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?

55 responses total.

What do I think?  Bunk.

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".

This response has been erased.

#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.

only thing, if Valerie was raising a replicant of herself as her daughter,
it might make life uncomfortable for janc or whatever guy she's living with.
Much of attraction being physical that is, and you are talking of two of
biologically the same person.

This response has been erased.

This response has been erased.

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.

On the contrary, russ.  This is the first mammalian clone, and it is a health,
7 month old duplicate of the elder.  That's what's different from what valerie
learned in biology oh so many days (years) ago.  However, the technique is
so generic that it can be done in secret.  There's no practical way to control
this with laws because they'd be unenforcable.  We can't keep minors from
getting cigarettes, or junkies heroin, how could we keep clones from
happening?

Murder required to harvest transplant material?  What about a lung, kidney,
bone marrow, skin, bone, hair folicles, etc, etc...  A lot of rich bald folks
might be inclined to... (well, you get the idea).

I don't know how I feel about a family cloning a recently lost child, but
could that really help them overcome the loss?  A clone could never replace
the lost child.  Memories and experiences would be different.  Might such an
'unstable' or 'unrealistic' family become abusive when the clone didn't live
up to their expectations?  That could become a societal problem we all wind
up having to deal with.  OTOH, as you say, the idea isn't inherently evil.

Fact is, the genie is out of the bottle.  It was only a matter of time, and
the time has come.  This is as much a milestone for human history as the
nuclear age, the harnessing of electricity, the internal combustion engine,
etc.

I don't think there will be any few right or wrong answers as to how we should
proceed with this newly acquired knowledge.  But it is important for us (all)
to continue to ponder this and explore the ramifications to humanity, and our
entire biosphere (if not all of creation).  Life will never be the same.  I
hope we can, at least, keep the quality as is, or improve upon it.  But the
dangerous possibility of 'the slippery slope' is ever present.

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.

The whole concept of cloning leaves a bad tase in my mouth.  Yes,
fascinating from a scientific perspective, as was splitting the atom.
It is this knowledge, combined with a basic instinct called greed,
that tastes bitter.

        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.

No, not at all.  It's a matter of understanding the implications of your
actions.  I'm all for understanding, just hesitant of its application as
we have very little understanding of how everything relates in this world.
We are now fooling with the forces that created us.
 
In a way I don't have a problem with your "So what" reaction as we are only
monkeying with one aspect of whatever created us.  As soon as we stop,
things will revert to nornal.  What makes us stop is another question, not
that I hold the human species any higher than any other species.  I guess
it's more a question of me living my life without a clone pestering me and
that life wants to perpetuate its species.

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. 

        You guys still insist on the clone/twin view..

        I reiterate: lets see the positive aspect of cloning..

        Btw, cloning a person is merely cloning all the "parts" in the
        right order & place. How about SKIN, or KIDNEYS, or HEARTS, or
        even BLOOD.. Come on, show some courage and a bit of imagination
        untainted by hollywood and pulp horror stories, geezus.

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

I think that if Rane had 10 people just like me here on Grex, he too
might give cloning a second though.  (Or retaliate with 12 of himself ;-)
 
So, what kind of people would be cloned?  Would it cost so much that only
the rich can afford it?  Who gets to decide who gets cloned and who 
doesn't?  Would cloning reduce the "gene pool"?  Would it matter?  Would
cloning reduce the percentage of mutations?  Would that matter?
 
It gives me a bad tase in my mouth = I feel uneasy about it.
 
Yes, at this point in my life I think there is a good chance that I might
not get along with a twin, suddenly uncovered.  Don't know for sure though.
Let me know if one is uncovered and I'll find out  ;-)

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.

Hey valerie, would you be more comfortable cloning say your mom than yourself?
That would remove some of the potential problems referred to earlier. 
Although it might seem a tad weird to want to traise a clone of one's parents!

Think about it, would you want to raisw your mom as your daughter?

        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>

A clone of someone's mom wouldnot have had a child, much less the mom's child,
so I see no problem.

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 ;-)

But those are acquired traits....the sorts of things in which clones would
be different, depending on life experiences. I know you engage in
"far-fetched" RF endeavors, though - you go to Dayton in May!

This response has been erased.

That is untrue. One of each parent's chromosomes came from the grandparents.
If just one chromosome from each parent were repackaged for a child, that
child would be genetically unrelated to two grandparents. Crossing and
recombination during meiosis mixes the genes from the two parents of each
parent together, so that the chromosome passed by that parent to the child
contains genes from each grandparent. [Our very authoritative reference on
biology includes all of these steps in meiosis.]

This response has been erased.

That's not how it works. Crossing and recombination occurs between each
pair during meiosis, prior to forming gametes. There are *lots* of genes
on each chromosome, and you do not get them in whole chromosome packages,
but selected from the contributions from your parents for *each*
chromosome pair.  There are only a few crossings, so the recombinations
are of whole stretches of chromosomes. If alleles are close together on
the chromosome, they are very likely to be together in the gamete - but
not necessarily. From Beck, Liem and Simpson _Life - An Introduction to
Biology_ (1991):

"Next comes the *pairing stage*. We will recall that, in diploid cell,
each chromosome is represented twice, one homolog of the pair deriving
from the male parent, and the other from the female. Thus, they contain
the same genes..... 

"Pairing, also called synapsis, precisely aligns the two homologs in a
close ...association.... 

"The *recombination stage* lasts much longer than the two previous stages. 
It begins when pairing is completed. In this stage, homologous chromosomes
complete an exchange of segments that began in zygotene. In this way, they
generate new gene alignments. The involves the process of *crossing
over*...." 

Later in the book they discuss the genetic implications of *crossing
over*, which can split otherwise often linked genes (observed easily in
breeding experiments). Single and double crossings-over are described, but
it is unclear if higher order ones are observed.

[Our daughter is taking introductory biology, so *we* are learning a
lot!]

This response has been erased.

Some teenage geek science whiz in NYC cloned a frog, it was announced...my
sister wants to clone her dog (he's getting on in years and she'd love to have
another one of him...I wonder if a cloned dog would have the same
personality?)

This response has been erased.

        The entire item is dead.
        The arguments are dead.
        so much for cloning <shrug>

Re #9:
If I recall what I read about the statistics:  226 embryos were created,
of which 19 implanted.  "Dolly" was the only healthy survivor.  Note,
healthy survivor.  Non-healthy human survivors are enormous financial
liabilities in the current legal climate in the USA.  You'd have to be
a complete idiot (or fabulously wealthy and completely uncaring about
adverse publicity) to try cloning a human being here.
 
Of course, what you'd do is the same thing that the Parkinson's patients
do to get fetal-cell transplant treatments:  go to Mexico.  This completely
sidesteps the authority of the US Congress, the power of the ATLA and the
pickets of Right to Life.  As for people's motivations; I know that many
people would rather have a clone of a dead child, especially a young one,
than nothing at all.  If the opportunity was there at a price people could
afford, I know there would be takers.
 
As for Klaus in #11, I have to wonder what "pesters" him.  A clone is just
an identical twin, displaced in time.  Does knowing that it is possible
gnaw at him, like a Puritan knowing that other people are enjoying themselves?
I can't prove a thing, but that is definitely supported by the evidence.
 
Cloning isn't the evil that some people appear to think it is.  All it
does is preserve a part of the genetic "status quo".  In order to shuffle
the genetic cards you still have to mix gametes.  If your bogeyman is
cloned "super soldiers" who think alike, the Israelis appear to have done
it already without cloning (kibbutz-raised soldiers); they take higher
casualties than regular troops, which is not a good way to build and
maintain an army.  And most people can take transplants of skin, bone,
kidneys and many other organs from unrelated donors or cadavers.  I think
some people have ignored what I said about allografts and xenografts.
If you could get a new heart from a baboon or a transgenic pig and nobody 
looked at human donors, who'd *care* about clones for the purpose?  Who'd
bother?
 
Cloning doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It's not the only way to accomplish
most things, except for creating genetic duplicates of an organism.  Unless
the specific genes of the organism are very important (such as a drug-secreting
sheep) and very little else about it is, cloning is rather stupid, both
as an act and as an issue.

Cloning will be attractive to a lot of irresponsible and screw-loose people
who will be pretty worthless parents.  

(The above defines the expression "sweeping generalization".)

Growing up with a twin is not the same thing as having a twin who is several
years to several decades younger than you.  I fell it could be a difficult
relationship.  (I could tell you, had I been around Tesla while he was still
alive.  But I wasn't.)
 
It would be interesting to see what a clone of, say, Hitler would be like
if he were raised in a different environment.  Or some other criminal, or
an alcoholic, etc.

A lot of research has been done on twins separated at birth. I recall that
they continnued to have many similarities in behavior, but I do not recall
anything specifically about criminal behavior, or alcoholism. The
separated twins research would have direct bearing upon clones, since the
total separation could be the same for twins or clones, even without
temporal displacement. Examples have been given where separated twins,
with no prior contact (they say) married women with the same name....well,
that's the anecdote. 

This response has been erased.

Perhaps.  Could also be that the exact meaning of a clone is unclear.
If a clone of Hitler means having two Hitlers, that is a scarry thought.
Goes baco your question of what is innate and what is learned in
a human being.  I'll bet they find it differes from being to being too.

Identical twins research findings should make their appearance eventually in
this discussion. It would clear up a lot. 

There are some problems with being identical twins, though a lot of it may
be forced upon them (identical dressing, for example). There is some
confusion generated too, since we rely upn our physical differences for
identification. Hmmm...do identical twins have different fingerprints (and,
if so, why)? From what I've heard, twins tend also to be very close,
personally. Would this be a feature of clones, with the time displacement (if
they know who their clone is)? Well, I know how to find out....

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss