Human cloning...no longer science fiction?

Feb 25 14:52 UTC 1997

Well, I don't read Agora and haven't seen anything on this in my regular
cflist stops...so here goes.

Yesterday, it was released that a scientific group in england (?) had
succesfully cloned a ewe and an identical twin lamb was born about 7 months
ago.  The researchers held off large-scale release of the information in an
attempt to initiate a rational dialogue in the scientific, governmental,
philosophical and general communities.  however, the fact leaked and got
reported so it's now getting lip service.

Apparently, the group has accomplished a step which is so basic (generic) as
make it theoretically possible, _today_, to actually clone a human being. 
In short, an unfertilized ovum has all its DNA extracted, then complete DNA
from another individual (for now, at least, same genus-species...but who
knows?) is combined with the ovum and it is allowed to develope.

This is the first time this essentially simple procedure has been successful.
The researchers said they think the critical difference in their technique
is to use two cells which are at the same stage of their cell cycle...and they
use the dormant stage.

Of course this will permit lots of great research in treatments for genetic
disease, and a lot of other marvelous information will become possible.  Food
supplies can be selected for optimum nutrition and virulence in various
geographic areas, and lots of other benefits have been hinted at already.

when interviewed, the major researcher was asked something like...what about
the potential for someone to attempt to clone a human being?...to which he
replied "it is theoretically possible to do so, but, why would anyone want
to do it?"

He is, obviously, an idealist.

Ethical, theological, environmental, legal, political and other questions are
now on the table.  This is a bit like the discovery of nuclear energy.  Once
out, you can no longer put the genie back into the bottle.  There is an
absolute legal vaccume on this issue which had been thought to be many years
off.  So far, only living cells can be cloned, so we won't have any Jurrasic
Parks springing up for awhile, but it may be sooner rather than later.

What about a Hall of Presidents, where, instead of wax figures you have living
duplicates of our presidents with which to interract?  Maybe some monster will
clone an army of military types which would be so alike they could react with
great empathy between themselves, perhaps telepathically, since all their
'wiring' is the same?  Might a family who just lost their 3 or 4 year old
child to some sudden disaster be able to replace the child exactly with a swab
from the gums (could not replace the individuality, but the physical child
could be duplicated)?

One rabbi said something like..."yesterday there were three universal truths
on all life we know about.  1] it takes two (a mommy and a daddy) to create
an offspring.  2] the offspring are genetically a hybrid of the parents, and
therefore uniquely individual (with the exception of identical twins,
triplets, etc). 3] god (or the 'genetic wheel of fortune' if you don't beleive
in god) determines which genetic choices are made to create the individuality
of the new offspring.

Today, these things are no longer true."

We need to begin this dialogue now.  the techniques are so simple that they
can be used anywhere, simply, and secretly...so all the dangers are as real
as all the marvelous benefits.

What do you think?

response 2 of 55:

Feb 25 18:24 UTC 1997

People have been doing this for a long time - via identical twins, as you
mention. However what is new is time-displacement. I think the technique
was inevitable, and potentially very useful, but also dangerous. Cloned
creatures have identical genetic traits, but that means the bad with the
good. For example, they all might *lack* a defense against some mutated
virus, so a whole clone could be wiped out, when genetic diversity otherwise
might protect some members of the species. 

Twin research now plays an important, practical role, in having at least
some information on what aspects of behavior are genetic, and what are
congenital, and learned. Twins have been separated at birth, grown up, and
subsequently found to have a lot of personality traits in common. 

I can see egomaniacs seeking to have clones of themselves as children. 
Personally, the idea sounds disgusting. My individuality depends in part
on my genetic uniqueness. If I had a twin I presume I would not resent
him, but I would have not wish to *construct* him. But, some people will
want to try. An interesting question is, what would a cloned offspring
think of him/her self, when he/she grew up and came to understand he/she
was a clone?  Other species don't have a problem with this (parthogenesis
is common in nature), but they don't contemplate their existence.

So, instead of "bunk", I say "fascinating".

response 4 of 55:

Feb 26 20:32 UTC 1997

#3..hey,  *I'd* consider cloning Valerie and raising the clone as my duaghter
Thats the cool thing about cloning...everyone coud have Valerie as their
daughter.  As long as they figured out how to get her DNA.

response 8 of 55:

Mar 2 01:12 UTC 1997

Well, all of this is very interesting.
 
Of all the commentary which has been put forth (and largely wasted)
on the subject, all I can think of is that science fiction has been
there before, and better.  For instance, the spectre of wealthy people
growing clones of themselves to get spare parts was addressed, more or
less, in "The Godwhale" a long, long time ago ("Dim Dever" was a clone
of Larry Dever, being raised more or less as an animal so that L.D.
could re-gain his lost legs; L.D. ixnayed the idea when he saw the cost).
 
Most of the issues raised in the media have been non-issues.  Okay, you
have some filthy-rich jerk raising clones to have spare hearts, livers
and lungs handy.  You don't have to outlaw cloning to deal with this
possibility as murder would be required to go through with the scheme,
and the cloning is proof of premeditation.  In the next few years it's
likely that transplant technology and transgenic animals will make
allografts more reliable and xenografts feasible, and cloning will be 
about as important as spermaceti is to domestic lighting today.
 
The scenario of the family cloning a dead child is another "so what";
assuming that the clone is healthy, does it matter if it's the gene-twin
to the dead child instead of a new roll of the dice?  If it assuages the
misery of the parents, is there any *wrong* being done?  The fact that
some people find the idea macabre doesn't make it evil.  Et cetera.
 
More to the point, I think, is that cloning of human beings is unlikely
to be attempted in the United States for any reason, law or no law.  Can
you imagine the wrongful-birth suits if a clone had birth defects?
 
It's very sobering to consider that regardless of what we feel about the
idea, and how we might lobby our legislators or how they may position
themselves to curry favor with interest groups (as they are already doing),
it is probably going to have no effect whatsoever on what is done and where
it is done, as the legal climate of the USA effectively prohibits it.

response 10 of 55:

Mar 3 23:00 UTC 1997

Re #7: I'm not quite sure what you meant by "since 50% of its genetic
makeup is the same", Valerie. Just in case - I will point out that it is
*possible* that two of your children have none of your genetic material in
common (or two children of the same father may have none of his genetic
material in common). Just before formation of the gametes (via meiosis),
the two chromosomes you received from your parents undergo recombination,
and genes are exchanged, creating new chromosomes made up of mixed genes
from your parents. The mixing occurs differently for every ovum or sperm
formed. So one ovum/sperm can have a subset A of genes from the parent,
and the next ovum/sperm can have subset B. A and B need not have any genes
in common. (However the probably of that is vanishingly small.) The
extension of this is the *possibility* that a "genetic" grandchild could
have no genetic material in common with a grandparent.

response 12 of 55:

Mar 4 14:17 UTC 1997

        However.. So what?

        Since the tech exisits, maybe it's time to look at the POSITIVES,
        rather than for everyone to accentuate the negatives..

        Geezus, we pay too much for power, and we suffer needless waste
        and bacterial contamination of foods, all because "nuclear" and
        "atomic" have become a Bad Thing (tm).

        Too many wanna' climb back into the egg, I swear.

response 14 of 55:

Mar 4 17:47 UTC 1997

Can you identify anything specific that leaves a bad taste in your mouth?
A human clone would be an individual, discreet, human being, like anyone else,
with its own personality and experiences. Would having a *twin* leave a bad
taste in your mouth? Why would a clone "pester" you? (Any more than a parent,
or sibling, or child, would.) A clone is a perpetuation of the species. It
is actually an individual pause in genetic mixing, which is a force in
evolution, but there are a lot more suspensions of forces in evoluation than
any cloning we would do. 

response 16 of 55:

Mar 5 07:21 UTC 1997

Naturally, as a clone and a twin are very nearly identical animals.
What about skin, kidneys, hearts and blood? They'd be identical too.

response 18 of 55:

Mar 6 20:33 UTC 1997

Well, I have recently visited several Nikola Tesla web pages, and wonderred
if Klaus had been cloned from him. They look somewhat similar, and have
similar predilections.... (I was hunting for who chose 60 Hz for USA power
and 50 Hz for Europe, and why.... no luck. Do you remember, Nik.. uh ..
Klaus?)

In answer to questions: people that want to be cloned (and can afford it)
would be cloned; yues, only the rich could afford it, but so waht? What
good does it do them?; first answer; cloning would only reduce the gene pool
if it became very common, and clones were dominantly chosen by the opposite
sex. There would be a need to increase obstacles to mating of close
"relatives", because of more chances of deleterious recessive genes becoming
active. Most mutations are harmful (fatal, in fact), but that question
concerns the process of cloning. 

I think human clones would be a curiosity for a while. They would also have
a big say on the continuation of cloning when some grew up. The real factor
that I think would make cloning very uncommon is that there are very few good
reasons for doing it.

response 20 of 55:

Mar 7 05:25 UTC 1997

        let 'em breed as close as they like - just refuse them public
        support for the retreads..

        Umm.. in case it ain't been mentioned - such breeding has been
        done, with the suspected results.. It all depends on if the goal
        is worth losses <shrug>

response 22 of 55:

Mar 7 15:16 UTC 1997

Me and Tesla...  Don't think so.  I happily eat berries from plants while
hiking through the woods without washing them with sterilized water first.
I also sleep at night and am awake by day.  Nor do I hob-nob whith the
likes of Westinghouse or any other techi financial giants to fund "far
-fetched" RF endeavors ;-)