Fertility Doc Promises Cloned Babies Within Two Years

[RetiarySword]

I don't really agree to this. I am a scientific minded person but I just can't see the greater good in this. We do have a habbit medeling with the way of life but this is going too far.

 

[Ajna]

well if we can clone we could in theory if we get brain transplants eventually we could possibly all live forever always in younger bodies

yes I know its VERY UNETHICAL but dieing is also VERY SUCKISH

Hate to burst your bubble, but you'll need to advance stem cell research a bit to do that. Brain transplants have been done (using chimp brains and dog brains), but the end result was a chimp with a new brain that was paralyzed from the neck down. You see, to transplant a brain, part of that involves the spinal cord. Which we can't exactly reattach. So until stem cell research is advanced enough that we can repair spinal tissue, we can only transplant our brains into cripples.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeJlaIc8Fs0&feature=related

I think this about sums up my feelings on the subject. I'm telling you, this movie is going to get more and more relevant as time goes on.

 

[Ionami]

Even forgetting that however, Zavos' research raises an endless number of ethical and moral questions, not the least of which is whether a human clone is actually a human.

Do clones have souls? Do clones deserve the same rights offered to humans created through more traditional genital-based methods?

If souls exist, Yes they do. And yes, they have rights too - just because they were created unethnically doesn't mean they should be treated as less than other embryos.

And, most importantly, if you found out you had a clone, would you make out with yourself?

No, no I wouldn't.

Anywho, the biggest ethnical problem to all this is "ITS NOT SAFE YOU QUACK!" Remember Dolly, the cloned sheep? Well, the clone had a very unhappy live of chronic disease and defects and died very early on. Why? Because the process of cloning is very new and very sensitive, and hence big errors are easy to make. This 'doctor' should be strung up for inflicting who knows how much misery on his victims.

I'm having trouble trying to figure out if you keep meaning to say "Ethical" instead of "Ethnical".

 

[GothmogII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeJlaIc8Fs0&feature=related

I think this about sums up my feelings on the subject. I'm telling you, this movie is going to get more and more relevant as time goes on.

Not really, that would be going under the presumption that clones are going to be genetically superior. Which, from the state of cloning so far, looks like they're even -worse- off than we are in the long run.

And actually, I thought GATTACA was an example of the same old human intolerance there's always been, just in this case applied to genetically 'inferior' persons. I mean, it seems to pervade every aspect of human society from our very beginnings, that incessant -need- to be better or above someone else.

I mean let's say we do get genetically superior clones. It doesn't matter if they haven't gone out and murdered someone, or if they're the nicest possible people you could meet, people will -still- be outraged, it's just 'totally unacceptable' for people to live alongside someone they perceive as being wholly repugnant to their sensibilities, whether justified or not.

I mean, we've done great things to get rid of racism, sexism and such over our history, despite their overall presence in society. All that's happening here is to give humanity a new thing to hate on for a few decades. It's very sad really.

 

[Baneat]

Garry! Garry!

And yes, yes I would.

 

[Baneat]

I hate to stamp on anyones happy parade, but a clone would not be you, they would simply share your genetic structure, if I made a clone of me right now I would not live on, it would be an empty shell with none of my memories, personality or knowledge.

Would you agree that some people are naturally better at some things(sports, writing, etc.) before any training? That would be what they are focusing on cloning, not your personality or memory, just your genetic skills.

Meh, they'll be ultra-expensive with a high fail-rate, no doubt.

Imagine if you had to pay the full price of the clone in order to get the set of organs as insurance. Imagine if you had to make monthly payments on an organ you are now using. Imagine if you were late on a payment [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963194/].

They always say if you wanna train a good bowman train his grandpa

I'll be honest, I've never heard that before. Pretty good quote though. I would kind of like to see what would happen if we cloned someone and had his clone live in a completely different environment. Just to see how similar t hey end up. To see how much of an influence genetics has on personality.

the Theory (and I think it was proved) was that if you train someone to use a bow, then train his son to use a bow the 3rd generation will be really good at it.

Interesting. So there is some support for the idea that all people do not start off equal. Now I wonder, if you trained the grandpa and then trained the child, Would the grandchild be even more naturally skilled?

Theoreticly if your family has trained and done something all their lives you will naturally skilled at it, so a 10th Generation archer would be more skilled then a regular person.

That's not naturally skilled. More like if your society used bows, the people who were bad at it would die/not get the ladies/get shot themselves because they hadn't the skills. But the good archers genes would pass on and make the society good at archery. It's not naturally skilled if you're trained to be good.

 

[I III II X4]

Whaa, whaa, whaa, "Clones do/don't have souls!"

My god people, everything is connected, everything has some form of a soul. It's our experiences in life that make it and us, so no, the clone ain't gonna be you, because its experiences are different.

As for people saying: "The population, think of Hong Kong!" Very good point, we don't need to be cloning anyone at this point.

Next, cloning people for body parts...I'm trying rather hard to not make this setence nothing but expletives...winning out over anger, slowly, calmly...goooz-fraa-bah...okay, I'm good. Quite frankly, a simpler and plausible (If not already done) solution is to grow the respective parts in jars, the only reason as to why we lack this is as follows: "B-but...my money!" BAAAWWW! Human greed is the only thing holding us back.

Also, clone rights. The shit will hit the fan if we ever have to try and tackle something such as this, I can forsee scenes from Bladerunner being acted out in real life. Basically, it'll be a thorny issuse which I can't comment further on at this time.

Finally, would I hit it? A clone of myself? Hay-ull no.

 

[The Bandit]

1) several groups/people have claimed to have cloned Humans before, and all have been frauds
2) to everyone in this thread that has or will claim that Human Beings have a soul; prove it. Don't just stubbornly say it's because "god" says so, or you "just know", PROVE TO US Humans have a "soul", and if you cannot, STOP USING "SOULS" AS ARGUMENT POINTS.
3) we shouldn't be arguing whether or not clones have rights, of course they do, they're humans, saying they don't reminds me of a certain 20th century dictator who said the Jews don't have rights...

lololol prove that souls do not exist

I wouldn't have brought this up if you hadn't presented your argument in such a dick fashion.

 

[jboking]

I'll be honest, I've never heard that before. Pretty good quote though. I would kind of like to see what would happen if we cloned someone and had his clone live in a completely different environment. Just to see how similar they end up. To see how much of an influence genetics has on personality.

And you don't see any sort of you know, ethical or moral problems with this experiment, were it to be actually carried out and whatnot? I mean making someone for the sole purpose of transporting them to a different environment to see what sorts of influence is at birth and what is environmental would be horrible from the point of view of the person. Just because they're a clone doesn't mean they have any less rights than a regular "naturally made" person. As for the whole cloning people thing - I'd care more about organ cloning and that sort of thing.

I never said it would be a moral experiment. Honestly though, just as you say, this person is just a person and has all the same rights and feelings, so cloning someone and letting them live in a different environment from their other would be the same as giving someone up for adoption. It would also be a way to provide conclusive proof regarding the quality of our nations adoption agencies. Essentially we would be letting someone live and we could set it up to where the most interference they have with a science groups would be having a conversation every 6 months to a year.

I really don't see how this would be horrible from the point of view of the person. We are going to let you live and talk to you every so often about how you feel(or when they are a child) see how you are developing.

 

[Sporky111]

A clone is still a person and deserves all the same rights as any other person. Most people are so squeamish about sex, you'd think they would welcome test tube babies anyway.

I personally think that this should be kept going, not for more people, but for the medical advances. Being able to clone a particular organ for transplants would solve so many problems, it would be well worth the controversy. I don't think living people should be cloned, but if the world powers decide it is okay I just don't want it to become a "for sale" procedure.

 

[Ghost]

if i had sex with myself would i be gay? would it count as masturbation or rape?

 

[nolongerhere]

Anyone else see this ending like the clone wars?

You know, disapointing.

 

[antipunt]

wow...this sounds like something out of sci-fi

 

[stormcaller]

Clones? I smell the last great racist revolution in history.

Think about it, everyone will treat clones like scum until one of them starts campaigns for equal rights n' shit then we can't use the term "Bully buttonless" but they can.

 

[dmase]

I call BS on this. I think the docter will fail horibbly and i mean this in the sense that he is going to say the baby will come out blond haired and blue eyed and be just like the "template", then the clone comes out black haired and has hazel eyes because gene transfer is random and everybody carries the genes that their ancestors have.

No. Everyone carries 50% of the genes of each of their parents.

That means they carry (on average) 25% of the genes of each grandparent.

12.5% of the genes of each great grandparent.

Beyond that, the genetic similarity is actually no closer than between complete strangers.

Crossing over only happens during the process of meiosis, which is the point where half of the genome of an individual is taken to form a gamete, or sex cell (a sperm or an egg).

So if what you describe happened, the explanation would be that it was not a clone at all, but a normally fertilised egg.

Do please learn some basic biology before spouting off.

Now, the actual problem with this is the quality of DNA. As we grow older, our DNA actually degrades, thanks to the fact that we keep having to make copies of it to replace cells (every single cell in your body now was not in it seven years ago, it is a new cell created to replace one that died). Because the quality of DNA in these cells does not matter, as they are somatic line cells not germ line cells, there is only weak selective pressure on the faithful copying of that DNA.

This means that if an adult is cloned from one of these somatic cells, the clone is based on a "worn out" DNA template, and suffers developmental abnormalities, shortened lifespan, and problems due to aging (Dolly the sheep eventually suffered from arthiritis, and died earlier than her genetic "mother/sister").

This is why human cloning is immoral as it stands, because the resultant clone would inevitably suffer a shorter and more painful life than a normally fertilised egg.

Hahahaha, directly out of a biology book i assume or pretty damn close to it and don't tell me you went online to get that info. The only info that i would trust online about genetic cloning would be from completely unbiased source otherwise you will get very different things that fit YOUR opinion. Now lets pull out the AP bio book and see what colegiate phrophesors say. Lets start with this there are dominant and recessive alleles each of which are passed but do not take effect until you get the odd ball recessive alleles Even if parents do not exhibit these alleles they still might exist meaning they can get passed on and can continue to get passed on if they continue to get a dominant recessive combination of that gene meaning its possible for that to get passed down from 5 generations back, yes a bit unlikely but possible. Genetics all a big guessing game but it has more than just a gene has a half a chance to be expressed with each generation becuase also dependent is its position on a chromosome. Finally i will expunge on what i was making a generilization on in the earlier post, when chromosomes of a set embryo start to divide they have different chances of picking up diferent genes during development becuase it isn't until like the 8th week of child birth that a fetus exists until then the gentic code isn't set, it probably isn't set then i'm making a generilization here sorry but the time it takes for genes to set is true, in everyway until much later in a pregency and chromosomes can attach at different points called crossing over points with different chromomes causing different gene expression.

Once again i have to call BS on this guy who obiviously needs to learn some complex biology and to stop making SHIT UP. DNA degredation, i had never heard of this before except in cell destruction so i was think well if he is right about this than i'll give him a pat on the back and admit my defeat. DNA only degreades in programmed cell death because there is no one constant DNA template there is one in every cell which is replicated using RNA the only way that that you could have DNA that would be different would be errors in transcription and such which is possible but the body also has several chemcial activites which check DNA to ensure its quality, sorry i can't provide the name of the processes right now i learned that part a year ago and i don't feel like looking it up. Finally concerning Dolly: The necropsy also confirmed arthritis in her hind limbs?first reported by the Roslin Institute in 2002?however, there is no evidence cloning led to her ailments. Before developing arthritis, Dolly produced six healthy lambs through natural mating. http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr03/030415f.asp
that comes directly from that site, if the arthritis was caused by a genetic disorder it was not given at birt but became more prevelant because the arthritic genes were not "watered" down by a seconed set of genes. Physical problems can not be translated into genetic problems it is impossible. Don't give me Darwinian Bullshit because he proved that wrong himself and that is not his position on evolution.

I would not have responded with such hostility if you hadn't been a dick. I was calling BS on his experiments so you can very well call BS on me but don't act all superior about it or i'll show you who really is superior.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Hahahaha, directly out of a biology book i assume or pretty damn close to it and don't tell me you went online to get that info.

Directly out of having learned some biology and something about genetics, yes.

Now lets pull out the AP bio book and see what colegiate phrophesors say. Lets start with this there are dominant and recessive alleles each of which are passed but do not take effect until you get the odd ball recessive alleles Even if parents do not exhibit these alleles they still might exist meaning they can get passed on and can continue to get passed on if they continue to get a dominant recessive combination of that gene meaning its possible for that to get passed down from 5 generations back, yes a bit unlikely but possible.

Yes, but what does that have to do with cloning? Oh wait, nothing. Because the clone has exactly the same DNA as the somatic line cell it was cloned from. If the parent has a particular Aa dominant recessive pair then the clone child will have that as well, they cannot get an aa recessive recessive pair because there is no second parent for the second recessive a to come from.

chromosomes can attach at different points called crossing over points with different chromomes causing different gene expression.

Crossing Over occurs during gamete production (meiosis), not during fertilisation or mitosis.

DNA degredation, i had never heard of this before except in cell destruction so i was think well if he is right about this than i'll give him a pat on the back and admit my defeat. DNA only degreades in programmed cell death because there is no one constant DNA template there is one in every cell which is replicated using RNA the only way that that you could have DNA that would be different would be errors in transcription and such which is possible but the body also has several chemcial activites which check DNA to ensure its quality, sorry i can't provide the name of the processes right now i learned that part a year ago and i don't feel like looking it up.

You can find more about DNA degradation due to near UV and other ionising radiation here [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119861163/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0]

It's part of the daily hazards of life with a giant thermonuclear fireball in the sky. DNA degrades in quality as the body ages, errors due to degradation and copying errors get progressively worse.

There are other causes, like the limit of a cell to undergo mitosis with faithful copying (the Hayflick limit, around 50 divisions), which is far exceeded by cells in most animal bodies. (What happens is that when a chromosome is copied in mitosis, some of the DNA on the ends of the chromosome is cut off. Young cells have a certain buffer of nonexpressing DNA on chromosome ends (teleomers), but after that runs out, you get imperfect copying of information.)

There are lots of reasons why DNA degrades with the age of the body, but it doesn't matter, because these degradations in somatic line cells don't occur in germ line cells, so they don't get passed on to the next generation, so there's little selective pressure to stop it happening.

Finally concerning Dolly: The necropsy also confirmed arthritis in her hind limbs?first reported by the Roslin Institute in 2002?however, there is no evidence cloning led to her ailments.

However, Dolly developed arthritis much earlier in life than is normally expected for a sheep. (She also had the short teleomer problem)

Before developing arthritis, Dolly produced six healthy lambs through natural mating. http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr03/030415f.asp

Once again, mitosis vs meiosis. Dolly's sex cells would not have been undergoing repeat mitosis, and would be relatively shielded from radioactive effects inside her body (especially because, as a female, they are all developed during embryological development)

if the arthritis was caused by a genetic disorder it was not given at birt but became more prevelant because the arthritic genes were not "watered" down by a seconed set of genes. Physical problems can not be translated into genetic problems it is impossible.

If it were caused by a genetic predisposition to arthritis, it would also occur in Dolly's clone mother, more than likely at around the same point in development. It didn't. It was a "new" problem, and the degradation issue with repeated mitosis causing teleomer shortening and information loss is a significant difference between her and a naturally born sheep.

Don't give me Darwinian Bullshit because he proved that wrong himself and that is not his position on evolution.

I think you mean Lamarckian bullshit here. (Note: There are some features of genetic development where Lamarckism actually seems to work, immune responses can be reverse transcribed into the genome and from there into gametes)

 

[dmase]

Hahahaha, directly out of a biology book i assume or pretty damn close to it and don't tell me you went online to get that info.

Directly out of having learned some biology and something about genetics, yes.

Now lets pull out the AP bio book and see what colegiate phrophesors say. Lets start with this there are dominant and recessive alleles each of which are passed but do not take effect until you get the odd ball recessive alleles Even if parents do not exhibit these alleles they still might exist meaning they can get passed on and can continue to get passed on if they continue to get a dominant recessive combination of that gene meaning its possible for that to get passed down from 5 generations back, yes a bit unlikely but possible.

Yes, but what does that have to do with cloning? Oh wait, nothing. Because the clone has exactly the same DNA as the somatic line cell it was cloned from. If the parent has a particular Aa dominant recessive pair then the clone child will have that as well, they cannot get an aa recessive recessive pair because there is no second parent for the second recessive a to come from.

chromosomes can attach at different points called crossing over points with different chromomes causing different gene expression.

Crossing Over occurs during gamete production (meiosis), not during fertilisation or mitosis.

DNA degredation, i had never heard of this before except in cell destruction so i was think well if he is right about this than i'll give him a pat on the back and admit my defeat. DNA only degreades in programmed cell death because there is no one constant DNA template there is one in every cell which is replicated using RNA the only way that that you could have DNA that would be different would be errors in transcription and such which is possible but the body also has several chemcial activites which check DNA to ensure its quality, sorry i can't provide the name of the processes right now i learned that part a year ago and i don't feel like looking it up.

You can find more about DNA degradation due to near UV and other ionising radiation here [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119861163/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0]

It's part of the daily hazards of life with a giant thermonuclear fireball in the sky. DNA degrades in quality as the body ages, errors due to degradation and copying errors get progressively worse.

There are other causes, like the limit of a cell to undergo mitosis with faithful copying (the Hayflick limit, around 50 divisions), which is far exceeded by cells in most animal bodies. (What happens is that when a chromosome is copied in mitosis, some of the DNA on the ends of the chromosome is cut off. Young cells have a certain buffer of nonexpressing DNA on chromosome ends (teleomers), but after that runs out, you get imperfect copying of information.)

There are lots of reasons why DNA degrades with the age of the body, but it doesn't matter, because these degradations in somatic line cells don't occur in germ line cells, so they don't get passed on to the next generation, so there's little selective pressure to stop it happening.

Finally concerning Dolly: The necropsy also confirmed arthritis in her hind limbs?first reported by the Roslin Institute in 2002?however, there is no evidence cloning led to her ailments.

However, Dolly developed arthritis much earlier in life than is normally expected for a sheep. (She also had the short teleomer problem)

Before developing arthritis, Dolly produced six healthy lambs through natural mating. http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr03/030415f.asp

Once again, mitosis vs meiosis. Dolly's sex cells would not have been undergoing repeat mitosis, and would be relatively shielded from radioactive effects inside her body (especially because, as a female, they are all developed during embryological development)

if the arthritis was caused by a genetic disorder it was not given at birt but became more prevelant because the arthritic genes were not "watered" down by a seconed set of genes. Physical problems can not be translated into genetic problems it is impossible.

If it were caused by a genetic predisposition to arthritis, it would also occur in Dolly's clone mother, more than likely at around the same point in development. It didn't. It was a "new" problem, and the degradation issue with repeated mitosis causing teleomer shortening and information loss is a significant difference between her and a naturally born sheep.

Don't give me Darwinian Bullshit because he proved that wrong himself and that is not his position on evolution.

I think you mean Lamarckian bullshit here. (Note: There are some features of genetic development where Lamarckism actually seems to work, immune responses can be reverse transcribed into the genome and from there into gametes)

That is why i said Mendel proved that wrong and that wasn't his theory just in case you said, well thats evolution for you or something like that I saw that coming but i guess your informed enough to know the difference. yes, i know about immune response.

The effects of the experiment that you gave above were meant to show that you could prevent cell degredation with those chemicals and it says specifically "Near UV did not, itself, produce DNA degradation". Cell degredation causes cell death. Thats why when you go outside for long periods of time your skin gets red and starts to fall off. When exposed to certain chemicals it increases skin cell loss among other cells, they die not divide.

Sorry about the eye and hair thing i dumbed it down a little showing the basic model. The human Genome is Emmense and have just one gene specifically correspond to one characteristic like say eye color would be ludicrous that is why there are multiple genes on a single chromosome the activation of these multiple genes and to what extent will happen during embryonic development just like it did for the carrier of the original cell. You have to look beyond just mitosis and meiosis.

Alright Dolly the sheep ok remeber what i said about the genes not being watered down, that would be the same for inbred organisms except its the same organism meaning it would happen even more. Inbred species have similar problems with there heart and arthritus that were not present at such an early stage as the parents. This all of course occuring in embro developement like i said.

 

[GloatingSwine]

The effects of the experiment that you gave above were meant to show that you could prevent cell degredation with those chemicals and it says specifically "Near UV did not, itself, produce DNA degradation". Cell degredation causes cell death. Thats why when you go outside for long periods of time your skin gets red and starts to fall off. When exposed to certain chemicals it increases skin cell loss among other cells, they die not divide.

Ionising radiation, however, can cause damage to DNA, in many cases this leads to induced apoptosis, killing the cell to prevent the effect being copied, but not always. Sometimes it leads to effects like cancer, where cells begin to duplicate wildly. The very fact that healthy cells can become cancerous thanks to radiation exposure shows that the cell DNA can be changed. Low levels of radiation, the like of which you are exposed to all the time (background radiation) cause far less damage, but still some.

Sorry about the eye and hair thing i dumbed it down a little showing the basic model.

The problem is not "dumbing it down" the problem is that it's not relevant, because the genome remains identical in cloning.

the activation of these multiple genes and to what extent will happen during embryonic development just like it did for the carrier of the original cell. You have to look beyond just mitosis and meiosis.

And what do you think controls the activation or otherwise of a gene? That's right, other genes. And those are the same between a clone and it's original at the time the DNA sample was taken.

Alright Dolly the sheep ok remeber what i said about the genes not being watered down, that would be the same for inbred organisms except its the same organism meaning it would happen even more. Inbred species have similar problems with there heart and arthritus that were not present at such an early stage as the parents. This all of course occuring in embro developement like i said.

No, it's nothing like inbreeding. Inbreeding causes problems because there is a high likelyhood of an offspring inheriting two copies of a defective gene. Since a clone offspring is genetically identical to the original sample, this is not an issue.