NationStates Jolt Archive

Fertility expert: 'I can clone a human being'

Controversial doctor filmed creating embryos before injecting them into wombs of women wanting cloned babies

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

A controversial fertility doctor claimed yesterday to have cloned 14 human embryos and transferred 11 of them into the wombs of four women who had been prepared to give birth to cloned babies.

The cloning was recorded by an independent documentary film-maker who has testified to The Independent that the cloning had taken place and that the women were genuinely hoping to become pregnant with the first cloned embryos specifically created for the purposes of human reproduction.

Panayiotis Zavos has broken the ultimate taboo of transferring cloned embryos into the human womb, a procedure that is a criminal offence in Britain and illegal in many other countries. He carried out the work at a secret lab-oratory, probably located in the Middle East where there is no cloning ban. Dr Zavos, a naturalised American, also has fertility clinics in Kentucky and Cyprus, where he was born. His patients – three married couples and a single woman – came from Britain, the United States and an unspecified country in the Middle East.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fertility-expert-i-can-clone-a-human-being-1672095.html

According to the radio a spokesperson from a fertility ethics group in the UK has spoken out against this, saying that every human embryo is unique or something like that. I'll google some more in a minute.

I'm sure most of use are somewhat familiar with the ethical controversies surrounding the possibility of human cloning. So let the games begin, NSG. Would you object if human cloning became a reality? Would you support a ban? Would you arrange to have yourself cloned? A loved one? A historical figure? All that good stuff.

If it works safely, I wouldn't mind with a few provisions. I'd want cloning to be strictly regulated, so people wouldn't be cloned without their consent. Cloning dead people, only if they've agreed to it beforehand. Concerns about the human soul and such don't concern me. Yay atheism.

The fertility ethics group argument is bunk. What do they do in the case of identical twins then? Kill one in the name of uniqueness? I see no issue with cloning beyond the risks of long term genetic degradation of the embryo if carried to term and beyond.

Several more of me would make my goal of Global Chaos much easier to achieve. *nod*

Can we clone Jean Claude van Damme - the world needs twice the van Damme

*shrug* I don't see a problem with it so long as the clone is likely to be healthy. If I were a crazy rich eccentric, I'd make multiple clones of myself, and raise them all very differently to see how it'd have affected me should my life have been different.

Oh, and then I'd start a band called Four of Me and a Fifth, which would be me and four clones, of course. And I'd open a restaurant manned just by my clones.

Cloning technology is an interesting form of biotech, but it would be nice if the design of the human animal was improved in the process. We as a species certainly could do with a bit more intelligence and a downtuning of certain emotional responses that make us go boom, for example.

If it works safely, I wouldn't mind with a few provisions. I'd want cloning to be strictly regulated, so people wouldn't be cloned without their consent.
Are you assuming the clone would have anything more than a few similar physical traits to the original? It's not even a brother - brothers have the same parents, so share the upbringing. The clone is certain to have a different height, weight, a similar but different face, and a completely different personality.

I only see a problem here as it could complicate identification through DNA testing.


What I'm personally really looking forward to is not complete clones, but partial cloning. Develop a technique to grow up a proper clone, but lacking key areas of the brain and thus an individuality - basically without the lobes. Not sure how could it be done, maybe removal at embryo or fetal stage, maybe some specific technique. I'm sure though that it can be done.
The results will be outright amazing - you'll basically be able to have a complete set of spare parts, only younger than yours and not spoiled by alcohol and nicotine. It would open up the possibility of ultimately replacing the entire body, extending our lifespan to be limited only by the brain, as well as solve once and for all the issues of the disabled.

And then we can start looking into brain regeneration using stem cells. Or, at worst, gradual partial replacement; you would lose a bit of personality, but it's better to lose a bit and adapt than lose the whole. We're still not looking at immortality here, but at a lifespan of centuries, spent with physical youth and near-perfect health.
And it's not science fiction or distant future. The possibility is right in front of us, it's possible within our lifetimes, we just need to overstep the fear and proceed with research and experimentation.

Several more of me would make my goal of Global Chaos much easier to achieve. *nod*

I'd clone you, raise the clone to be the most prim and proper person to ever exist with an intense loathing of comedy, mud and slapstick. Then I'd introduce him to you.

I'd clone you, raise the clone to be the most prim and proper person to ever exist with an intense loathing of comedy, mud and slapstick. Then I'd introduce him to you.

Yeah, good luck with that. :p

I'd clone you, raise the clone to be the most prim and proper person to ever exist with an intense loathing of comedy, mud and slapstick. Then I'd introduce him to you.

Have you seen what happens when matter and anti-matter collide?

KABLAMO!

Bad idea...

The failure rate on such a thing will likely be horrendous, and the length of life of the clone is also questionable. At the moment I don't think it's ethical to attempt such a thing until we do a great deal more animal cloning.

The failure rate on such a thing will likely be horrendous,
Well - you can always try again, another embryo, another hundred - they're not sentient, so what's the problem? You'll never learn if you never try.


and the length of life of the clone is also questionable.
If it's done right, the clone will be no different from a regular human. He is, in fact, a regular human, just conceived in a different way.


At the moment I don't think it's ethical to attempt such a thing until we do a great deal more animal cloning.
Ethics and religion are the parking brakes for nations.

Yeah, good luck with that. :p

Who do you think has been talking to you whenever now and again on NSG? Especially when soap and anti-mud have been mentioned?

Have you seen what happens when matter and anti-matter collide?

KABLAMO!

Bad idea...

Precisely.

We do what we must because we can. For the good of all of us. Except the ones who are dead.

..and life would've got away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Well - you can always try again, another embryo, another hundred - they're not sentient, so what's the problem? You'll never learn if you never try. There's nothing inherently special about humans, you learn nothing from cloning them that you don't learn from cloning sheep.



If it's done right, the clone will be no different from a regular human. He is, in fact, a regular human, just conceived in a different way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere

If only they can find a way to transfer consciousness and i can have my memory transferred to a clone so i can live forever.

There's nothing inherently special about humans, you learn nothing from cloning them that you don't learn from cloning sheep.
We have cloned sheep. It worked. Time to try it out full-scale.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere
So... we don't know if telomere lengths influence aging, are changed by it, or correlate with age, and we don't know if the clones get shorter or longer telomeres, and we know a bit about how to change it, but we don't know if we should.

Seems like the logical thing to do is find out, doesn't it?

If only they can find a way to transfer consciousness and i can have my memory transferred to a clone so i can live forever.
But it won't be you. It will be someone just like you, so he will be able to keep annoying others in the same ways you did, but you will age and die all the same.
As for "consciousness transfer", that seems too magic-like, and the problem is that it's impossible to test if it works or not, for both failure and success look the same for the observers.

I'd rather go for the gradual parts replacement - at least I know it will still be me.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fertility-expert-i-can-clone-a-human-being-1672095.html

According to the radio a spokesperson from a fertility ethics group in the UK has spoken out against this, saying that every human embryo is unique or something like that. I'll google some more in a minute.

I'm sure most of use are somewhat familiar with the ethical controversies surrounding the possibility of human cloning. So let the games begin, NSG. Would you object if human cloning became a reality? Would you support a ban? Would you arrange to have yourself cloned? A loved one? A historical figure? All that good stuff.

If it works safely, I wouldn't mind with a few provisions. I'd want cloning to be strictly regulated, so people wouldn't be cloned without their consent. Cloning dead people, only if they've agreed to it beforehand. Concerns about the human soul and such don't concern me. Yay atheism.

I think it's a case of for what reasons would these clones be created, and how would they be treated? Would they be allowed to come full turn, be delivered and grow? In which case they must share the same basic principles of human rights as the rest of us.

I'd rather go for the gradual parts replacement - at least I know it will still be me.

It's an interesting question when it comes to transhumanism, especially with the philosophical conundrums of what is self. If you replace your long term memory storage with a cybernetic implant that does the same thing, are you still "you", or were you the organic neural mesh that was removed?

We have cloned sheep. It worked. Time to try it out full-scale.

The sheep died anomalously young. You don't think that we should maybe do more research before bringing forth a sapient being that may only live a few years?

It's an interesting question when it comes to transhumanism, especially with the philosophical conundrums of what is self. If you replace your long term memory storage with a cybernetic implant that does the same thing, are you still "you", or were you the organic neural mesh that was removed?

Indeed where does the Self live?

It is clear to me that Self is just a physical function of the brain. We have seen that those who undergo head trauma can and do exhibit changes in their personality.

The sheep died anomalously young. You don't think that we should maybe do more research before bringing forth a sapient being that may only live a few years?
One sheep has died in the midlife (not anomalously young, and not young at all) because of a well-known and common disease, cancer. And according to the scientists, the disease had nothing to do with the cloning.

It's like banning non-missionary positions because a heavily smoking man that was conceived with the woman on top died of lung cancer at the age of 45.

[ Might be a good idea to change the source on cloning and recheck the data, appears you've been misinformed by some anti-cloning fringe group. ]



It's also not the sheep, but a sheep. We have done it countless times. Mice, dog, sheep, pigs, cows, horses, wolves, basically every common species, even monkeys. They haven't shown any specific abnormalities, or accelerated aging, or other special problems so far.

Doesn't "Dr. Zavos" sound A LOT like a B-movie mad scientist name? :p

Who do you think has been talking to you whenever now and again on NSG? Especially when soap and anti-mud have been mentioned?


Impossible. I am genetically silly. *nod*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/24/Agent47.jpg/260px-Agent47.jpg

If we start cloning people we're all going to have to be a little more careful that we don't "accidently" fall off a high place in the future.

It's an interesting question when it comes to transhumanism, especially with the philosophical conundrums of what is self. If you replace your long term memory storage with a cybernetic implant that does the same thing, are you still "you", or were you the organic neural mesh that was removed?
I think the best thought on this subject are to be found from Stanislaw Lem.

I know he's labeled sci-fi and thrown into the SF&F ghetto, but one has to ignore that. He was not just a writer, he was never just about the story. He was a philosopher and a futurologist who just happened to also be great at writing, and so packaged his thoughts into a creative, interesting and easily read form.
Lem is also known for always going one step ahead of everyone else. When regular sci-fi writers were yet describing the pioneers of spaceflight, Lem took a glance at the era when people became bored with it. And when other writers might too have a few words about the ethical problems of human parts replacement, Lem proceeded to even explore the legal dilemmas it can create.
Specifically, the story dealing with it is called "Do you exist, Mr.Johns?" (also spelled Jones). Unfortunately, I haven't found the text online, but just so you know.


As to the specific question, though I can't answer 1% as well as Lem: Yes, at the stage when just the long-term memory is replaced, I think it's fine. The consciousness is rather the RAM and the processor.

The more interesting question is, are you still you after everything has been replaced - but gradually, so at each specific point you were clearly you?

Several more of me would make my goal of Global Chaos much easier to achieve. *nod*

Bucko, several more of you would probably achieve a criticall mass of goofball...and then where would the rest of us be?

Bucko, several more of you would probably achieve a criticall mass of goofball...and then where would the rest of us be?

Up to your chests in mud with sore groins. :)

Up to your chests in mud with sore groins. :)

I like the mud...not so much the groins.

I like the mud...not so much the groins.

You get used to it eventually. :(

Well - you can always try again, another embryo, another hundred - they're not sentient, so what's the problem? You'll never learn if you never try.

You're inducing pregnancy in actual, living women. In each new animal, it has taken hundreds of tries before a successful clone is born - getting progressively harder as we get closer to humans. You're talking about putting women through hundreds of failed pregnancies just to get the very first cloned human being.

That said, I'll believe that the doctor is actually engaging in reproductive cloning when I see it. We've already seen plenty of hoaxes in this area.

No, because it would cause a population explosion.

Deplete Genetic stocks and make disease kill faster and make us able to make entire clone armies. Playing god is dangerous. Also robots should never have intelligence.

You're inducing pregnancy in actual, living women. In each new animal, it has taken hundreds of tries before a successful clone is born - getting progressively harder as we get closer to humans. You're talking about putting women through hundreds of failed pregnancies just to get the very first cloned human being.
But someone has to do it sooner or later. No pain, no gain.

As long as they all are volunteers, I see no problem. They have agreed to it. They have the right to put themselves through a painful experience, if they so decide.

You can say that we can do millions of experiments on monkeys before it - maybe. Although I find it way more morally wrong to make forced experiments on very nearly sapient animals than on human volunteers.
What's so special about humans, anyway? Just that they happen to have more similar DNA to us, so we instinctively try to protect them as sacred, unlike our competitors. But obsolete instincts should not make the decisions in the world of science. And if we talk ethics, I'm way sure that a fully grown monkey is much closer to a sentient being than a late-stage human fetus.

No, because it would cause a population explosion.
Deplete Genetic stocks and make disease kill faster and make us able to make entire clone armies. Playing god is dangerous. Also robots should never have intelligence.
Oh man, how many Hollywood movies have you seen today?

Cloning doesn't produce fully grown humans any faster than regular conception does. And it's performed, today, in a real womb.

But someone has to do it sooner or later. No pain, no gain.

As with all ethical questions, we have to ask ourselves what it is we hope to gain and whether or not it is worth the risk.

What would we gain by being able to clone human beings?

As long as they all are volunteers, I see no problem. They have agreed to it. They have the right to put themselves through a painful experience, if they so decide.

Believe it or not, there's more thought put into medical ethics than simply, "Did they agree?"

You can say that we can do millions of experiments on monkeys before it - maybe. Although I find it way more morally wrong to make forced experiments on very nearly sapient animals than on human volunteers.
What's so special about humans, anyway? Just that they happen to have more similar DNA to us, so we instinctively try to protect them as sacred, unlike our competitors. But obsolete instincts should not make the decisions in the world of science. And if we talk ethics, I'm way sure that a fully grown monkey is much closer to a sentient being than a late-stage human fetus.

And there's a reason that we are much more restricted in what experiments we can do with non-human primates than we are with any other laboratory animal.

Up to your chests in mud with sore groins. :)

Personally I would expect to be knee-deep in Goofball guts, which seems less of a laughing matter.

As with all ethical questions, we have to ask ourselves what it is we hope to gain and whether or not it is worth the risk.
What would we gain by being able to clone human beings?
In the close future, we would gain a shot at a major breakthrough in our lifespan and defeating most diseases. In the longer perspective, a potential for guided evolution and opportunities we don't yet imagine.
It's not some sideline applied technology, it's a cornerstone for future medicine.


Believe it or not, there's more thought put into medical ethics than simply, "Did they agree?"
Someone should be fired then, for creating counterproductive restrictions to research, and generally wasting time. Ethicists (or how are they named) are perhaps the single most useless profession - taking what everybody understands and putting it into a convoluted form.


And there's a reason that we are much more restricted in what experiments we can do with non-human primates than we are with any other laboratory animal.
And at some point, it's better to experiment on one human than on ten primates.

Of course this is done by someone with a name like Dr. Zavos. Pulp scifi warned you all it did...
Can we clone Jean Claude van Damme - the world needs twice the van Damme

You mean twice the van Damme-age!



...I'll go now...

Ssshhh, don't worry -- they spent eighteen hundred years trying to clone Liu Shan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shan), and all they could produce was Dubya's brain. :p

Id like em to keep a few spare clones of me ready to go, so I can have a few spare hearts, arteries, and livers, cause Im quite positive these things aint living up to the warranty, lol...

You realize, of course, that they'd have the same rights as you -- and that they'd view YOU as spare organs as well.

You realize, of course, that they'd have the same rights as you -- and that they'd view YOU as spare organs as well.

Not the way Id use them, these things are staying in tanks kept in storage, specifically for organ harvesting, lol...

Yes, right until the feds find out and arrest you. >_>

Yes, right until the feds find out and arrest you. >_>

Who said I was going to keep them in the US? ;)

Yes, right until the feds find out and arrest you. >_>

Or they escape, and some form of Skallvia vs. anti-Skallvia awesome-but-weirdly-synchronized battle takes place with each matching the other with identically time punches.

That'd be so cool. I, for one, say you should go for it.

Or they escape, and some form of Skallvia vs. anti-Skallvia awesome-but-weirdly-synchronized battle takes place!

lol, I think theyd be equally as lazy as me, It wouldnt be much of a fight, :p

You realize, of course, that they'd have the same rights as you -- and that they'd view YOU as spare organs as well.
I've addressed this on the first page - grow these clones without the brain lobes.

I've addressed this on the first page - grow these clones without the brain lobes.

MY GAWD! THATS IT!!!....youre like an evil genius! :eek:

In the close future, we would gain a shot at a major breakthrough in our lifespan and defeating most diseases.

How does reproductive cloning achieve this? Is there no other way to achieve it? Is it the best way?

In the longer perspective, a potential for guided evolution and opportunities we don't yet imagine.

Same questions.

It's not some sideline applied technology, it's a cornerstone for future medicine.

How so? What makes reproductive cloning so important?

I'm actually in the field, and I honestly can't think of anything for which reproductive cloning would be absolutely necessary. Working on cloning technology for therapeutic cloning is important, as is improving the technology for genetic engineering and iPS cells. But I honestly can't think of a single advance that first necessitates reproductive cloning - other than, you know, the ability to try and make multiple people with the same genetic code, and I honestly don't see why that is a necessity.

Someone should be fired then, for creating counterproductive restrictions to research, and generally wasting time. Ethicists (or how are they named) are perhaps the single most useless profession - taking what everybody understands and putting it into a convoluted form.

So you think we should just cause unnecessary pain and trauma willy-nilly? Scientists shouldn't have to justify what they do - and its effects - in the search for knowledge?

And at some point, it's better to experiment on one human than on ten primates.

It depends on what you're doing. Experiments can be much more controlled with laboratory animals than they ever can with human beings.

I've addressed this on the first page - grow these clones without the brain lobes.

If your goal is spare parts, why create entire clones? Why not create the specific spare parts you might need?

Even if people could be cloned it would be unecessary seeing as the parts needed for transplantation can be cloned individually.

Hopefully he laughed evilly after saying this, proclaiming that his name will live on for eons to come.

How does reproductive cloning achieve this?
Perfectly fitting, easily available spare parts. The main problem with transplantation is rejection. With a clone, as long as certain procedures to synchronize the immune systems are observed, there's no such issue. Any bit fits perfectly. Together with no need for a sapient donor, that makes transplantation guaranteed, and opens the possibility of transplanting much more that we currently do.


Is there no other way to achieve it? Is it the best way?
There is. It may be or it may not be. But it is a way.

Electromechanical organs and body parts, potentially, promise higher performance, durability and convenience. Until a couple decades ago, we could only make heavy titanium parts, which are a questionable replacement. Now, with carbon fiber, M5 and nanomaterials for structural purposes, and MEMS for the kinetics, we can definitely exceed the performance of stock parts on all counts.
However, even the mechanics of such parts promise to be expensive (right now prohibitively so), and it will take much more than a couple decades to create and perfect an interface between the nerves and the electronics. We don't have a good idea on the power system either.

Cloning is available right here, right now, potentially for a very affordable cost. Furthermore, electromechanics don't offer any way to make repairs on the brain in any observable future, while the cloning-based biotechnologies do.


Same questions.
It's simpler here, although the same questions don't quite apply. Here, cloning is the only way. Before we can contemplate serious open-source development of our genome, we should at least learn to make a simple copy. The same techniques are very likely to be required, at some stage, for reproduction of improved genetic material.


How so? What makes reproductive cloning so important?
Just a part of the technology. Reproductive cloning also appears to be a quick and sure way to producing organs and tissues.


So you think we should just cause unnecessary pain and trauma willy-nilly? Scientists shouldn't have to justify what they do - and its effects - in the search for knowledge?
If the person volunteers, they only have to justify it to that person.

We're not talking about a new ipod design here, we're talking about research which will pay off at a rate of a million to one or more. About potential developments that can save a million lives for the price of pain to a few.

It would be a moral dilemma if the experimentation was non-consensual. But when everything is consensual, it isn't. A person has the right to freedom, that includes the freedom of performing actions that might raise the voltage in their nociceptors.
Indeed, I don't see a single reason why should some useless ethicist have the right to play god and tell others what they can do and what they can't do with their own life.


It depends on what you're doing. Experiments can be much more controlled with laboratory animals than they ever can with human beings.
Let's leave it to the scientist in question to decide which one they prefer. Although, actually, I'd much rather prefer there to be a bias for human experimentation over that on higher mammals.


If your goal is spare parts, why create entire clones? Why not create the specific spare parts you might need?
If that's doable, I'm all for it. I'm just very unsure that it is.

Perfectly fitting, easily available spare parts. The main problem with transplantation is rejection. With a clone, as long as certain procedures to synchronize the immune systems are observed, there's no such issue. Any bit fits perfectly. Together with no need for a sapient donor, that makes transplantation guaranteed, and opens the possibility of transplanting much more that we currently do.

This really wouldn't be reproductive cloning. Even if you went through the step of creating an embryo and implanting it in a woman (which is highly unlikely to be the most efficient way to do it), your end goal would not be a viable human being. As such, it isn't reproductive cloning. It's really a more complicated form of therapeutic cloning - with a greater number of technical problems to solve.

There is. It may be or it may not be. But it is a way.

So your claim that reproductive cloning is going to be the cornerstone of medicine in the future was just BS?

Electromechanical organs and body parts, potentially, promise higher performance, durability and convenience. Until a couple decades ago, we could only make heavy titanium parts, which are a questionable replacement. Now, with carbon fiber, M5 and nanomaterials for structural purposes, and MEMS for the kinetics, we can definitely exceed the performance of stock parts on all counts.

Not really. Part of the performance of a biological part is that it remodels itself. No matter how nice the material we use to create an organ may be, it isn't going to match the ability of the body to remodel. This is why we're actually looking for ways to replace parts such that they are incorporated into the body and all the foreign material is eventually replaced by biologic material. Nothing we have designed matches the actual lifespan and properties of the original.

Cloning is available right here, right now, potentially for a very affordable cost. Furthermore, electromechanics don't offer any way to make repairs on the brain in any observable future, while the cloning-based biotechnologies do.

(a) Cloning is not "available right here, right now." We still haven't perfected the technique enough to successfully clone a human and even get it to the blastocyst point - where we could harvest embryonic stem cells. The one group who had supposedly done it turned out to be lying. So unless this guy is telling the truth (and again, I'll believe it when I see the data), we're not actually there yet.

(b) Again, you're not showing a need for reproductive cloning here. I'm not arguing against working on cloning techniques for therapeutic uses.

It's simpler here, although the same questions don't quite apply. Here, cloning is the only way. Before we can contemplate serious open-source development of our genome, we should at least learn to make a simple copy. The same techniques are very likely to be required, at some stage, for reproduction of improved genetic material.

Again, no specific justification for reproductive cloning.

Just a part of the technology. Reproductive cloning also appears to be a quick and sure way to producing organs and tissues.

No, it really isn't. You'd have to wait quite a while before you had a large enough organ to transplant into an adult, and first you've got to address the issue of how to keep the body alive and healthy without creating a sapient human being with rights of its own (not to mention either creating artificial wombs or finding women willing to carry your brainless clone to term).

With therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, we could work on directly growing the organs that are needed - at the appropriate size - much more quickly than creating a human embryo, going through a pregnancy, and waiting for the little clone to grow up into adult or near-adult size.

So, again, this is really more an argument for therapeutic cloning than it is one for reproductive cloning.

If the person volunteers, they only have to justify it to that person.

That person is highly unlikely to fully understand what the risks are and what can be gained. Hence the reason that they must also justify it to their peers - people who understand the science being done.

Indeed, I don't see a single reason why should some useless ethicist have the right to play god and tell others what they can do and what they can't do with their own life.

You seem to think that ethics are somehow separate from the research field itself. They aren't. Nor does someone whose sole job is "ethicist" determine what research can and cannot be carried out.

Let's leave it to the scientist in question to decide which one they prefer.

We generally prefer simpler models, actually, which is why so much research is carried out in inbred rodent strains. It's incredibly difficult to draw conclusions from data when there are so many factors outside your control.

Although, actually, I'd much rather prefer there to be a bias for human experimentation over that on higher mammals.

Again, it depends on what's being done. Eventually, all medical research makes its way to humans. We just don't do it until we're pretty sure it'll be safe.

If that's doable, I'm all for it. I'm just very unsure that it is.

I actually think it will be much, much more doable than your "keep brainless bodies alive for decades and expect healthy, transplantable organs to result" strategy.

What possible utility can be gained from this? What is the purpose of pursuing such a thing, to create someone who will have a shitty life, suffocated by horrible amounts of media attention etc... due to his differentness, and is at high risk from a serious genetic disorder? I see no reason to do it.

It's really a more complicated form of therapeutic cloning - with a greater number of technical problems to solve.
So we can clone organs already? Then I stand corrected, and asking who are these bastards that don't let us do it.


So your claim that reproductive cloning is going to be the cornerstone of medicine in the future was just BS?
I have never made such a claim. I didn't single out reproductive cloning. Just cloning.


Not really. Part of the performance of a biological part is that it remodels itself. No matter how nice the material we use to create an organ may be, it isn't going to match the ability of the body to remodel. This is why we're actually looking for ways to replace parts such that they are incorporated into the body and all the foreign material is eventually replaced by biologic material. Nothing we have designed matches the actual lifespan and properties of the original.
The sports association, forgot how it's named specifically, is considering banning, if not has already banned, prosthetics, because a certain athlete with a carbon fiber lower leg can outrun healthy people.
And that is no robotized leg. That is a dumb L-shaped CFRP plank. That is to a proper powered prosthetic part what an abacus is to a laptop PC.

How will a proper prosthesis perform? One thing for sure, it can be made way outside the human specifications. You can't handle a 200mph crash and stay in one piece. A simple test crash dummy can, if you don't insert breakaway points at the joints. Materials available for high-end work are at least ten times stronger than those crash dummies are made of.
As far as the active part is concerned, we get as much power from one cubic inch of engine displacement as a horse from its whole body. Electric motors to give a few horsepower weight under a pound. The power source is the only issue, but it will be solved too. So far we can at least count on mechanical strength way in excess of human limits.



(a) Cloning is not "available right here, right now." We still haven't perfected the technique enough to successfully clone a human and even get it to the blastocyst point - where we could harvest embryonic stem cells.
We have one way to perfect it.

And with that, we're looking at a much shorter timeframe than the development of electromechanical prosthetics.


No, it really isn't. You'd have to wait quite a while before you had a large enough organ to transplant into an adult, and first you've got to address the issue of how to keep the body alive and healthy without creating a sapient human being with rights of its own
Lobotomy I guess. The "miracle cure for mental illnesses", as it was once touted. Vegetable state.

Again - therapeutic cloning is even better. If we get it working. In the absence of it, I'd settle for reproductive.


That person is highly unlikely to fully understand what the risks are and what can be gained.
Really? I think only if the wrong person is doing the explaining. It's simple really. The risks are: you can die. The gains are: you help advance the medicine, and also get a wad of cash for your trouble.
I think "you can die" is sufficient to cover all risks.


You seem to think that ethics are somehow separate from the research field itself. They aren't.
They are separate. Complicated ethics only serve to slow us down or keep us from moving forward altogether. The science should aim for the results; for a positive net total.


We generally prefer simpler models, actually, which is why so much research is carried out in inbred rodent strains.
So work with the simple model. If you don't need a human subject, I don't see how the ethics of using it could be a problem.


I actually think it will be much, much more doable than your "keep brainless bodies alive for decades and expect healthy, transplantable organs to result" strategy.
Well, let's do that. Although on the brainless bodies, I actually think it's largely a surefire. You don't need to clean the head out, just keep them dumb enough not to be sapient by any standard. May be not ultra-cheap really, but doable, surely doable, as lobotomized patients do lead long lives. And I don't need the liver to have been to college to accept it as a replacement for my worn-out unit.

So we can clone organs already? Then I stand corrected, and asking who are these bastards that don't let us do it.

No, we can't - we can't even clone human cells at all. But we're working on it. And there have been quite a few advances in regenerative medicine even without going into cloning.

I have never made such a claim. I didn't single out reproductive cloning. Just cloning.

The thread is about reproductive cloning - and you seem very stuck on the idea of actually implanting embryos and having them carried to term.

The sports association, forgot how it's named specifically, is considering banning, if not has already banned, prosthetics, because a certain athlete with a carbon fiber lower leg can outrun healthy people.
And that is no robotized leg. That is a dumb L-shaped CFRP plank. That is to a proper powered prosthetic part what an abacus is to a laptop PC.

The person in question is a good runner, but he's not top in the field, either. He can outrun healthy people in much the same way that any trained runner can.

Of course, that leg will have to be replaced - often. Mine, on the other hand, has lasted all my life and continues to do so.

Of course, prosthetics and organs are not really the same thing. If you're looking for something load bearing to replace a limb, that can be done. I was really referring to internal organs - which need to be able to remodel.

We have one way to perfect it.

And there are plenty of researchers working on it.

Lobotomy I guess. The "miracle cure for mental illnesses", as it was once touted. Vegetable state.

Wait, so you're first going to allow the neural networks needed for sapience to form and then you're going to destroy them? But that seems perfectly ok with you?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that you have to keep the body alive and healthy - with no awareness. Those in a persistent vegetative state cannot be used as organ donors. Why? Because their organs degenerate too much from being in that state.

Again - therapeutic cloning is even better. If we get it working. In the absence of it, I'd settle for reproductive.

Reproductive cloning isn't going to do what you want, at least not in useful time scales.


Really? I think only if the wrong person is doing the explaining. It's simple really. The risks are: you can die. The gains are: you help advance the medicine, and also get a wad of cash for your trouble.
I think "you can die" is sufficient to cover all risks.

Who decides whether or not what you are doing will actually advance the medicine? I've seen plenty of studies that were so poorly planned that they weren't really going to tell us anything useful.

They are separate.

No, they really aren't.

Well, let's do that. Although on the brainless bodies, I actually think it's largely a surefire.

Only because you don't understand the technical issues you would run into.

You don't need to clean the head out, just keep them dumb enough not to be sapient by any standard.

Then you pretty much need to completely get rid of all forebrain activity. You need them in what would be essentially a persistent vegetative state - and you need that state to be reached and maintained before any sapience is first achieved (unless you're talking about waiting until it is achieved, and then removing it - and I don't think there's any argument about whether or not that is ethical). Of course, to do this, you first need to define something that we really aren't sure of yet - when exactly is that state reached? Then, you need to keep that body alive, well-nourished, and healthy (which is much harder than you seem to think) for over a decade (assuming you are an adult and thus need adult-sized organs).

Do I think we should clone humans, I don't know... but I do think we should clone organs.

What possible utility can be gained from this? What is the purpose of pursuing such a thing, to create someone who will have a shitty life, suffocated by horrible amounts of media attention etc... due to his differentness, and is at high risk from a serious genetic disorder? I see no reason to do it.

Let me be the first to say:

What differentness? He's a clone.

humans are ugly, stupid, and smell bad. besides that there really isn't exactly any shortage of them. because its there might be alright as a reason to climb mountians, but cloning humans, like viagra, is the last thing in hell we need at the worst possible time of least needing it.

No, they really aren't.

Well, why not? Is there any reason we can't apply a strictly logical code of ethics in order to maximise our research productivity while we minimise suffering?

Edit: mind you, cloning entire humans for the purposes of organ donation is patently ridiculous. A decadent waste of resources and time, not to mention the needless risks we'd undertake to accomplish it. Simply lab-growing individual organs to specification, while a little more difficult to achieve than vegetative clone donations, will be easier and simpler than the stop-gap solution of cloning.

The sports association, forgot how it's named specifically, is considering banning, if not has already banned, prosthetics, because a certain athlete with a carbon fiber lower leg can outrun healthy people.
And that is no robotized leg. That is a dumb L-shaped CFRP plank. That is to a proper powered prosthetic part what an abacus is to a laptop PC.

How will a proper prosthesis perform? One thing for sure, it can be made way outside the human specifications. You can't handle a 200mph crash and stay in one piece. A simple test crash dummy can, if you don't insert breakaway points at the joints. Materials available for high-end work are at least ten times stronger than those crash dummies are made of.
As far as the active part is concerned, we get as much power from one cubic inch of engine displacement as a horse from its whole body. Electric motors to give a few horsepower weight under a pound. The power source is the only issue, but it will be solved too. So far we can at least count on mechanical strength way in excess of human limits.

You're Max Barry! (http://www.maxbarry.com/machineman/page.html?p=17)

Let me be the first to say:

What differentness? He's a clone.

Perhaps DD is saying that, although the clone is the same physically, it may very well develop a personality of his/her own, different to the one of the original. Besides that, this is a being that didn't came to be in the same way as the original. I don't know.

No, we can't - we can't even clone human cells at all. But we're working on it. And there have been quite a few advances in regenerative medicine even without going into cloning.
That is good, let's keep working on it.


The thread is about reproductive cloning - and you seem very stuck on the idea of actually implanting embryos and having them carried to term.
I don't see why we should shut out this branch of research, however. All research is good. If it leads to extending the limits of not only our knowledge, but also our morale, only the better.


The person in question is a good runner, but he's not top in the field, either. He can outrun healthy people in much the same way that any trained runner can.
Of course, that leg will have to be replaced - often. Mine, on the other hand, has lasted all my life and continues to do so.
Don't know about that. Carbon fiber doesn't have a tendency to age soon. More precisely, CF itself is pretty much everlasting, but the plastic matrix might be, or not be, susceptible to gradual outgassing. There are, however, high-grade aerospace polymer matrices, which will easily outlast you.
If his leg has to be replaced sometime, it's only because it wasn't made to last.


Of course, prosthetics and organs are not really the same thing. If you're looking for something load bearing to replace a limb, that can be done. I was really referring to internal organs - which need to be able to remodel.
These are of course way more difficult to replace. Much more electronics. What's more, we already easily do organ transplantation, while transplanting limbs is barely past experimental stage.

I guess we'll be able to do the heart with relative ease, as it's basically a pump. We already do very low-end hearts, but think what a proper one can do. A flow equivalent to 200+ beats per minute, for prolonged time, easily - they'll be able to cross longer distances while running. And because it's continuous flow, the blood pressure can be kept lower for the same flow rate.

As for the fuel, I think the best bet is ethanol. Energy-dense, plentiful, cheap, relatively compatible with the body. Maybe we'll even be able to design some biomechanical extraction system, so that you can just drink it in diluted form.



Wait, so you're first going to allow the neural networks needed for sapience to form and then you're going to destroy them? But that seems perfectly ok with you?
As long as we don't load them with the software. At the fetal stage, say, it's quite safe not to regard them as sapient.

Of course we'll have to keep the body exercising... I think electrical stimulation can do the trick. Plug into some chemical system too. Yeah, that's a stopgap until we can do just the organs.

Still, I'm very much for it, as it will be a strong blow to the priests, ethicists, and other clots. It's a public opinion issue, after we start doing that, and people come to accept it as normal, they'll have a much easier time accepting other procedures currently outside the legal and moral boundaries.

Non-sapient clones have another, more permanent use as well, as potential subjects for drug and other testing. You'll be able to test much more dangerous procedures, where a volunteer wouldn't be available.



Who decides whether or not what you are doing will actually advance the medicine? I've seen plenty of studies that were so poorly planned that they weren't really going to tell us anything useful.
Well. So? Would these studies do any better if they used animals? This is an issue of specific studies. Not everything works out.
As for who decides, the person who risks their life, of course, with professional advice.


Then you pretty much need to completely get rid of all forebrain activity. You need them in what would be essentially a persistent vegetative state - and you need that state to be reached and maintained before any sapience is first achieved (unless you're talking about waiting until it is achieved, and then removing it - and I don't think there's any argument about whether or not that is ethical). Of course, to do this, you first need to define something that we really aren't sure of yet - when exactly is that state reached?
I think about a year, when they can at least be considered to have an individuality. But that would be a tough call. Nonetheless, 9 months since conception seems like an already accepted safe point, for the start.

Again, maybe we don't need to get rid of it completely, but could try replacing it with what is clearly not sapient. I'm thinking of installing a networked computer interface as the long-term goal.

Well, why not? Is there any reason we can't apply a strictly logical code of ethics in order to maximise our research productivity while we minimise suffering?

I think you missed something along the way. I pointed out that those who determine scientific ethics and those who carry out the science are not separate. In other words, ethical debates are generally carried out within a field by the scientists engaged in the actual research (with input from outside, of course, but those scientists are involved in the process). Vault seems to think otherwise.

And no, there isn't a reason we can't apply ethics while also trying to maximize productivity and minimize suffering. In fact, that is precisely what these ethical debates are meant to do.

Edit: mind you, cloning entire humans for the purposes of organ donation is patently ridiculous. A decadent waste of resources and time, not to mention the needless risks we'd undertake to accomplish it. Simply lab-growing individual organs to specification, while a little more difficult to achieve than vegetative clone donations, will be easier and simpler than the stop-gap solution of cloning.

I would still argue that lab-growing individual organs will be easier to achieve than vegetative clone donations, for a number of reasons.


I don't see why we should shut out this branch of research, however. All research is good. If it leads to extending the limits of not only our knowledge, but also our morale, only the better.

There doesn't seem to be a gain that outweighs the risks involved.

These are of course way more difficult to replace. Much more electronics. What's more, we already easily do organ transplantation, while transplanting limbs is barely past experimental stage.

I wasn't talking about the electronic interfaces, although that is important. I was talking about the need for human organs to constantly remodel and respond to chemical cues by altering their properties. Your arteries, for instance, go from quite stiff to quite pliable in response to various cues. The materials we have pretty much have a set compliance once they are placed in the in vivo environment.

I guess we'll be able to do the heart with relative ease, as it's basically a pump.

That's what the first doctors to try it thought. Then they found out that a viable replacement for the heart takes much, much more than simply putting a pump in its place, which is why we still have yet to create an artificial heart that can be used for more than a couple of months, despite the fact that the first attempt at it was decades ago.

We already do very low-end hearts, but think what a proper one can do. A flow equivalent to 200+ beats per minute, for prolonged time, easily - they'll be able to cross longer distances while running.

Sure, we could build a pump that could do it. It would most likely shear the blood cells and tear them apart (which is a big problem with heart/heart valve replacements), causing even less oxygen to reach the body's tissues. Not to mention the problem with pumping the blood too fast - which can also reduce oxygen transport. Add in the fact that we have yet to create any man-made material that matches a natural endothelial cell layer for biocompatibility - particularly when it comes in contact with blood - and you've opened yourself up to all sorts of problems.

That isn't to say that the technology isn't improving, but you clearly think that it is much simpler than it really is. Even the most seemingly simple tissues are actually much more complex than most people think.

And because it's continuous flow, the blood pressure can be kept lower for the same flow rate.

Continuous flow, eh? So now you're changing hemodynamics throughout the body. Changes in hemodynamics, by the way, are incredibly important in keeping healthy vasculature. You start messing with it, and you're going to see the incidence of atherosclerosis and other vascular problems skyrocket.

Of course we'll have to keep the body exercising... I think electrical stimulation can do the trick.

Not the same thing as actual load-bearing exercise.

Plug into some chemical system too. Yeah, that's a stopgap until we can do just the organs.

A stopgap? In the time that we'll have to take to solve all of the problems you're introducing with this plan, we'll probably be able to create just the organs several times over (not the least of which is a problem I haven't addressed yet - what do you do when the organ you need is an absolute necessity for a living body? Do you just throw the rest of the body out?) Hell, we can already do that with some tissues and some organs have even been rebuilt. (See Atala's work in replacing bladders and IIRC, at least one uterus).

Still, I'm very much for it, as it will be a strong blow to the priests, ethicists, and other clots. It's a public opinion issue, after we start doing that, and people come to accept it as normal, they'll have a much easier time accepting other procedures currently outside the legal and moral boundaries.

I don't think doing something specifically to push the boundaries is necessarily a good thing.

Non-sapient clones have another, more permanent use as well, as potential subjects for drug and other testing. You'll be able to test much more dangerous procedures, where a volunteer wouldn't be available.

They wouldn't respond in the same way as healthy human beings. What information you would get out of such experiments could likely be more easily obtained by testing on human tissues.

Well. So? Would these studies do any better if they used animals? This is an issue of specific studies. Not everything works out.

I was actually referring to studies in general, not specifically to human studies. And this is a major reason that we need ethical boards and the like - to determine ahead of time whether or not the study is well-designed enough to get useful information and therefore possibly warrant the risks being taken.

As for who decides, the person who risks their life, of course, with professional advice.

Laypeople rarely understand the science - and of course the researcher is going to tell them that its going to advance medical science. So, again, you need an independent source that actually has the background knowledge to make that kind of determination.

I think about a year, when they can at least be considered to have an individuality. But that would be a tough call. Nonetheless, 9 months since conception seems like an already accepted safe point, for the start.

So you're going to wait for them to be born and then destroy their forebrain activity? Yeah....sounds ethical to me.

Again, maybe we don't need to get rid of it completely, but could try replacing it with what is clearly not sapient. I'm thinking of installing a networked computer interface as the long-term goal.

So now you've introduced another goal that would need to be met before your idea would be accepted. And its one that is probably so far out in the future that we'll definitely be able to clone individual organs before we reach it.

And no, there isn't a reason we can't apply ethics while also trying to maximize productivity and minimize suffering.
I don't question whether we can apply ethics, I'm questioning whether we should stick to them so much. After all, ethics are just a product of the culture, of our way of life. If we're changing the way of life - the ethics will change too. So why stick to obsolete ethics.


I would still argue that lab-growing individual organs will be easier to achieve than vegetative clone donations, for a number of reasons.
Fine, we've established that. I partially agree. Now the discussion isn't about what's easier.


There doesn't seem to be a gain that outweighs the risks involved.
I disagree. What are we risking? Pretty much... some failed pregnancies? That's a very low cost.
The gains? A better understanding of reproduction. And we'll need this technology when we need to grow up humans with modified DNA.


I wasn't talking about the electronic interfaces, although that is important. I was talking about the need for human organs to constantly remodel and respond to chemical cues by altering their properties. [QUOTE]Your arteries, for instance, go from quite stiff to quite pliable in response to various cues. The materials we have pretty much have a set compliance once they are placed in the in vivo environment.
But how critical are those properties? And can we alleviate the need for them by surrounding them with other artificial tissues? For instance, fixed-properties arteries could be a problem in a natural limb - but certainly can work in a predominantly mechanical one, which has its own fuel system for most functions anyway.

By the way, right now, well away from biotech, the scientists are developing and testing materials that indeed can actively change their properties, some with nanotechnologies, some without.



Sure, we could build a pump that could do it. It would most likely shear the blood cells and tear them apart (which is a big problem with heart/heart valve replacements), causing even less oxygen to reach the body's tissues. Not to mention the problem with pumping the blood too fast - which can also reduce oxygen transport. Add in the fact that we have yet to create any man-made material that matches a natural endothelial cell layer for biocompatibility - particularly when it comes in contact with blood - and you've opened yourself up to all sorts of problems.
What about using a natural endothelial cell layer? Introduce some intermediate tissues. Maybe up to making a full epidermis tissue "bag" around it. Seems doable. I know it's not easy or it would already be done.

As for pumping the blood fast, well, the human body does it under severe load, doesn't it? So should a synthetic one then. High flow pumping doesn't also necessarily mean high speed, it can be a high displacement pump instead. At first these will probably be larger than a real heart, of course.

Short-term, well, we can make hearts that work for a couple months, right? Cars too could only drive a few hours before having a problem at first. Then came Rolls and Royce and made a car that could actually be driven for hundreds of miles. Then came Toyota and made such cars cheap, and now we all have one.


As for the long term, I think in the future we'll approach this from both sides, not just inventing more biocompatible materials, but also modifying the genetic code to accept these materials better. The rejection was originally developed as a defense mechanism against foreign objects. It's no longer needed to be so strong as we have medicine. So we should turn it down.



Continuous flow, eh? So now you're changing hemodynamics throughout the body. Changes in hemodynamics, by the way, are incredibly important in keeping healthy vasculature.
:shrugs:
I assumed it was better. If not, the option of a pulsating pump is always there. That's the thing, we can keep blood pressure and heart rate just perfect, as long as we know what is perfect, of course.


Not the same thing as actual load-bearing exercise. Affix some springs to them, big deal.

Also, if they still require some brain, leave it to them. It's not necessary to completely eliminate their mental abilities, just bring them down to animal level. Inducing severe mental retardation could do the trick - just make it respond to simple stimuli, like pain and reward. Hey, animals can do a lot more than this.


(not the least of which is a problem I haven't addressed yet - what do you do when the organ you need is an absolute necessity for a living body? Do you just throw the rest of the body out?)
You replace it. With a transplant from another clone, as long as they're somewhat compatible, or a machine. You can take much greater risks with clones. And they also make a nice testbed for artificial organs, BTW.


I don't think doing something specifically to push the boundaries is necessarily a good thing. Pushing the boundaries is just serendipity. We need the research for other things too. But it's always good to extend our limits. Like, say, you don't drive a Mitsubishi Evo or a WRX STi (I know you don't, people in your profession never do), and probably not an Audi RS either. But thanks to these cars, both their innovation and the pressure they've put on others filtering down eventually, yours most probably has all wheel drive, and can take a turn without slowing down to a walking pace.


They wouldn't respond in the same way as healthy human beings. What information you would get out of such experiments could likely be more easily obtained by testing on human tissues.
We don't, generally, test cures on healthy human beings. We test them on sick humans.


I was actually referring to studies in general, not specifically to human studies. And this is a major reason that we need ethical boards and the like - to determine ahead of time whether or not the study is well-designed enough to get useful information and therefore possibly warrant the risks being taken.
I find it hard to believe. If it were so, ethical boards would not be called ethical boards. Determining how valuable your study is requires a peer review. Ethical boards are rather supposed to review how ethical your experiments are, aren't they?

If they aren't, would an ethical board approve a testing that requires 50 human subjects with life expectancy of 5+ years, with 80% death probability for each as a result of it, if the study is 30% likely to result in saving 5,000 lives per year (extending them by 10+ years)?


Laypeople rarely understand the science - and of course the researcher is going to tell them that its going to advance medical science. So, again, you need an independent source that actually has the background knowledge to make that kind of determination.
But an advisory body. The final decision should be left to the potential subject. Any other model makes as much sense as outlawing suicide.


So now you've introduced another goal that would need to be met before your idea would be accepted. And its one that is probably so far out in the future that we'll definitely be able to clone individual organs before we reach it.
Nah, that's a long-term goal. It's not about spare parts production. Just that we could use some computer-controlled non-sapients sharing our physiology.

The poll should've been public.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly condone and endorse this endeavor. Science is lovely, isn't it?

Fine, we've established that. I partially agree. Now the discussion isn't about what's easier.

In a sense, it is. You've claimed that your idea would be easier - that we could work it out before we can work out the growth of individual organs. I'm arguing the opposite.

I disagree. What are we risking? Pretty much... some failed pregnancies? That's a very low cost.

First of all, we're not talking about "some" failed pregnancies. We're most likely talking about hundreds before we achieve the very first viable clone. and many, many more while we work on perfecting it. (Not only is this a problem on its own, but the time scales involved get really, really long). Failed pregnancies can lead to all sorts of health problems for the woman involved, particularly if they're trying multiple times.

And then there are other risks going forward with your organ donor idea. Are we truly removing sapience? How would we measure and achieve that? We'd basically have to try lots of different things until we found the one that actually accomplished it, while still leaving a relatively healthy body behind. Do you know how many people we'd have to mentally cripple before we managed that?

The gains? A better understanding of reproduction.

Reproductive cloning isn't really going to better our understanding of normal reproduction in any way that IVF doesn't.

And we'll need this technology when we need to grow up humans with modified DNA.

Not really. There are ways to alter DNA that don't involve cloning techniques. We do it with mice all the time. The difficulty would be in making it work with human embryos.

But how critical are those properties?

Extremely, which is largely why man-made or even fixed biologic replacements generally fail within the span of a decade - if they even last beyond a couple of years.

And can we alleviate the need for them by surrounding them with other artificial tissues?

Are we now going to try and build an entirely or nearly entirely artificial human being?

For instance, fixed-properties arteries could be a problem in a natural limb - but certainly can work in a predominantly mechanical one, which has its own fuel system for most functions anyway.

At which point we're getting away from replacements and into sci-fi bionics.

By the way, right now, well away from biotech, the scientists are developing and testing materials that indeed can actively change their properties, some with nanotechnologies, some without.

Not with the ranges or proper cues required in biologic situations.

What about using a natural endothelial cell layer?

It's been tried. In arterial replacements, it sometimes increases the lifespan of the device on the order of a few years.

Short-term, well, we can make hearts that work for a couple months, right?

Yes, and that's what we've achieved after more than half a century of work. What we need is one that can last for a lifetime - including growing with the person (ie. for a childhood replacement).

:shrugs:
I assumed it was better. If not, the option of a pulsating pump is always there. That's the thing, we can keep blood pressure and heart rate just perfect, as long as we know what is perfect, of course.

Forgive me if this sounds mean, butthis highlights a big part of the problem with this conversation. You're basically talking out of your ass. You don't understand the biology involved, so you're just making things up and assuming that the things you want to do would (a) be good and (b) be relatively easily achieved.

Also, if they still require some brain, leave it to them. It's not necessary to completely eliminate their mental abilities, just bring them down to animal level. Inducing severe mental retardation could do the trick - just make it respond to simple stimuli, like pain and reward.

Ok, so now we're growing human bodies that respond to pain just to harvest organs from them? And you don't have a problem with that?

You replace it. With a transplant from another clone, as long as they're somewhat compatible, or a machine.

.....making that clone worthless. What's the point?

See where making the individual organs would work out better?

You can take much greater risks with clones. And they also make a nice testbed for artificial organs, BTW.

Again, your theoretical brainless clones - at least brainless enough that society would accept doing it - would not put the same stresses on artificial organs that a normal human being would - leaving animals to at least be closer models.

We don't, generally, test cures on healthy human beings. We test them on sick humans.

(a) By healthy, I meant relatively so. Obviously, people do get sick.

(b) Actually, we do test most cures on healthy human beings before we test them on sick human beings. That's how we test for safety.

I find it hard to believe. If it were so, ethical boards would not be called ethical boards.

Why not? You do realize that the same person can serve on multiple boards, right?

Determining how valuable your study is requires a peer review. Ethical boards are rather supposed to review how ethical your experiments are, aren't they?

Value and ethics go hand in hand when discussing research.

If they aren't, would an ethical board approve a testing that requires 50 human subjects with life expectancy of 5+ years, with 80% death probability for each as a result of it, if the study is 30% likely to result in saving 5,000 lives per year (extending them by 10+ years)?

Not necessarily, largely because we don't know those kinds of percentages ahead of time.

But an advisory body. The final decision should be left to the potential subject. Any other model makes as much sense as outlawing suicide.

Once again, the potential subject doesn't really have the background to understand it. Hence the reason that the availability of resources for research going forward is determined by people who do.

What differentness? He's a clone.

Exactly. How many humans in the world are clones?

Exactly. How many humans in the world are clones?

Well, there are lots of people with identical DNA to another person.

About 10 million or .2% of the world's population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins

Btw:

http://pharyngula.org/images/star_wars-clone_army.jpg

Well, there are lots of people with identical DNA to another person.

About 10 million or .2% of the world's population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins

You know what I mean.

Can we clone Jean Claude van Damme - the world needs twice the van Damme

Cheap way to do a remake of Double Impact.

:D

Oh, and I think I found the guy's photo:

http://www.firaxis.com/smac/images/SARATOV/SARATOVCOLOR.jpg

First name starts with a P, last with a Z. Coincidence? I think not.