregnancies just to get a single clone. None of the animals we have cloned have had a better beginning success rate than about 1 in 100, and the efficiency goes down as we move closer to human beings. Even the animals we can now clone "efficiently" are simply better than that 1 in 100 number - not truly efficient.

I understand the cloning process, but I believe it is far more likely that the egg cells in any cloning process would be taken from a proven stock and not necessarily from the clonee.

Why? The process is more efiicient if all tissue comes from the clonee. Not to mention that, if I were to be paying for a clone of myself, I could most likely determine what egg cell woul dbe used.

The tissue of the egg cell will be irrelevant in a matter of days as cellular division and growth mean that the originnal tissue will be a miniscule fraction of the person.

The egg isn't as irrelevant as you think. It is processes within the egg, for instance, that seem to reverse much of the epigenetic changes made to the somatic DNA. There is no reason to believe that an egg cell from one person would do so the same way that another would.

And I think you discount mitochondrial DNA a bit too much as well. Taking into account the fact that the mitochondria is partially controlled by said DNA, and that the mitochondria are the primary source of energy for all of the cells in the body, you would expect some differences. It could be something as simple as the extent to which a person's cells can deal with oxidative damage, but that can mean quite a bit in the aging process.

If it was discovered to have a currently not understood role, either male or females could have their mitochondria extracted in much the same way their nucleus DNA is extracted and inserted into the egg cell.

It might be harder than you think. Even extracting human DNA seems to be somehow different from other mammals. People attempting it have reported that the nucleus doesn't seem to be removed intact with the same techniques used on other mammals - that "strings" (presumably portions of chromosomes) seem to be left behind. There's no telling what kind of technical difficulties we would run into trying to pull all the mitochondria out of an egg cell and replace them with new ones - or, even more of a problem, to remove just the mitochondrial DNA and replace it.

Very few women take off work for the entire 9 months of pregnancy, or even the entire amount of maternity leave posisbly afforded to them.


You've made similar claims in other threads but I disagree with you.
I know for a fact that HR at the medium sized company I work for has recorded 12 months as the most common maternity leave taken.

I'm certain that women under greater economic pressure likely take less.

It would be interesting to see a study on the issue with appropriate controls.

Not really sure what this topic has to do with cloning though.


Second of all, cloning would be no different, unless we developed some sort of artificial womb. The clones of animals that have been made have been implanted in the uterus of an animal and brought to term that way. Human beings would be no different.


All true.


That's certainly part of it. I think human clones would be much more subject to all sorts of possible problems - some of which I've talked about in this thread.


I'm looking for them, but other than your concern over whether a clone of Michael Jordan wants to play basketball or not, I'm not seeing a substantial objection.

I'm ignoring technical or health reasons because I'm assuming that we're talking about the concept of cloning rather than whether we should begin cloning today with what we can do so far, because I'm firmly against that.


The other problem is that, to even get there, we'd have to do some *incredibly* unethical things. We'd have to have hundreds of women going through failed pregnancies just to get a single clone. None of the animals we have cloned have had a better beginning success rate than about 1 in 100, and the efficiency goes down as we move closer to human beings. Even the animals we can now clone "efficiently" are simply better than that 1 in 100 number - not truly efficient.


I don't believe we would be required to begin testing on humans now. We can improve the technique long before we move into human testing.
Also, hundreds of women go through failed pregancies now, by choice, attempting IF to have a child. I'm not sure this is a significant ethical hurdle.


Why? The process is more efiicient if all tissue comes from the clonee. Not to mention that, if I were to be paying for a clone of myself, I could most likely determine what egg cell woul dbe used.


How is that possible??
The most efficient process currently involves ES cells, not somatic cells, so there wouldn't be an egg from the same source.


The egg isn't as irrelevant as you think. It is processes within the egg, for instance, that seem to reverse much of the epigenetic changes made to the somatic DNA. There is no reason to believe that an egg cell from one person would do so the same way that another would.


There's also no reason to believe that the reprograming of epigenetic changes made by one egg will be qualitatively different than those made by any other egg.

What leads you to guess that your egg would be any better at this process than any other egg? If anything, I could see some possible reason to try using your mother's egg, but not yours. It was her egg that was involved in resetting your DNA the first time.


And I think you discount mitochondrial DNA a bit too much as well. Taking into account the fact that the mitochondria is partially controlled by said DNA, and that the mitochondria are the primary source of energy for all of the cells in the body, you would expect some differences.

As long as the mitochondria is outputting energy, as is it's function, there is no reason to expect it is going to have an effect.


It could be something as simple as the extent to which a person's cells can deal with oxidative damage, but that can mean quite a bit in the aging process.


Possibly, but that's a guess, and not one that I can see as supporting your point.
If we can discover a difference in how the egg and it's mitochondria affect the aging process, then we should stockpile eggs that handle this best and not just use yours.



It might be harder than you think. Even extracting human DNA seems to be somehow different from other mammals. People attempting it have reported that the nucleus doesn't seem to be removed intact with the same techniques used on other mammals - that "strings" (presumably portions of chromosomes) seem to be left behind. There's no telling what kind of technical difficulties we would run into trying to pull all the mitochondria out of an egg cell and replace them with new ones - or, even more of a problem, to remove just the mitochondrial DNA and replace it.

Technical difficulties are good reasons to not do it TODAY.
They aren't reasons to not do it EVER.

You've made similar claims in other threads but I disagree with you.

So you think most women take off work the minute they are pregnant and stay home for at least 3 months afterwards? Where the hell do you live?

I know for a fact that HR at the medium sized company I work for has recorded 12 months as the most common maternity leave taken.

LOL! The vast majority of companies don't even offer that much maternity leave.

I'm looking for them, but other than your concern over whether a clone of Michael Jordan wants to play basketball or not, I'm not seeing a substantial objection.

I think the problem of expectations - that a clone would be exactly like the person it was cloned from - would be a significant problem. Parents already screw up their kids by trying to push them to be something they're not. This would just give them another excuse.

Add to it the idea (of many) that clones would be "real people." Or the idea that a clone, since it was derived entirely from one person's tissue, should actually belong to them. Or the idea of making clones with mental defects to make them less human. Or any other number of issues.

I'm ignoring technical or health reasons because I'm assuming that we're talking about the concept of cloning rather than whether we should begin cloning today with what we can do so far, because I'm firmly against that.

And you think we're going to automagically do away with all of the possible technical or health problems?

I don't believe we would be required to begin testing on humans now. We can improve the technique long before we move into human testing.

Except that all of the testing we have already done suggests that human tissue is actually quite different to clone. We can perfect the technique absolutely in mice, but we won't be able to take that technique directly into human beings. No matter how we look at it, even getting to a human clone is going to take many, many failed attempts in humans, regardless of when we start human testing.

Also, hundreds of women go through failed pregancies now, by choice, attempting IF to have a child. I'm not sure this is a significant ethical hurdle.

Do hundreds of women generally go through failed pregnancies all for the purpose of creating one child? There is a difference between some women having failed pregnancies because they want to have their own child and hundreds of women all being impregnanted and going through failed pregnancies as part of an experiment to try and end up with one clone.

How is that possible??
The most efficient process currently involves ES cells, not somatic cells, so there wouldn't be an egg from the same source.

No, it doesn't. Using ES cells wouldn't even be creating a clone of a living thing, as the blastocyst used to derive the ES cells was destroyed at, well, the blastocyst stage.

There's also no reason to believe that the reprograming of epigenetic changes made by one egg will be qualitatively different than those made by any other egg.

What leads you to guess that your egg would be any better at this process than any other egg? If anything, I could see some possible reason to try using your mother's egg, but not yours. It was her egg that was involved in resetting your DNA the first time.

Not "better", just "different." And the reasoning is simple - the biochemical make-up is different from one person to another. Pretty much every cellular process can differ significantly from person to person. It would be more correct to say that there is no reason to believe that the reprogramming of epigenetic changes would not be qualitatevely different from that of another egg.

As long as the mitochondria is outputting energy, as is it's function, there is no reason to expect it is going to have an effect.

LOL. You're right, as long as it's outputting some energy, there's no effect at all. :rolleyes:

Possibly, but that's a guess, and not one that I can see as supporting your point.

Not really a "guess" per se. More an interpretation of the data we have on mitochondria and oxidative processes.

If we can discover a difference in how the egg and it's mitochondria affect the aging process, then we should stockpile eggs that handle this best and not just use yours.

.....making the clone less like the person being cloned. This whole discussion started out in talking about the fact that a clone made entirely from one person would be more like them than a clone made partially from someone else. You've just said that you *want* that difference.

Meanwhile, studies in animals have shown that it is actually more efficient to clone an animal when you use both its own egg and its own somatic cell. What does that tell us?

Technical difficulties are good reasons to not do it TODAY.
They aren't reasons to not do it EVER.

When working out those technical difficulties looks like it could only be completed in human testing, they absolutely are reasons not to ever do it.

It would be an excellent way of choosing a leader.


Firstly geneticallly engineer a perfect being.

Then clone it lots.

Have it raised with no extreme influences, just knowledge that is neutral and facts.

Then have it take command while the next one is growing up.

:D

I support human cloning as the first step towards Biological Immortality, anyone who stands in the way of science is insane and needs to be sent to a mental institution.

So you think most women take off work the minute they are pregnant and stay home for at least 3 months afterwards? Where the hell do you live?

LOL! The vast majority of companies don't even offer that much maternity leave.


I have to say, I have never known anyone to take 12 months off work for a baby. They have either left work completely for the whole family thing, or they have left after they start to show, and usually come back within a month or so of the birth.

Indeed. But then we get into the question of what makes a person a person. The discussion often boils down into things like "self-determination", "sentience", "sapience", etc., but there really has to be something more, or we would have no reason to restrict "personhood" to human beings (or we would have to exclude some human beings).


Personally, I have no problems extending the paramaters of 'personhood' to encompass non-human entities... if those entities display the common aspects of personhood.

For the sake of this debate, though... the old standards of is it alive AND human AND 'self-aware' (on some level) might be enough.

I think you are trying to overcomplicate the issue... we are basically talking about entities that will be walking, talking functional humans.


No, but if the 'access to human rights' is dependent upon a level of self-determination that includes in utero response, then there is no reason to deny human rights to most animals.

I tend to find myself fascinated by this debate, although I admit I don't have a more rational answer to it than any other person.

A dog is not a human being. You can tell by the DNA, by the form, and by the barking. My personal belief is that we should extend humane rights to our less talkative brethren and sistren, if not actually human ones. On the othe hand, dogs should probably never get 'the vote', unless they become something very different to what they are today.

Our clones, on the other hand, would be functionally human... and, aside from the same sort of mentality that enslaved the coloured folks in recent history... I see nor eason why they ought not to be accorded all the same rights and responsibilities as 'conventionally conceived' humans.

Cloning organs would save a lot of lives so I'm for that. What I'm not sold on is cloning whole people to carve up for organs, but pro-cloning folks don't usually propose that sort of thing so count me in on organ cloning!

So you think most women take off work the minute they are pregnant and stay home for at least 3 months afterwards? Where the hell do you live?


No, the majority that I'm aware of work until almost 8 months, unless there are complications and try to save up leave time to be home with the newborn.

I live in the province of Ontario, Canada.


LOL! The vast majority of companies don't even offer that much maternity leave.


52 weeks for the mother is allowed by law here.
I can only comment on what I'm familiar with and here, the vast majority of new mothers take the full option.

How much time off can parents take for pregnancy and parental leave?
A birth mother can take both pregnancy and parental leave. Birth mothers are entitled to 17 weeks of unpaid, job-protected pregnancy leave. Those who take pregnancy leave are entitled to up to 35 weeks' parental leave. Birth mothers who don't take pregnancy leave, and all other new parents, are entitled to up to 37 weeks' parental leave.

If each parent of a newborn took the maximum leave allowed at separate times, the baby would have a parent at home for 89 consecutive weeks (17 weeks of pregnancy leave for the birth mother, plus 35 weeks of parental leave for the birth mother, plus 37 weeks of parental leave for the other parent).

Parents may also choose to go on leave at the same time: for example, a father could take parental leave at the same time a mother is on pregnancy or parental leave.

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/factsheets/fs_preg.html



I think the problem of expectations - that a clone would be exactly like the person it was cloned from - would be a significant problem. Parents already screw up their kids by trying to push them to be something they're not. This would just give them another excuse.


I'm sorry, I can't take that seriously.
Excessive expectations are parenting issues.
Parents of non-clones screw up their kids already, this is not a difference that matters.


Add to it the idea (of many) that clones would be "real people." Or the idea that a clone, since it was derived entirely from one person's tissue, should actually belong to them. Or the idea of making clones with mental defects to make them less human. Or any other number of issues.


I don't know how clones being "real people" is either an issue or a problem.
No person belongs to another person, those people can go sit in a corner with the last vestiges of the Klan and their ilk.
Deliberately creating mental defects can occur with or without cloning, it is reprehensible in any case.


And you think we're going to automagically do away with all of the possible technical or health problems?


No. I expect science to do what it always does. Progress.
It's not magic.
If we don't, then I would remain opposed to any human cloning.


Except that all of the testing we have already done suggests that human tissue is actually quite different to clone. We can perfect the technique absolutely in mice, but we won't be able to take that technique directly into human beings. No matter how we look at it, even getting to a human clone is going to take many, many failed attempts in humans, regardless of when we start human testing.


Actually, in some instances, human (and primate) cloning is proving easier. They don't experience the same abnormal growth issues.

Regardless, if your assertion were true, then ALL human testing would have this same issue but yet it does not. You significantly overstate the case.


Do hundreds of women generally go through failed pregnancies all for the purpose of creating one child? There is a difference between some women having failed pregnancies because they want to have their own child and hundreds of women all being impregnanted and going through failed pregnancies as part of an experiment to try and end up with one clone.

You seem pretty set on this "hundreds" figure.
Why not thousands?
Do you have a crystal ball letting you in on info the rest of us don't have access to?


No, it doesn't. Using ES cells wouldn't even be creating a clone of a living thing, as the blastocyst used to derive the ES cells was destroyed at, well, the blastocyst stage.

??
Are you trying to assert that ES cell cloning is not cloning?


Not "better", just "different."

If it's not better, just different, why do we care?


And the reasoning is simple - the biochemical make-up is different from one person to another. Pretty much every cellular process can differ significantly from person to person.

The biochemical make-up is different?? Significantly different cellular processes??

I'm going to have to ask you to support that, because I don't believe we are using the words different nor significantly in the same fashion.


LOL. You're right, as long as it's outputting some energy, there's no effect at all. :rolleyes:


Well, are you going to offer any other info? Or just roll your eyes?
The mitochondria provides the energy the cell needs via ATP. What does the cell care what happens in your mitochondria or mine, so long as it provides the ATP as needed? ATP is ATP, it's not unique in any way to where it was formed.


.....making the clone less like the person being cloned. This whole discussion started out in talking about the fact that a clone made entirely from one person would be more like them than a clone made partially from someone else. You've just said that you *want* that difference.


Sure. If I'm making a clone and can make a healthier, "better" version why wouldn't I?
Perhaps your thinking of someone else's response that was concerned with making as perfect a copy as possible. I do think you've exaggerated the differences that would be there, but they don't concern me other than trying to be accurate in the discussion.


Meanwhile, studies in animals have shown that it is actually more efficient to clone an animal when you use both its own egg and its own somatic cell. What does that tell us?


I haven't seen those studies. The ones I'm familiar with were concerned with the success rate of ES vs somatic.
But didn't you just tell me that it wasn't better, just different?
Can you link me to these studies?


When working out those technical difficulties looks like it could only be completed in human testing, they absolutely are reasons not to ever do it.

As long as that is true, I'll be opposed to human cloning.
I don't share your pessimism on the future possibilities though.

I'm sorry, I can't take that seriously.
Excessive expectations are parenting issues.
Parents of non-clones screw up their kids already, this is not a difference that matters.

Yes, parents of non-clones do screw up their kids already, and this would give them even more of a chance (and a likely a wish) to do so.

And you are the one who said one of the problems with clones would be the issue of them not being able to live "normal, healthy lives". I see no reason that the way they are parented would not fall under that category.

I don't know how clones being "real people" is either an issue or a problem.

There are quite a few people who would argue that clones were somehow lesser people or not even people at all. We can say that they are wrong all we like, but the argument will be made.

No. I expect science to do what it always does. Progress.

I expect science to progress as well. But I don't expect the level of progression that you are suggesting. Watching this technology, I can tell you that perfecting the technique to even a 90% success rate in another species would not do away with the issues we would run into with human beings. Every new species tried has gone back to the same (or, usually, even lower - as we move closer and closer to primates and humans) levels of efficiency. Based on this trend, even if we managed to efficiently clone non-human primates, we'd basically start over again when we got to humans.

Could we do it? Probably. Would it involve an awful lot of human testing with quite a few physiological and emotional effects for those being tested on? Absolutely - and therein lies the ethical problem with even pushing for it.

Actually, in some instances, human (and primate) cloning is proving easier. They don't experience the same abnormal growth issues.

Sorry my dear, but there really has been no human cloning - at least none that has been published. The Korean group that claimed to have accomplished it and derived embryonic stem cell lines from the blastocysts were found to have faked their data.

At this point, humans have not been cloned - therapeutically or otherwise, and last I heard (so, a couple of months ago at a stem cell conference) primates have not either.

Regardless, if your assertion were true, then ALL human testing would have this same issue but yet it does not. You significantly overstate the case.

Wrong. Cloning is proving to be quite different in this case. As a general rule in the medical field, we can move from animal models into human beings with very little change in procedure. We can usually move between mammalian species with very little change in procedure.

This has not, however, been the case with cloning. Every new species has provided its own new set of technical challenges. And the closer we get to human beings, the harder those challenges have been to overcme.

You seem pretty set on this "hundreds" figure.
Why not thousands?
Do you have a crystal ball letting you in on info the rest of us don't have access to?

I'm taking the estimate from the experiences we have had with other species. Generally, in a species that has not yet been cloned, you have - at best - a 1 in 100 success rate. Could it be thousands when we tried to move to human beings? Possibly. However, I am sticking closer to the numbers we have experienced in other animals, with the expectation that they will be somewhat higher.

??
Are you trying to assert that ES cell cloning is not cloning?

The human ES cells we have are not derived from cloning, no. They are derived from discarded in vitro fertilization material. Every current human embryonic stem cell line was derived from a blastocyst which was obtained by fertilizing an egg cell with a sperm cell, not by cloning. We have derived ES cells from cloned blastocysts in some species, but the creation of these lines is not what we refer to as cloning.

It might be a good idea to note that the technical scientific term for cloning is "somatic cell nuclear transfer." The reason for this name is that cloning is a process in which the DNA from a somatic cell (or the entire cell) is transferred into an egg cell in which the genetic material has been removed. That cell is then induced to begin dividing. If that egg reaches the blastocyst stage, we can derive embryonic stem cells. If it is implanted in a uterus and allowed to develop, we can get a cloned animal.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if people have created animal "clones" by taking an ES cell and placing it or its DNA into an egg cell and artificially causing it to divide. In fact, since ES cells have not yet differentiated, it would be a good experiment - determining whether or not a less differentiated cell would have a higher success rate. However, that wouldn't really be cloning an animal, nor would it have anything to do with a discussion of human cloning. We can't take ES cells from a human being (or animal) we want to clone.

I haven't seen any such studies, however. A quick pubmed search reveals one or two that are comparisons of ES cells in mice derived either from cloning or from ferilized eggs. Could that be what you are thinking of? Or perhaps you are referring to the recent studies in which pluripotent cells were derived from somatic cells (something that certainly would be more difficult in somatic cells, give that embryonic stem cells are naturally pluripotent - totipotent, actually).

If it's not better, just different, why do we care?

Well, if you were capable of following the conversation that you yourself have been a part of, you might remember that this entire portion of the conversation was begun when I stated that a clone of a woman could be taken entirely from her tissue and thus be more identical to her than a clone of a man could be.

The entire discussion was about whether or not something was different.

The biochemical make-up is different?? Significantly different cellular processes??

I'm going to have to ask you to support that, because I don't believe we are using the words different nor significantly in the same fashion.

It is basic biology. One of the major problems with studying biology and getting anything to yield statistically significant results is the fact that human biology varies so greatly. Many of the responses, chemical balances, etc. that we would ever want measure can vary from person to person by upwards of 100%. It's the reason that, to get statistically significant results in most human studies, you need a huge sample size. There is so much variation in the ordinary spectrum of human biology.

Well, are you going to offer any other info? Or just roll your eyes?
The mitochondria provides the energy the cell needs via ATP. What does the cell care what happens in your mitochondria or mine, so long as it provides the ATP as needed? ATP is ATP, it's not unique in any way to where it was formed.

Yes, the mitochondria provides ATP. And some mitochondria will obviously do so more efficiently than others. It also is one of the major sources of oxidative stress in a cell. It also helps deal with that oxidative stress through various enzymes (as well as other oxidative stresses that might be encountered). Oxidative stresses (and the way the cells deal with them), in turn, greatly affect development and aging.

Trying to limit it just to "providing enough ATP" is really simplifying it to a grade school level, and is useless in any sort of serious discussion of biology - hence the reason for rolling my eyes. It would be sort of like saying, "As long as the heart pumps enough blood, there will be no difference between one person and another."

Sure. If I'm making a clone and can make a healthier, "better" version why wouldn't I?

Once again, your inability to follow the conversation is astounding. The entire discussion was about how close a clone would be to the original. If you are making it "better", it is further from the original.

Perhaps your thinking of someone else's response that was concerned with making as perfect a copy as possible. I do think you've exaggerated the differences that would be there, but they don't concern me other than trying to be accurate in the discussion.

No, I am talking about your assertion that a clone of a woman - taken entirely from her own tissues - would be no more like her than a clone of a man - which could not be derived entirely from his own tissues - would be like him.

I haven't seen those studies. The ones I'm familiar with were concerned with the success rate of ES vs somatic.

I'm still not sure what you're talking about here. Are you referring to placing an embryonic stem cell in an egg instead of a somatic cell? That wouldn't be cloning a human being. It would smply be creating a new embryo out of one that had been destroyed to create an ES cell line in the first place.

But if you haven't seen these studies, then you've missed the vast majority of the issues surrounding cloning in general.

But didn't you just tell me that it wasn't better, just different?

Once again, do try to follow the conversation. I was referring to the processes which reverse epigenetic changes, not the overall efficiency of cloning.

Can you link me to these studies?

I'll look around and see what I have. My knowledge on this subject has been gleaned from quite a bit of reading as well as lectures at seminars and conferences. Some of the studies I have heard about haven't necessarily yet been published.

The fact that cloning in females has been more successful - and that females have generally been cloned using their own egg cells - is something that has been pretty standard across all of it, however.

As long as that is true, I'll be opposed to human cloning.
I don't share your pessimism on the future possibilities though.

It isn't pessimism. It's realism. Every new species we have tried, we have had to go through a hundred or more attempts to get a viable, living clone. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this trend would just end when we got to human beings. Could we improve upon that and eventually get the process fairly efficient? Probably. But we would have to go through those initial experiments to get there.

Note that by "human cloning" here and through most of the post, I assume you are referring to "reproductive cloning," since that's what the rest of this conversation has referred to.

Yes, parents of non-clones do screw up their kids already, and this would give them even more of a chance (and a likely a wish) to do so.

And you are the one who said one of the problems with clones would be the issue of them not being able to live "normal, healthy lives". I see no reason that the way they are parented would not fall under that category.


You don't limit science or people simply because in your opinion they are likely to screw up.
There's no evidence that the parents of people created by cloning would screw up these people any more than any parent can screw up their child.

When I said, "normal, healthy lives", I was referring to their physical health and life span having the same expectations at a minimum that non-cloned people enjoy, not the psychological environment that we can't control for anyone anyway.


There are quite a few people who would argue that clones were somehow lesser people or not even people at all. We can say that they are wrong all we like, but the argument will be made.


There are quite a few people that will argue that Jews, blacks, Muslims or Americans are somehow lesser people.
I don't listen to them either.


I expect science to progress as well. But I don't expect the level of progression that you are suggesting. Watching this technology, I can tell you that perfecting the technique to even a 90% success rate in another species would not do away with the issues we would run into with human beings. Every new species tried has gone back to the same (or, usually, even lower - as we move closer and closer to primates and humans) levels of efficiency. Based on this trend, even if we managed to efficiently clone non-human primates, we'd basically start over again when we got to humans.

Could we do it? Probably. Would it involve an awful lot of human testing with quite a few physiological and emotional effects for those being tested on? Absolutely - and therein lies the ethical problem with even pushing for it.


Then we move forward slowly and ethically until we better understand what the diffferences are and why they occur.
Your arguments are nothing more than arguments for not rushing it.


Sorry my dear, but there really has been no human cloning - at least none that has been published. The Korean group that claimed to have accomplished it and derived embryonic stem cell lines from the blastocysts were found to have faked their data.

At this point, humans have not been cloned - therapeutically or otherwise, and last I heard (so, a couple of months ago at a stem cell conference) primates have not either.


Be sorry all you want.
I did not say that human cloning has been performed or published.
Read it for yourself in this quote:

Humans could be technically easier to clone than sheep, cows, pigs and mice because humans possess a genetic benefit that prevents fetal overgrowth, a major obstacle encountered in cloning animals, according to new research by Duke University Medical Center scientists.

The genetic benefit seems subtle, say the researchers, but it is so important that it creates fundamental differences between humans and other animals in the way they regulate fetal growth and cancer susceptibility. The research is published in the Aug. 15, 2001 issue of Human Molecular Genetics.

The genetic benefit they found was this: humans and other primates possess two activated copies of a gene called insulin-like growth factor II receptor (IGF2R). Offspring receive one functional copy from each parent, as expected. However, sheep, pigs, mice and virtually all non-primate mammals receive only one functional copy of this gene because of a rare phenomenon known as genomic imprinting, in which the gene is literally stamped with markings that turn off its function.


The human ES cells we have are not derived from cloning, no. They are derived from discarded in vitro fertilization material.

I made no mention of how our human ES cell lines were derived, that is an entirely different topic.
I'm referring to the cloning technique where you use ES cells and NOT somatic cells.

It might be a good idea to note that the technical scientific term for cloning is "somatic cell nuclear transfer."

You're a bit confused, SCNT is a cloning technique, not the "technical term for cloning".

Here's a source for you:
However, not all clones are created with equal ease. Cloning success is much more likely if embryonic cells are used as nuclear donors. These could be embryonic cells taken from an early fetus, or cells from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst (see Cloning Part 1). What made Dolly so special was the fact she was the first mammal to be cloned using a cell taken from an adult - and even then she was the only live animal to be born out of nearly three hundred attempts. Since then, other animals have been cloned from adult cells, but the efficiency of achieving live births is still extremely low. So what's the big difference between embryonic and adult cells? The key lies in the concept of epigenetics, which was introduced in the first part of this series (see also an earlier article about genetic imprinting).

Cloning requires the reprogramming of an adult or embryonic cell right back to the very start of development. Adult cells are more differentiated (specialised) than embryonic cells - they have made decisions about what sort of cell to be and these choices are said to be imprinted within the cell. For example, an embryonic cell has the potential to become all sorts of cell types, whereas an adult liver cell can only be a liver cell. So embryonic cells only have to "forget" a few decisions when they are cloned, whereas an adult cell has been through many more choices so, essentially, the clock has to be wound back further.

Cells remember what type they are due to epigenetic modifications of their DNA: molecular tags which mark certain genes as being switched on or off. These tags are very similar to those on the sperm which are removed shortly after fertilisation by reprogramming factors in the egg. In order for an adult or embryonic cell to be reprogrammed by cloning (by exposing it to the reprogramming environment of the egg), the epigenetic marks within the DNA must be removed. Adult cells are believed to have more of these tags than embryonic cells, so are harder for the egg to reprogramme.

Whether the donor cell is adult or embryonic, a successful clone must negotiate all the stages of development from one cell to a blastocyst and then on to being a fully-grown baby. But embryos can only be grown outside the womb in a test-tube until the blastocyst stage. After this, the embryo needs to form a placenta and take resources from the mother. Researchers must transfer the little balls of cells into the womb of an appropriate surrogate mother, where it can grow further. In fact, embryos created by mixing eggs and sperm in IVF clinics are usually transferred before the blastocyst stage- often when they only consist of two to eight cells.


Well, if you were capable of following the conversation that you yourself have been a part of, you might remember that this entire portion of the conversation was begun when I stated that a clone of a woman could be taken entirely from her tissue and thus be more identical to her than a clone of a man could be.

The entire discussion was about whether or not something was different.


Well, if you were capable of actually making a point and staying with it, we wouldn't have this problem here.

Is YOUR egg qualitatively BETTER at making a clone more identical to you than another egg?

You first asserted that your clone would be MORE identical if your egg was used than another egg. Then you said that your egg isn't better, just different.

So, my question still follows, if you're keeping up in the conversation, why do we care if an egg is just different and not better at creating a more identical clone?


It is basic biology. One of the major problems with studying biology and getting anything to yield statistically significant results is the fact that human biology varies so greatly. Many of the responses, chemical balances, etc. that we would ever want measure can vary from person to person by upwards of 100%. It's the reason that, to get statistically significant results in most human studies, you need a huge sample size. There is so much variation in the ordinary spectrum of human biology.


It's so basic that you cannot give an example that could have a bearing on the cloning discussion?
Fine, we'll consider that point dropped.


Yes, the mitochondria provides ATP. And some mitochondria will obviously do so more efficiently than others. It also is one of the major sources of oxidative stress in a cell. It also helps deal with that oxidative stress through various enzymes (as well as other oxidative stresses that might be encountered). Oxidative stresses (and the way the cells deal with them), in turn, greatly affect development and aging.

Trying to limit it just to "providing enough ATP" is really simplifying it to a grade school level, and is useless in any sort of serious discussion of biology - hence the reason for rolling my eyes. It would be sort of like saying, "As long as the heart pumps enough blood, there will be no difference between one person and another."

And what bearing does any of this have on cloning?
Even people with nothing more than a grade school understanding will be able to see that there's nothing here that contributes to the cloning process.

And this is certainly no reason to attempt to use the DNA donor's mitochondria. In fact, it may be why you wouldn't.
If your mitochondria does a poor job of handling oxidative stresses then we ought to not use yours and instead select an egg that has better performing mitochondria.


Once again, your inability to follow the conversation is astounding. The entire discussion was about how close a clone would be to the original. If you are making it "better", it is further from the original.


I can't follow conversations that are only happening in your head.


No, I am talking about your assertion that a clone of a woman - taken entirely from her own tissues - would be no more like her than a clone of a man - which could not be derived entirely from his own tissues - would be like him.


What from these tissues is making the female clone more like the female?
Is it just the mitochondria?
Fine, use an egg from the male's mother. The male clone now has the same mitochondria that the male donor has.
Is it something else in the egg that you believe is responsible for a unique method of reprogramming epigenetic changes? Because you should be aware that it was your mother's egg that reprogrammed your DNA the first time, not yours.


Once again, do try to follow the conversation. I was referring to the processes which reverse epigenetic changes, not the overall efficiency of cloning.


Yes maam, I'll do my best to follow the points that you aren't putting down in the text next time.

You don't limit science or people simply because in your opinion they are likely to screw up.

We don't limit people because we think they are likely to screw up? Why then, are there restrictions on who can and cannot adopt a child?.

When I said, "normal, healthy lives", I was referring to their physical health and life span having the same expectations at a minimum that non-cloned people enjoy, not the psychological environment that we can't control for anyone anyway.

So you don't believe that psychological health is important?

Then we move forward slowly and ethically until we better understand what the diffferences are and why they occur.

Once again, we run into the same problem. We can't understand the differences between human beings and other species without human testing. We might understand the difference between pigs and non-human primates, but once we began to move into human beings, we would have to figure out the differences yet again.

Be sorry all you want.
I did not say that human cloning has been performed or published.

Ah, it is time to move into the lying segment of your argumentation, is it?

Actually, in some instances, human (and primate) cloning is proving easier. They don't experience the same abnormal growth issues.

You didn't say "might be" easier, as your source suggests. You said it is proving easier. The only way for this to be possible is if it had been done.

Meanwhile, your source refers to growth and development after a clone is produced, not to the cloning process itself. In other words, it *might* be easier to bring a primate clone to term, once you create a viable one in the first place.

I made no mention of how our human ES cell lines were derived, that is an entirely different topic.
I'm referring to the cloning technique where you use ES cells and NOT somatic cells.

....which wouldn't be cloning a human being, couldn't be used in reproductive cloning, and is thus fairly irrelevant to the topic.

Meanwhile, your source has a few problems. It seems to suggest that you can derive embryonic cells from fetal tissue - which is actually impossible.

Basically, the suggestion made here is exactly what I said in my last post - that relatively undifferentiated cells are going to be easier to "reprogram" than differentiated cells (which have more epigentic changes).

You're a bit confused, SCNT is a cloning technique, not the "technical term for cloning".

Here's a source for you:

No, my dear, you are a bit confused, considering that your source doesn't do anything at all to refute what I said. I made it very clear in my last post that you could create a sort of clone using ES cells (although this is not really what your source says - it refers to embryonic cells in general, which may or may not be ES cells, depending on the stage of development at which you get them). However, that doesn't change the fact that the technique used is still somatic cell nuclear transfer, simply with an ES or fetal cell, rather than an adult one.

Well, if you were capable of actually making a point and staying with it, we wouldn't have this problem here.

I am. You're the one who seems to be consistently getting off topic.

Is YOUR egg qualitatively BETTER at making a clone more identical to you than another egg?

It is better if the criterion is making a clone more identical, yes. And, from what the researchers involved in cloning have seen it is better at making a clone in general.

You first asserted that your clone would be MORE identical if your egg was used than another egg. Then you said that your egg isn't better, just different.

Wow, the strawmen are amazing. I never said that the clonee's egg wasn't better at making a clone, or at making an identical clone. What I said was that it wouldn't necessarily be "better" at reprogramming epigenetic changes - but that it would be likely to do so differently. This may or may not have an effect on the efficiency of cloning.

So, my question still follows, if you're keeping up in the conversation, why do we care if an egg is just different and not better at creating a more identical clone?

If you were following the conversation, you would know that the question is misphrased. I never said that an egg was "just different and not better at creating a more identical clone." I said that any given egg might be "just different and not better at REVERSING EPIGENETIC CHANGES." In other words, for the people who have problems with English, it may reverse the same amount of epigenetic changes, but may do so differently. These epigentic changes are important in development, which means that DNA which was "deprogrammed" differently would be, in fact, less identical.

It's so basic that you cannot give an example that could have a bearing on the cloning discussion?
Fine, we'll consider that point dropped.

They all have a bearing on the cloning discussion. Levels of hormones vary that much. Responses to agonists vary that much. Levels of ions and such in the cytoplasm vary greatly. Expression levels of various enzymes vary that much.

The problem with coming up with a single issue is that the issues are so varied, I can't bring up a single one that would be *the* determining factor. They would all have an effect of some sort, some greater than others.

And what bearing does any of this have on cloning?
Even people with nothing more than a grade school understanding will be able to see that there's nothing here that contributes to the cloning process.

Really? So development won't have anything at all to do with how (or whether) a clone turns out? Aging won't have anything to do with how a person turns out?

Do tell me what grade school you went to, so I can be sure not to send my kids there.

I can't follow conversations that are only happening in your head.

No, but you should be able to follow conversations occurring on this page, and you are showing quite an ineptitude at that.

What from these tissues is making the female clone more like the female?
Is it just the mitochondria?

That could certainly be part of it (although you obviously don't think that the way a clone develops and ages will have anything to do with whether or not it is like the clonee). The biochemical makeup of her egg could have quite a bit to do with it as well.

Is it something else in the egg that you believe is responsible for a unique method of reprogramming epigenetic changes? Because you should be aware that it was your mother's egg that reprogrammed your DNA the first time, not yours.

You do realize that the reprogramming of epigenetic changes is merely the first part of a clone's development, right? I know you want to think that the changes in development caused by other stresses dont count and that even a grade school student could figure that out, but most of us realize that development is fairly important

Yes maam, I'll do my best to follow the points that you aren't putting down in the text next time.

Not putting down, eh? Let's look at the discussion, shall we?

There's also no reason to believe that the reprograming of epigenetic changes made by one egg will be qualitatively different than those made by any other egg.

What leads you to guess that your egg would be any better at this process than any other egg? If anything, I could see some possible reason to try using your mother's egg, but not yours. It was her egg that was involved in resetting your DNA the first time.

This is clearly discussing the reversal of epigenetic changes, not the entire development of a clone.

Let's see what I replied, shall we?

Not "better", just "different." And the reasoning is simple - the biochemical make-up is different from one person to another. Pretty much every cellular process can differ significantly from person to person. It would be more correct to say that there is no reason to believe that the reprogramming of epigenetic changes would not be qualitatevely different from that of another egg.

Holy shit! Not only does the line of discussion make it clear that we were discussing the reversal of epigenetic changes, I even repeat at the end of the quote that this is exactly what is being referred to! To anyone actually trying to follow the conversation, this would be excessively clear.

sounds less troublesome than breeding

if its possible to clone people that are smarter and stronger, without destroying emryos, its ok with me.

We don't limit people because we think they are likely to screw up? Why then, are there restrictions on who can and cannot adopt a child?.


False analogy. You can use that line of logic to determine who can be clone parents, but we don't outlaw adoptions because some people are not the most fit to be parents.


So you don't believe that psychological health is important?


Are you contending that all clones would grow up in psychologically unhealthy families?
We can't control the psychological environment that anyone grows up. It's not a matter of how important I believe it to be.


Once again, we run into the same problem. We can't understand the differences between human beings and other species without human testing. We might understand the difference between pigs and non-human primates, but once we began to move into human beings, we would have to figure out the differences yet again.


You vastly overstate the case and if you were correct, then animal testing would be utterly useless.
There are always things to be learned whenever any testing goes to humans, but proper animal testing will eliminate many issues and usually the most critical ones.


Ah, it is time to move into the lying segment of your argumentation, is it?


It's interesting how the weaker your arguments become, the stronger your ad hominem attacks become.
First you make multiple accusation on my comprehension and now, you call me a liar.

You pulled the same crap before in a women's issues thread and just like then, I'm no longer interested in talking to you.

I know that I'll want an army of clones to follow me around, so as to allow me to pillage their organs for my own personal use. Specifically, they livers.

Are you contending that all clones would grow up in psychologically unhealthy families?

No, but I am contending that clones, by virtue of being clones, would be more likely to grow up in psychologically unhealthy families. There really is no reason to even use reproductive cloning unless there is a reason that you want to recreate a given person. Thus, you'll already be looking at a situation in which the parents will have very specific expectations, and will be likely to push for them.

You vastly overstate the case and if you were correct, then animal testing would be utterly useless.

(a) No I don't. I'm telling you what has been done.
(b) Animal testing wouldn't be "utterly useless" in this arena. First of all, there are reasons to clone animals. Mules, for instance, were one of the major cloning breakthroughs. Since we can't actually mate mules together to select for certain traits, being able to clone those which have the traits we want is a pretty significant development for those who use mules. We can do the same with various livestock, without having to deal with selective breeding - we can even introduce traits. Those are all pretty significant things.

There are always things to be learned whenever any testing goes to humans, but proper animal testing will eliminate many issues and usually the most critical ones.

Ah, I see. You failed to actually read my post and thus are still talking about animal and human testing in general, instead of in the specific area of cloning. As I said before, with most medical breakthroughs, we've been able to apply a new technology to new species with very little alterations. Generally, even if we had to go through hundreds of attempts with the first species, we've whittled that down before we move to another, and the numbers stay pretty much static. For instance, I can use pretty much the same protocol to begin a bone marrow culture in mice as I can in rats as I can in pigs as I can in humans. I'll generally have a higher rate of failure in humans (human cells in general are simply harder to work with), but the general failure rate will be the same across all species, and the protocol I've perfected for mice will probably work for most species.

With cloning, however, that has *not* been the case. In other words, cloning is proving to be quite different from most of medical technology.

It's interesting how the weaker your arguments become, the stronger your ad hominem attacks become.

It is interesting how you haven't pointed out a single "weak argument" or a single ad hominem attack.

First you make multiple accusation on my comprehension and now, you call me a liar.

And even demonstrated the lie. If I tell you you lied, and then show you the lie, how is that an ad hominem?

You pulled the same crap before in a women's issues thread and just like then, I'm no longer interested in talking to you.

LOL. Well, it's so wonderful when the pot calls the kettle black. Are we referring to the discussion when you not only flat-out lied about what I had and had not said, but you also went into another thread and misrepresented my statements - just as you have been trying to do here?

if its possible to clone people that are smarter and stronger, without destroying emryos, its ok with me.

I was reading in the news the other day, about stem cell research that uses 'dead' embryo cells... by which, they seem to be referring to cells that will never progress any further.

The idea, I think, is to alleviate some of the moral implications perceived about taking cells that 'will grow into a baby' for research... by using cells that won't ever 'grow into a baby'.

If they can use such cells for stem cell research, maybe there is potential for cloning with a 'dead' conceptus.

No, but I am contending that clones, by virtue of being clones, would be more likely to grow up in psychologically unhealthy families. There really is no reason to even use reproductive cloning unless there is a reason that you want to recreate a given person. Thus, you'll already be looking at a situation in which the parents will have very specific expectations, and will be likely to push for them.


But a clone doesn't 'recreate a given person'. If reproductive cloning were commonly available, I suspect this would be common knowledge - if for no other reason than doctors continually having to assure prospective parents of the fact.

As for the 'no reason' angle - I'm not sure this is true... since you could theoretically pick the clones that are the 'best' lines of your combined DNA, and promote multiple renditions of that combination - especially important, I would imagine, where there is a family history of disease or disorder that might be passed on genetically. Or, of course, some form of 'eugenics-lite'.

I was reading in the news the other day, about stem cell research that uses 'dead' embryo cells... by which, they seem to be referring to cells that will never progress any further.

The idea, I think, is to alleviate some of the moral implications perceived about taking cells that 'will grow into a baby' for research... by using cells that won't ever 'grow into a baby'.

If they can use such cells for stem cell research, maybe there is potential for cloning with a 'dead' conceptus.

If this is referring to what I think it is, it is very problematic. It is something politicians have brought up, but scientists tend to shy away from. Essentially, the idea is that we should use the defective embryos from in vitro fertilization, rather than the ones that could be implanted, but are already slated for destruction. The problem with this should be obvious. Even if we were to derive cells from such an embryo, how could we, with any confidence, apply our findings to normal development? If we are intentionally working with defective material, we would have no confidence whatsoever that it reflected healthy material.

Of course, another idea that has been brought up is the possibility of genetically modifying embryos so that they could never progress beyond a certain point. This is a little better than using naturally defective embryos, but presents it's own problems. What other effects would there be on the cells with such modification? And could we ever use such cells for human therapies without worrying about the defect we added?

But a clone doesn't 'recreate a given person'. If reproductive cloning were commonly available, I suspect this would be common knowledge - if for no other reason than doctors continually having to assure prospective parents of the fact.

Indeed. Of course, if this did become common knowledge, there would be no market for reproductive cloning. The other options are much cheaper and much easier. The method would, by definition, creates another human being with the exact same genetic code (albeit perhaps with different epigenetic changes) as the person being cloned. The only reasons to even attempt reproductive cloning are things like recreating a lost loved one, or a narcissistic wish to recreate oneself. I suppose one might take a person with a defect, and try to remove the defect in the clone, but the purpose here would be to recreate a person, without a single trait (and that almost certainly wouldn't work, as we never know the full repercussions of removing/changing/etc. a gene until we actually do it). If that cannot be accomplished through reproductive cloning, what reason would we have to even attempt it, especially given the notoriously low success rate of any reproductive cloning?

As for the 'no reason' angle - I'm not sure this is true... since you could theoretically pick the clones that are the 'best' lines of your combined DNA, and promote multiple renditions of that combination - especially important, I would imagine, where there is a family history of disease or disorder that might be passed on genetically. Or, of course, some form of 'eugenics-lite'.

This sort of thing could be accomplished with in vitro fertilization much more cheaply, easily, and efficiently. In fact, if there is a family history of genetic disease, cloning is the *last* thing you would want to do. Doing so would ensure that the genetic disease was not "bred out", as it were. A clone isn't renditions of a combination - it is taking one set of DNA completely intact and then using it. If you want combinations, you need to go for either in vitro, or some as-yet uncreated method of manually combining the genetic locations you want from each parent.