clone1100

------------------------------------------------------------------------

detra green - 09:59am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1100 of 1100)

HEY is for Horses

Cloning just doesn't feel right. It's scary to know that you and everyone else on this earth can be cloned.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 11:25am Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1101 of 1105)

Noel Yap: About your reductionist comment. I am not a reductionist, I am just courteous. Unlike message board hogs like you and Cliff Beale.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 12:59pm Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1102 of 1105)

This site may be of interest to any who want to read about life. www.sciam.com/0198issue/0198ingber.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:26pm Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1103 of 1105)

Kurt Schoedel: Most religious people I know personally are quite reasonable about this.

Yes, this is my experience also.

Kurt Schoedel: It seems that there are a small, noisy minority who don't respect other people's belief systems as equal to thier own. This is what prompted my rant.

And, historically, there have been a number of occasions in which a small, noisy minority has gained the strings of government and have caused great hardship and pain. And lest we become complacent, the problem continues to this day. Two recent examples are Iran and China. It appears to me that Iran, at least, is rapidly breaking the chains of religious oppression. The jury is still out on China. It is obvious to me that the best solution to this reoccurring problem is a secular government with the will and the power to insure the religious freedom of all its citizens. I think the best mechanism for the maintenance of this ideal is a world federation based on democratic principle of the type I have previously proposed.

Johari, I liked just about everything you said. I particularly liked the: "Hey, this is earth, not heaven!" It made me laugh, and it made me think. You said it was for believers only, but I think the idea behind it is applicable for all. We need to do all we can to improve conditions for all of our citizens here on earth.

Johari MA: Noel, I'd like go give my opinon on that, but, in short, I learn from nature, and I know what is the best choice (for me)

Me too. But will you and your religion accept human cloning for other people generally? Sohail once said he agreed that human cloning should be permitted for people who desire a child by this method, provided it is their intention to love and care for the child as they would any other child. Do you?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:29pm Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1104 of 1105)

Keith Fosberg: The topic of "origins" has been broached on this board; It is irrelevant. The topic of religion has been broached on this board; It is also irrelevant. The topic of Federal funding has been broached on this board (by the moderators); It is irrelevant.

I understand you mean these three topics are irrelevant to your principle concern. I hope you do not mean they are irrelevant to further discussion on this board.

Incidentally, your summation of the "mystery of existence" is excellent! I personally lean toward the third explanation.

Keith Fosberg: Intelligence? No, other animals have greater intelligence than we, but show a lessor ability to survive.

Give me an example of an animal having greater intelligence than humans.

Keith Fosberg: Adaptability? No, we are "middle of the pack," at best, for this trait.

I think that our population distribution throughout the world demonstrates our superior adaptability.

Keith Fosberg: Ethics. This is the trait that most strongly defines our capacity to survive. This is the basis for society, for our scientific advancement, the defining trait that describes us as a unique occurance.

Along with our superior intelligence and adaptability.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:32pm Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1105 of 1105)

Keith Fosberg: Religion's primary function in society is to provide a consistant, long term ethical model for current and projected behaivior, both of the individual and of the group.

I agree that this is one purpose for religion.

Keith Fosberg: We are intelligent enough, and social enough to provide other mechanisms to supply this need if we, as a social creature, desire.

Some of us already have. It is called democracy.

Keith Fosberg: We certainly will modify our bodies, our minds and our society as our knowledge grows. Without a flexible and meaningfull process to develope and maintain a long and short term ethical framework for our changing society we will almost certainly engineer ourselves out of existance.

This is a possibility. I think the solution is a world federation based on democratic principles. (Unfortunately, as far as I know, for sure, there are only two of us who thinks so, and one of us is dead.)

detra green: Cloning just doesn't feel right. It's scary to know that you and everyone else on this earth can be cloned.

How do you feel about identical twins? Nature provides a chance that each of us might have been born a twin. Is that scary? Most of us have grown up knowing at least one set of identical twins. Incidentally, if you know a set of twins, you know that they are not really identical. The same will be true for clones.

Another question: how do you feel about invitro fertilization? Twenty years ago, this procedure was considered very controversial. Today, it raises hardly a ripple. The same will apply to cloning in the future.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:29pm Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1106 of 1108)

Kurt Schoedel: Your belief systems cannot be applied to those of us (like myself) who reject them.

And vice versa.

Kurt Schoedel: You seem to believe that your beliefs apply to us.

Traditional religious people don't have sole possession of this trait.

Cliff Beall: As near as I can tell, the Baptist church is about as strong as it has ever been.

Religions take a long time to die and be replaced. Noone will ever see any changes in their life-times (unless, of course, we use cloning and other such technologies to become (near-)immortal.)

Cliff Beall: But science replacing religion in general? Get real.

I guess we did jump the gun, but Science is a meme that goes against the other religions.

Cliff Beall: I see an incredible similarity between [Einstein and Jesus].

I've noticed that many great men (including the "evils" like Hitler and Stalin) have many characteristics in common.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:29pm Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1107 of 1108)

Keith Fosberg: Order springs from chaos.

The motto of open systems and systems thinking.

Keith Fosberg: What is our primary survival trait?

There is none. Survival traits depend on the environment; they cannot be removed from this context.

Keith Fosberg: we, as a social creature,

Another systems thinking thought.

detra green: Cloning just doesn't feel right. It's scary to know that you and everyone else on this earth can be cloned.

Anything new and unknown is scary. The remedy is to learn more about it so you/we can make a wise decision.

Tom A: About your reductionist comment. I am not a reductionist, I am just courteous.

The reductionist comment was geared towards the way a person thinks, not towards your brevity. Reductionist (Cartesian or Newtonian) thinking breaks things down into pieces. It states that, "If we understand the parts, we understand the whole." Not everything is like this -- life is more than the sum of its parts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:30pm Dec 16, 1997 ET (#1108 of 1108)

Tom A: Unlike message board hogs like you and Cliff Beale.

Wait till Tom Anderson starts posting again.

Cliff Beall: Give me an example of an animal having greater intelligence than humans.

Intelligence measurements will be biased towards placing humans on top. Therefore, no other being will be more "intelligent."

Cliff Beall: I think that our population distribution throughout the world demonstrates our superior adaptability.

Bacteria and viruses have far surpassed us in adaptability.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 12:19am Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1109 of 1109)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

The Clone Wars

My early intrest in cloning came from an article in Scientific American on cloning carrots. It also mentioned reproducing frogs by parthenogenesis. My high school friends who were also into science and tecknology concluded that without question humans would be cloned someday. Since this was to us an absolute certainty it was the equivelent of remembering the future.

Realizing that the three major western religions had Genesis as their starting point, and that the story had man cast out of the garden so that he would not eat of the tree of life and live forever, we concluded that many of the leaders of thoes religions would oppose cloning. (at least for spare parts) That is that they would be willing to kill people who were doing it.

In this pseudo memory we saw the clone wars. Later on several science fiction also saw them and placed them in the 1990s.

I can't think of a single sf book or movie that has anything good to say about cloning humans. The western soiety is therefore conditioned to be opposed to the practice.

When a woman got pregnant and then aborted to provide pancreas cells for her diabetic husband President Regan immedatly cut the funds for related research.

Some of thoes funds were later restored but abortion clinics are also still being bombed.

This group has a high degree of rationality and the level of conversation is kept at a rspectfull level by moderators, but read some of the usenet groups and you will see what I mean.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 03:25am Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1110 of 1111)

Noel Yap: Bacteria and viruses have far surpassed us in adaptability.

You blew me away on that one, Chief. Another example is the cockroach! My my, what was I thinking?

Carl Nicolai: Realizing that the three major western religions had Genesis as their starting point, and that the story had man cast out of the garden so that he would not eat of the tree of life and live forever, we concluded that many of the leaders of thoes religions would oppose cloning. (at least for spare parts) That is that they would be willing to kill people who were doing it.

I guess I have led a sheltered life, Carl. The idea of modern religious leaders killing people never entered my brain when I was that age. Exactly which religious leaders did you have in mind? Billy Graham? Oral Roberts? The Pope?

Carl Nicolai: When a woman got pregnant and then aborted to provide pancreas cells for her diabetic husband President Regan immedatly cut the funds for related research.

Well, I don't think it is a secret that Ronald Reagan has always been opposed to abortion on moral grounds. I can't say that I disagree with him. I don't like it either. Yeah, okay, I understand the problem. But I still don't like it.

Actually, I was under the impression that the case you describe was in Canada, and I wasn't aware that Reagan had cut funding of related, abortion research. But if it is true, I don't know that I blame him. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe. I am not sure I understand the need for "abortion research," anyway. My understanding is that they already know how to do that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 03:44am Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1111 of 1111)

Carl Nicolai: Some of thoes funds were later restored but abortion clinics are also still being bombed.

Precisely what is the relationship between funding abortion research and the bombing of abortion clinics. I hope you are not insinuating that Reagan, or the US government, or mainstream religious leaders, condone, or are somehow responsible for, abortion clinic bombings.

Carl Nicolai: This group has a high degree of rationality and the level of conversation is kept at a rspectfull level by moderators, but read some of the usenet groups and you will see what I mean.

Carl, I am sure you can find anything you want to find in the usenet groups. I have no doubt that there are both right wing groups and left wing groups are out there with some really weird ideas. So what? What does that have to do with the mainstream? The rules will be set by the mainstream.

With respect to the clone wars you predict will occur about 2020, who do you see as being on the opposing sides?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 04:15am Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1112 of 1116)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff Beall: Actually, I was under the impression that the case you describe was in Canada, and I wasn't aware that Reagan had cut funding of related, abortion research... ----------------------------------------------------- He cut the funds for fetal cell research. Fetal cells are not rejected like mature cells. The problem is that there is uasually something wrong with fetuses that spontaniously abort, and so fetal cells from forceable abortions are preferred.

Also my point is not that Science will just replace religion but that it is a religion or at least becomming one.

I have been tracking the Minisota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test (MMPI). It is the most widely used test of its type in the world and has been used for many years.(50 years?)

The average test answers (the norm) has been shifting in several catigories but most profoundly in the religious questions.

While there is a resurgence of fundemantalism there is also a very strong rejection of it by many people.

This polarization should cause increased problems in subjects like cloning that affect the way we look at humanity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:53am Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1113 of 1116)

Keith,

Keith Fosberg 12/16/97 9:39am

KF:Chaos produces everything, the order we see exists because it is the only order stable enough to continue to exist.

To a believer, chaos and order are obviously two different words, conveying two [completely] different meanings. But, scientist like to do approximation, and it could sometimes be artifactual (and some believers called this a myth, considering its obvious improbabilities).

Keith Fosberg 12/16/97 9:54am

KF:No, other animals have greater intelligence than we

mmm, don't think so...

KF:We are intelligent enough, and social enough to provide other mechanisms to supply this need if we, as a social creature, desire.

Intelligence do not necessarily make a person 'wise'. The person who 'designed' nuke may be brilliant/intelligent, but I really think he was not wise.

Cliff Beall 12/16/97 1:26pm

Thks for the comment Cliff. I'm just stressing my point to some people who might have misunderstood my position.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 06:54am Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1114 of 1116)

CB:Me too. But will you and your religion accept human cloning for oher people generally? Sohail once said he agreed that human cloning should be permitted for people who desire a child by this method, provided it is their intention to love and care for the child as they would any other child. Do you?

IMO Nurturing a child is no simple task, as becoming good parents is not a simple task. The problem is, IMO, a lot of people claimed they 'could' love a child, but it is not as simple as 'saying it'. Good intention does not necessarily mean the person is well equipped/have the capacity to 'love' and 'nurture' a child and complement his needs. Good intention also does not necessarily mean the person have most (but not all) things needed to become a 'good role model' (psychological needs of the child is one of the PRIORITY). Some people do not consider this too important, as they only think of what they want, not the child.

Carl Nicolai 12/17/97 12:19am

The western soiety is therefore conditioned to be opposed to the practice.

CN:When a woman got pregnant and then aborted to provide pancreas cells for her diabetic husband President Regan immedatly cut the funds for related research.

I think most oppose such practise for a very good reason (except materialist, who only see a baby as 'organs' - that can be harvested). Opposing illegal and unethical abortion, do not necessarily mean we are dumping cloning research. Some people just have a bad habit of making poor generalisation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 08:04am Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1115 of 1116)

Cliff Beall: Exactly which religious leaders did you have in mind?

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have violence in their histories. I would doubt that the current Pope would lead a violent attack to defend Christian beliefs, but followers tend to forget the basic teachings of their religions.

Carl Nicolai: I have been tracking the Minisota Multiphasic Personality Inventory test (MMPI).

I'd like to do this, too. How do you go about it?

Carl Nicolai: The average test answers (the norm) has been shifting in several catigories but most profoundly in the religious questions.

Social norms are cyclic. I think I saw a book at one time that proposes the US period is four generations. I also read a Scientific American article that traces US views towards alcohol (by tracking alcohol consumption and medical journal articles.) If I remember, the period is about 70 (?) years. An example they gave is that doctors wrote of the harmful effects of alcohol to fetuses back in the 1920's (?). This corresponded to an anti-alcohol attitude. We are in the middle of one now. The funny thing is that marijuana use and alcohol use are inversely correlated.

Johari MA: To a believer, chaos and order are obviously two different words, conveying two [completely] different meanings. But, scientist like to do approximation, and it could sometimes be artifactual (and some believers called this a myth, considering its obvious improbabilities).

Chaos theory has answered, among others, the question of what creates the Great Spot of Jupiter. It gives us signs to an impending heart attack. I wouldn't call it myth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 08:33am Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1116 of 1116)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

I think the "adaptability" question is pretty much settled :)

It's true that measuring inteligence is difficult. We actually tend more towards a measurment of socialization in our intelligence testing. Several of the ceatations, notably two Dolphins species and Orca absolutely posses greater mental facilities than we do. Saying whether they are more or less "intelligent" may be difficult without a truly objective methodology of measuring "intelligence."

My main point, that ethics are our primary survival trait, is born out by the growth in population of our species since the advent of civilization. There are certainly other factors involved, and I do not discount intelligence and adaptability, but an ethical system is the one unique trait that has enabled us to create our own niche rather than finding one to fit into.

I think that we could point to adaptability and intelligence as the primary survival traits of pre-civilised mankind. Our adaptability allowed us to live in a multitude of harsh conditions while our intelligence gave us a competitive edge over other predators.

Since the advent of civilazation we have grown to a population that is completely unsupportable without our socilazation. Science & technology have allowed us to create artificial environments and bio systems that can support this population load. Without the society, supported and maintained by ethical systems, we would not have been able to utilise our intelligence to build science and technology.

One last note, I did not mean to imply that our intelligence renders religion obsolete. I meant that we can supply a "socializing methodology" without religion. Beleiving or not beleiving remains a philosophical descision and, IMO, will always be such as the subject does not lend itself to scientific analysis (positive or negative.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:39pm Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1117 of 1119)

Carl Nicolai: He cut the funds for fetal cell research.

Yeah, now I remember. It has been a while, but I seem now to recall that some researchers were paying young women to have an abortion in exchange for the fetal material for their (government funded) research. And, as I recall, there was some evidence that some young women were actually getting pregnant on purpose so they could sell the stuff, like a commodity. I didn't like that at all.

Carl Nicolai: Also my point is not that Science will just replace religion but that it is a religion or at least becomming one.

Except to the extent that there will be people on the fringe who will try to make it into one, I disagree. When the findings of science constantly change, science is not very good fodder for "articles of faith." And the findings of science do change as additional evidence becomes available: witness the recent ascendancy of the Out of Africa theory of human evolution based on recent DNA investigations combined with new fossil finds in Spain.

Carl Nicolai: While there is a resurgence of fundemantalism there is also a very strong rejection of it by many people.

But what does that have to do acceptance of cloning by fundamentalist? In other words, what will happen when the first clone child is born. I submit that there really isn't much difference (on the surface, at least, which is what counts with human emotion) between cloning and invitro fertilization. I remember the original controversy surrounding invitro fertilization. It didn't "feel right" for a lot of people. But I also remember how the controversy melted when the first invitro fertilization baby was born and shown on television. People, in general, including fundamentalist, love babies, and we all loved that baby. And when the first cloned baby is born, we will likewise love that baby. Trust me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:44pm Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1118 of 1119)

Johari MA: Some people do not consider this too important, as they only think of what they want, not the child.

Sounds like some people who have a child the "natural" way. And we don't prevent them from having a child. How about the couple who can't have one the natural way?

Johari MA: I think most oppose such practise for a very good reason (except materialist, who only see a baby as 'organs' - that can be harvested). Opposing illegal and unethical abortion, do not necessarily mean we are dumping cloning research.

My sentiments exactly. And, by the way, how is abortion analogous to cloning anyway. Cloning involves the creation of life, not the destruction of life. Cloning is more like invitro fertilization. It is only when you start combining cloning with abortion, and stuff like that, that you will run into problems.

Noel Yap: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have violence in their histories. I would doubt that the current Pope would lead a violent attack to defend Christian beliefs, but followers tend to forget the basic teachings of their religions.

There will always be misguided fools, religious and otherwise.

Noel Yap: I'd like to do this, too. How do you go about it?

And how much does it cost? And how can I get the government to pick up the tab for it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:47pm Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1119 of 1119)

Keith Fosberg: I think the "adaptability" question is pretty much settled :)

Yeah, yeah, keep it up. Embarrass me further. If I had Tom's wit, I could probably think of an appropriate comeback. Since I don't, I guess I'll just have to take it and go on. Sigh.

Keith Fosberg: My main point, that ethics are our primary survival trait, is born out by the growth in population of our species since the advent of civilization.

Explain that. This seem like a leap in logic to me.

Keith Fosberg: Science & technology have allowed us to create artificial environments and bio systems that can support this population load. Without the society, supported and maintained by ethical systems, we would not have been able to utilise our intelligence to build science and technology.

Now you are getting somewhere. Certainly, technology was instrumental in our ability to adapt to harsh environments. But I am not sure that technology results from ethical systems. I think you have this backwards. I would guess that the development of ethical systems was an result of technology. Defining a concept of ownership (of a stone tool, for example) before there is something to own, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 03:17pm Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1120 of 1121)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

Cliff,

Good call on the "ownership" question! All the same, science and technology (required to sustain our huge biomass) do not occur in a vacume. All advancement, each invention, and every new idea is a product of all of our prior learning.

There is, if you will, an expanding infrastructure of progress. Without a society that supports intelectual endeavours this would all collaspe like a house of cards! No one designs 12 ton reapers while he is trying to poke a spear into an antelope!

It is through working together, each taking a specialised place in an ever more complex society, that we build upon this framework.

Without ethical systems we could have no society and hence no infrastructure of progress. We would (after the big die-off) return to neolithic life. Our intelligence would not support the fantasticly expanded biomass of over 5 billion humans without the accumulated infrastructure provided by society.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 03:21pm Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1121 of 1121)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

As an addenduam (how do you spell that?);

I will grant that other creatures engage in specialization, but they are locked into their specialised roles. A drone bee does not retrain as a queen.

Humans engage in very deep specialization, but in a flexible way. Where were the Astronaughts 100 years ago? Where are the lamp lighters today?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 10:47pm Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1122 of 1123)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

Might be just a bit "chicken and egg" here.

Intelligence and ethics are linked in our history. Your "stone tool" example is excelent.

The reason that I said that science and technology are dependant upon ethics is that a society is required to develop science and technology.

I write programs most of the day, I can fix cars, televisions, radios, etc., but if removed from society I am quickly reduced to a very primitive existance.

The reason for this is that everthing I know is build up upon an existing infrastructure. This infrastructure can not exist in a non-civilised species. It took us quite some time (certainly more than one lifetime) to build this infrastructure. If each human had to go kill a deer and dig up some roots for dinner there would be no time to dedicate to building infrastructure.

The accelerating rate of technical progress is a "weather cock" indicating how our society frees up time for intellectual devotion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 11:43pm Dec 17, 1997 ET (#1123 of 1123)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Most of this group has been devoted to discussing either the moral/ethical or the scientific issues. We havent spent much time on the legal ones.

It seems that the present law allows me to own any part of my body that I can legally remove. Since blood contains nucleated white cells it seems I have a way to own a cell. By own here I mean own as chattel. (make, use, destroy, sell....)

Now at some point if I cause this cell to turn into a human being I stop owning it absolutely. What is the point.

The law generally assumes that if the collection of cells can live without being connected to another human then it is a full human and I loose my chattel ownership rights.

What if it is never dependent on a human for it's life. Like the cow embroys that are carried for a time in rabbits so they can be shipped accross national borders without the quarentien requirements.

If the embryo developes in another animal or a machine when do I loose chattel rights?

The immage of a "child" developing inside its mother is a lot different than a collection of cells incubating inside a machine.

My rights to own even my own cells could and will be defined quite differently in the various societies in the world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:00am Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1124 of 1126)

Keith, how does this sound?

Technology and ethics are intertwined. Technology can not long exist without ethics, and ethics has no meaning without technology. Technology in its simplest form must come first, but without ethics, the implementation of technology, even in its simplest form is a dead issue. Science is a separate system that supports the advancement and adaptation of technology, but at the same time is dependent on technology. Ethics has no meaning to science. But if ethics fail, technology also will fail, and without technology, science has no purpose.

Carl, I will start at the beginning.

Suppose my wife and I have a child by natural means. I contribute my cells in the form of my sperm, and my wife contributes her cells in the form of an ovum. While my wife is carrying the baby, she has certain rights, according to the law, with respect to her own body. It is recognized that in certain cases, her rights may conflict with the rights of the child. In most cases, according to the law in my country (USA), the courts have found that her rights, with respect to her own body, supercede the rights of the unborn child. Indeed, the courts have found that her rights to mere convenience may sometimes supercede the rights of the unborn child to life. However, at no time does she have a right to sell the unborn child.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:03am Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1125 of 1126)

When that child is born, we are allowed to say that child is ours and society admits that the child is our child. The child is ours to have and to hold and to nurture. However, we have no chattel rights. We can not sell the child. Furthermore, if we do not provide for the child, or if we were to otherwise abuse it, society has the right to remove that child from our care and provide no compensation to us in return whatever. In addition, if we were to decide that we no longer desire the child, and as a consequence, were to destroy it, we would face severe criminal penalties. I am no lawyer, but this is my understanding of the legal reality of natural reproduction in my country (USA) and, I believe the same is true in most other countries in the world.

Carl Nicolai: It seems that the present law allows me to own any part of my body that I can legally remove. Since blood contains nucleated white cells it seems I have a way to own a cell. By own here I mean own as chattel. (make, use, destroy, sell....)

Yes, as I understand it, you have a right to sell your blood. I assume this right to sell portions of your body would extend to a limb such as an arm or a leg not required for maintenance of life.

Carl Nicolai: Now at some point if I cause this cell to turn into a human being I stop owning it absolutely. What is the point.

If you desire to procreate in this fashion, that would be the point. That child would be your child in the same sense that my (and my wife's) children are ours. (But any chattel rights would belong to the child.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:05am Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1126 of 1126)

Carl Nicolai: The law generally assumes that if the collection of cells can live without being connected to another human then it is a full human and I loose my chattel ownership rights.

Yes.

Carl Nicolai: What if it is never dependent on a human for it's life. Like the cow embroys that are carried for a time in rabbits so they can be shipped accross national borders without the quarentien requirements.

I don't see how that would make any difference.

Carl Nicolai: If the embryo developes in another animal or a machine when do I loose chattel rights?

I would suppose it would depend on your intent. It would be my opinion that once it is your intent to grow a human being, any chattel rights you may have had for the embryo no longer exist.

Carl Nicolai: The immage of a "child" developing inside its mother is a lot different than a collection of cells incubating inside a machine.

I fail to see why a legal difference should exist if the end result is a human being. That human being has the chattel rights to his or her own body.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 07:51am Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1127 of 1127)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

I don't see much potential for the creation of a "slave race" based on procreation methodologies. No matter how devided on other issues, I have yet to speak to anyone who supports the notion of viable cloned humans having less rights than viable "naturally birthed" humans.

I like that summation Cliff! So often we treat ethics as if it were some pleasent overlay added to the fabric of our existance. I think it is vitaly important, especially in this time of flux, that we look deeply at the subject of ethical systems and acknowledge how vital they are for our survival.

I can easily see a time when the definition of what constitutes a human will be far different from what we see today. We already have difficulty pinning down the point at which a fetus becomes human. How will we make this determination in the lab?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:08pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1128 of 1137)

Keith Fosberg: Since the advent of civilazation we have grown to a population that is completely unsupportable without our socilazation.

I had posted (possibly on another board) a similar sentiment a while back when I said that society itself can be considered an organism. Individuals will no longer be the same once they're removed from society. IOW, the individual dies (in a metaphoric sense.)

Keith Fosberg: Science & technology have allowed us to create artificial environments and bio systems that can support this population load.

For now. Many species have become extinct due to the changes we've imposed on their environments. At some point, we'll reach a point that throws the ecosystem so out of whack that we'll have a tough time surviving in our current numbers (just like the blue-green algae that originally created our atmosphere.)

Keith Fosberg: I meant that we can supply a "socializing methodology" without religion.

You mean like a dogma?

Cliff Beall: there was some evidence that some young women were actually getting pregnant on purpose so they could sell the stuff, like a commodity. I didn't like that at all.

This is what happens when people treat capitalism as a religion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:08pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1129 of 1137)

Carl Nicolai: Also my point is not that Science will just replace religion but that it is a religion or at least becomming one.

Cliff Beall: Except to the extent that there will be people on the fringe who will try to make it into one, I disagree.

I don't. We do it now. We, as a society, hear that this-and-that is good or bad for you and we believe it. Next week, we hear that it has the other effect. I know people who absolutely believe that there are black holes out there 'cos physicists have "described" exactly what happens inside them. The scientists and technologists will become the gods and priests of tomorrow.

Cliff Beall: When the findings of science constantly change, science is not very good fodder for "articles of faith."

The faith is in, "Science can and will solve all our problems."

Cliff Beall: when the first cloned baby is born, we will likewise love that baby.

I think you're right, but I guess we'll just have to find out.

Cliff Beall: There will always be misguided fools, religious and otherwise.

Yes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:09pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1130 of 1137)

Noel Yap: I'd like to do this, too. How do you go about it?

Cliff Beall: And how much does it cost? And how can I get the government to pick up the tab for it?

I meant keeping up with the Personal Inventory tests. Besides, management requires measurement -- that's what the government does to us. So it's in their/our best interests to measure society's sentiments.

Cliff Beall: I would guess that the development of ethical systems was an result of technology.

I think it's a cyclic feedback system. Technology and ethics both help develop each other.

Keith Fosberg: science and technology (required to sustain our huge biomass) do not occur in a vacume. All advancement, each invention, and every new idea is a product of all of our prior learning.

You and Cliff are both right. We've got to stop picturing living systems (in this case society) in a reductionist, hierarchical manner. Nothing sits at top or the bottom of a web of inter-relationships.

Keith Fosberg: It is through working together, each taking a specialised place in an ever more complex society, that we build upon this framework.

Ahhh, another tidbit that points to the fact that society is an organism. Just as we have specialised cells that work together, society has specialised individuals that work together.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darren Merritt - 03:18pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1131 of 1137)

Boy, I wish they'd clone Claudia Schiffer and Tyra Banks. That would be woth buying a coupla' copies each!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:23pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1132 of 1137)

Keith Fosberg: Without ethical systems we could have no society and hence no infrastructure of progress. We would (after the big die-off) return to neolithic life. Our intelligence would not support the fantasticly expanded biomass of over 5 billion humans without the accumulated infrastructure provided by society.

It sounds like both ethics and intelligence are necessary to sustain our growth.

Keith Fosberg: Humans engage in very deep specialization, but in a flexible way.

Yes, but not completely flexible. I don't think I'll ever see a retarded person becoming an engineer or physicist (or doctor or lawyer if that's what you're into :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:31pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1133 of 1137)

Keith Fosberg: Might be just a bit "..icken and egg" here.

Yes, like I said before, there is no top or bottom. Sorry about the missing "ch" but I guess CNN believes I used the full word in a "bad" context.

Keith Fosberg: Intelligence and ethics are linked in our history. Your "stone tool" example is excelent.

I guess you got the point even before I posted it.

Keith Fosberg: If each human had to go kill a deer and dig up some roots for dinner there would be no time to dedicate to building infrastructure.

But we'd be more in balance with our environment.

Cliff Beall: Technology and ethics are intertwined.

Gee, you guys figured it out before I was able to post my comments. Well, I think I'll post them anyway for ego's sake ;)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:36pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1134 of 1137) (deleted)

Oh, I see. If you place the words together, you get a female dog. Friggin Shiite!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 04:35pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1135 of 1137) (now 1134)

Noel Yap 12/17/97 8:04am

NY:Chaos theory has answered, among others, the question of what creates the Great Spot of Jupiter. It gives us signs to an impending heart attack. I wouldn't call it myth.

Again Noel, skeptics postulate that highly precise mechanism in nature arise w/o a source. Among others, skeptics postulate that life could be created from so called 'self assembly' process. You can show how TMV (tobacco mosaic virus) components self assembled in a test tube, in the lab; but, no one can 'show' how 50-100 000 genes in our genome 'self -assembled'; neither could the believer proof the existance of soul and 'sixth sense' in the lab. Suffice to say, the precision we learn in nature made a believer realise for the existance of a 'programmer', and such precision is no blind chance to us ('O' level statistics taught us this). Skeptics have (what I called) faith for their chaotic theory to describe a highly organised system, which is an extreme extrapolation (to a believer). Regardless whether the skeptics/believer is right/wrong, we know who is at the advantageous position. I know skeptics don't like this sort of 'end quote', but this is one fact 'owned' by believers [only] :-). Sorry to say that I will not be able to continue this thread, as it is against the rule here.

Cliff Beall 12/17/97 2:44pm

CB:How about the couple who can't have one the natural way?

I think legally and

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 04:37pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1136 of 1137) (now 1135)

I think legally/ethically qualified couples could either adopt a child, or use the current technology (eg IVF) to get their own 'flesh and blood'. Be aware that there are potential complications with 'surrogate parenting', to the child and the couple themselves. However, with great care and good procedures, such issue will not be a big problem.

CB:It is only when you start combining cloning with abortion, and stuff like that,

that you will run into problems.

Yes indeed

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 06:05pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1137 of 1137) (now 1136)

Cliff Beall and Noel Yap are clones. AKA the same person. That's my theory. They both hog this board exactly the same way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 08:13pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1138 of 1138) (now 1137)

Tom A: Cliff Beall and Noel Yap are clones. AKA the same person.

I've always wondered what I was doing during those blackout periods :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:20pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1139 of 1141) (1138)

Noel Yap: This is what happens when people treat capitalism as a religion.

I don't think it had anything to do with religion. On the most fundamental level, a religion is a belief system typically involving each of the following: a belief in a supreme being as a source of delivered wisdom, a philosophy of values attributed to the source and a code of ethics (or behavior) based on the values assumed to proceed from the source. It usually also contains certain rituals to be performed apart from the values contained in its philosophy and in its code of behavior.

It is possible for a religion to exist without belief in a supreme being. However, there must be a "source" of some sort. The source could conceivably be anything from the "rhythm of the spheres" to "being in tune with nature." But there must be a source. In addition, there must be a philosophy of values and a code of behavior. Otherwise, it is not a religion.

Noel Yap: The faith is in, "Science can and will solve all our problems."

Well, at least you have a source. Add a philosophy of scientific values and a code of scientific behavior (to keep science happy) and you have a religion. The reason science can not usually be considered a religion, even for people who believe fervently in science as a source of reliable information, is the lack of a philosophy of scientific values and a code of scientific behavior. The result is that science typically remains a source, and does not develop into a religion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:22pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1140 of 1141) (1139)

Noel Yap: I meant keeping up with the Personal Inventory tests. Besides, management requires measurement -- that's what the government does to us. So it's in their/our best interests to measure society's sentiments.

And I was trying to make a joke. I thought the idea of me trying to get the government to pick up the tab would be considered absurd. (However, when Carl tells you how to go about tracking the information, I will be listening.)

Keith Fosberg: It is through working together, each taking a specialised place in an ever more complex society, that we build upon this framework.

Noel Yap: Ahhh, another tidbit that points to the fact that society is an organism. Just as we have specialised cells that work together, society has specialised individuals that work together.

The thing that bothers me about this is the decreasing role of the individual. If this keeps up, we truly will be like bees. Flexibility and most progress emanates from individual initiative.

Darren Merritt: Boy, I wish they'd clone Claudia Schiffer and Tyra Banks. That would be woth buying a coupla' copies each!

You must be a lot younger than me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:24pm Dec 18, 1997 ET (#1141 of 1141) (now 1140)

Noel Yap: Gee, you guys figured it out before I was able to post my comments. Well, I think I'll post them anyway for ego's sake ;)

But you leave yourself wide open for Tom's attacks.

Tom A: Cliff Beall and Noel Yap are clones. AKA the same person.

Noel Yap: I've always wondered what I was doing during those blackout periods :)

It also clearly proves (ie, provides a smidgen of evidence) that clones are really not identical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 12:37am Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1141 of 1145) (repeat--matches)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Another strange legal problem is mosaic clones.

In nature it sometimes happens that multiple ovulation occures and both eggs become zygotes. If they stick together early in their development then the result can be a single human. If this were done on purpose then you can have 4 parents (6 have been done in a lab with mice) Or two of the same sex if you use clones. This will not be well received by many people.

Since the avowed purpose of marrage law is to protect the offspring of a family it seems only logical that the "state of marrage" will have to be changed.

Three to four thousand years of legal presidence poof!

Any body have any insight in how this will work? Lets see now Mike and Bob two normal happily married men decide to have a child. No sex involved and in fact their wives go along with the idea.

Parental rights, inheritence rights, PTA meetings? Woha! This gets wierd.

The only thing even close to this is in the upper mountains of Tibet where one wife has several husbands. Thoes famlies dont seem to have a problem with multiple possable fathers.

At this point I'm sure the religious types will have some problems no matter how liberal they are.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 01:00am Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1142 of 1145) (matches)

:-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:44am Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1144 of 1145) (now 1143)

Cliff Beall: a religion is a belief system typically involving each of the following: a belief in a supreme being as a source of delivered wisdom, a philosophy of values attributed to the source and a code of ethics (or behavior) based on the values assumed to proceed from the source.

The ethics in a free market system is that everything has a monetary value. Once something is assigned a value, it can be swapped (ie bought and sold) for something of equal value.

Cliff Beall: It usually also contains certain rituals to be performed apart from the values contained in its philosophy and in its code of behavior.

The exchange-of-goods ritual in certain settings can be characterized by the following steps. First, the buyer initiates by placing an item on a counter. The cashier will then ring up the item and quote the price or value of the item. This is followed by the buyer transferring cash (or check or credit) to the cashier. The rites are ended by the cashier saying, "Thank you, have a nice day." :)

Cliff Beall: Add a philosophy of scientific values and a code of scientific behavior (to keep science happy) and you have a religion.

Philosophy: Truth (objectivity) is everything. Everything else (subjectivity) is irrelevent. Behaviour: No accountability.

Cliff Beall: The reason science can not usually be considered a religion, even for people who believe fervently in science as a source of reliable information, is the lack of a philosophy of scientific values and a code of scientific behavior.

The lack of accountability is in itself a kind of ethics just as a lack of belief in God is a belief.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:44am Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1145 of 1145) (now 1144)

Cliff Beall: The thing that bothers me about this is the decreasing role of the individual.

Although the effect of the average individual may be decreasing, there is no changing the fact that each of us is part of a bigger whole -- even when the human population numbered in the millions, we were (and still are) part of the ecosystem. For example, I may not be affected too much by one or two of my cells (even brain cells) dying, but I certainly wouldn't be the same person if even 5% of my cells suddenly died. I also wouldn't be the same person if 5 of my key cells (ie super chiasmatic neurons) were to die.

Cliff Beall: If this keeps up, we truly will be like bees.

We already are. We just don't realise it 'cos we're right in the middle of it. With bees, we are looking from the outside in. One way we can understand it more is by understanding other open systems more.

Cliff Beall: Flexibility and most progress emanates from individual initiative.

Yes, these are the exceptional individuals. These "progressors," however, wouldn't have been able to contribute anything if it weren't for other "more mediocre" individuals' support. So, we again have cyclic dependencies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:58pm Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1146 of 1148) (now 1145)

Carl Nicolai: This will not be well received by many people.

My question is: how would it be received by you? (How do you feel about it?)

Carl Nicolai: Since the avowed purpose of marrage law is to protect the offspring of a family it seems only logical that the "state of marrage" will have to be changed.

Why? Just because it can be done doesn't mean it must be done. I don't think there are many who will argue that children raised outside a marriage are better protected than children inside a marriage. And I think society will continue to want children protected, whatever their parentage. I would grant that young girls get pregnant "accidentally" all the time. We can question their motivation, but, after the fact, we have little option but to accept it. There is a child involve who must be protected. But it will be much more difficult to claim a repeated "accident" in the lab, and I don't think society is foolish enough to accept such claims very long. I think society expects scientist to know what they are doing.

Tom A: :-)

I'm glad you were entertained. We, Noel and I, have the purist of intentions and desire to please.

Cliff Beall: a religion is a belief system typically involving...

If I had it to do over again, I would have left out the word "belief" in that sentence. Religion includes a belief system, but is not, I am now convinced, strictly speaking, a belief system.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:03pm Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1147 of 1148) (now 1146)

Noel Yap: The ethics in a free market system is that everything has a monetary value. Once something is assigned a value, it can be swapped (ie bought and sold) for something of equal value.

That is the mechanism of capitalism. It says nothing about the type, or system, of "values" required by a religion.

Noel Yap: The rites are ended by the cashier saying, "Thank you, have a nice day." :)

Neat concept. But it still isn't a religion.

Noel Yap: Philosophy: Truth (objectivity) is everything. Everything else (subjectivity) is irrelevent. Behaviour: No accountability.

Sounds good. But much of the "scientific analysis" of evidence is subjective. It must be since the objective evidence is often not conclusive. That is the reason the interpretation of evidence by scientist is often at odds.

A lack of accountability is not behavior. It may, hypothetically, lead to a type of behavior, but it is not behavior.

Noel Yap: The lack of accountability is in itself a kind of ethics just as a lack of belief in God is a belief.

I will grant you a point here since I can't think of a way out of it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:06pm Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1148 of 1148) (now 1147)

Cliff Beall: If this keeps up, we truly will be like bees.

Noel Yap: We already are. We just don't realise it 'cos we're right in the middle of it. With bees, we are looking from the outside in. One way we can understand it more is by understanding other open systems more.

Actually, I don't think the role of the individual in our society is decreasing. For example, science is not monolithic, but rather is the investigation and analysis of (often) conflicting theories of many individual scientist. Our industries compete more than they cooperate. Within industries, it is the individuals who proposes different, and, hopefully, better ways of doing things that gives a particular industry an edge. When we slavishly do it the way it has always been done, because it has always been done that way, we truly are like bees. But, I see less and less of that. It appears to me that the role of the individual is actually increasing.

Noel Yap: Yes, these are the exceptional individuals. These "progressors," however, wouldn't have been able to contribute anything if it weren't for other "more mediocre" individuals' support. So, we again have cyclic dependencies.

I agree we have dependencies of the type you note. Please explain the use of the word "cyclic" in this context.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 02:46pm Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1148 of 1200) (correct)

Well, there you have it. The makers of Dolly now have Polly and Molly. They are a sheep and goat with the first cloned organisms to include human genes. The genes are meant to switch on the production of a special blood clotting factor in the goats milk. It is targeted at helping hemophiliacs. The repercussions for similar techniques for producing very low cost drugs is great. All power to them but I surmise the drug companies hate that term "low cost".

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 02:51pm Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1149 of 1200) (newly copied-correct)

Cliff Beall #1146: My 1142 post wasn't meant specifically for you et.al. What kind of egomaniac are you?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:30pm Dec 19, 1997 ET (#1150 of 1200) (newly copied-correct)

:-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 03:39am Dec 20, 1997 ET (#1151 of 1200) (newly copied-correct)

Tom A: The repercussions for similar techniques for producing very low cost drugs is great. All power to them but I surmise the drug companies hate that term "low cost".

Actually, they love it when they can reduced costs, sell for less and still make a profit. It gives them an edge on the competition, and that is the one thing people in business love more than anything. And guess who benefits.

And by the way, how did this come about? Individual initiative. The role of the individual is not dead. Individuals make a difference.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johari MA - 05:00pm Dec 20, 1997 ET (#1153 of 1153) (now 1152)

Excuse me CNN, just a short clarification... in case of misunderstanding...

Cliff Beall 12/19/97 12:58pm

If I had it to do over again, I would have left out the word "belief" in that sentence.

Religion includes a belief system, but is not, I am now convinced, strictly speaking, a

belief system.

Mr Cliff Beal, it does, it will , and always involve a belief system; it is just a matter of perception.. [eg. A neutralist said a believer have an 'insurance', which he 'percept' as advantageous (extended feature) compared to non believers, .Whilst believer do not necessarily share a neutralist 'world-view' (perception); he (sometimes) quote 'indirect' (supportive) point(s) from them]. This is what I call 'resourceful' thinking (vs dogmatic and narrow thinking).

IMO, truth is found when we put things 'in perspective', not dodging the (main) fact with side-of-the-mouth 'talk the talk'. People with such behaviour, as I know, will be 'empty'.

Oki dok, carry on with the discussion...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 11:39pm Dec 20, 1997 ET (#1154 of 1155) (now 1153)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Tom A: The repercussions for similar techniques for producing very low cost drugs is great. All power to them but I surmise the drug companies hate that term "low cost".

You have hit on the key feature that is going to cause all kinds of social dislocations. Bio tech is going to make the production of all kinds of chemicals dirt cheap. Some strong reprocussions of this are illegial drug production, illegal copying of medicine, and copying of patiented life forms.

The US patent office allows patents on life forms (excluding human) that are produced with artificial genetic engineering.

The equipment to do this will become less and less expensive. A good example is what has hapened with the computer revolution. There are about 250 million PCs in use today. A machine as powerful as a 200 M 586 did not even exist 30 years ago at any price.

Computational horsepower is not preceved as dangerous but chemicals and bio agents are.

Clones including human ones are going to have genetic engineering aplied to them at an ever decreasing cost.

Rather than decrease the pace of human evloution cloning with modifications will increase it.

Playing "God" is exactly what people are going to do.

An emerging but developed state like South Aferica that is all-ready capable of resisting world preasure is not going to let the feelings of "Big Brother" countries in America or Europe tell it what to do.

Asia is hungry beyond beleif. If cloning tecknology can help countries make money do you think for one second that they wont be used. Can you immagine the North Koreans being influenced by intellectual rights or the agreements between the rich westeners.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:19am Dec 21, 1997 ET (#1155 of 1156) (now 1154)

Johari, I was merely correcting a logical error. The suggestion had been made that current technology, including cloning technology, was forcing a number of changes on society including the possible replacement of traditional religions with science (as a religion). I decided it would be well to examine the specific characteristics of religions in general to see if it was true. After reading the dictionary definition of religion several times, I studied the entry from an encyclopedia, and arrived at a short "elucidation" as to what I thought a baseline religion was, and what it was not.

Unfortunately, I had previously asserted the notion that religion was a belief system, (as opposed to: contains a belief system) and included it in the elucidation. I later noticed, however, that it resulted in an obvious logical error since a belief system can not possibly encompass a philosophy nor a code of behavior. Therefore, the correction.

I was not trying to address all aspect of religion. The article in the encyclopedia I consulted was seven pages long. Neither was I attempting to cover all the intricacies of your religion. I figure you can do that if you wish. All that I was attempting to do was to establish the baseline requirements of a religion, in general, so that when Keith or Noel says that science is becoming a religion in a particular case, I can either agree or say it is not since it lacks this or this. In no way was I "dodging the (main) fact with side-of-the-mouth 'talk the talk'."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 04:23am Dec 21, 1997 ET (#1156 of 1156)

Carl, there will be social dislocations from this technology, some of which we can not now envision. Also, your analogy with the computer revolution is a fair one. But lets be rational. While US companies screamed mightily about software piracy and illegal importation of chips from Asia during the early part of the computer revolution, it didn't keep Bill Gates from amassing about 40 billion dollars, and it didn't seem to hurt Intel much.

I mainly disagree with is your insistence that given the opportunity to play God, people will. I see no overpowering need within the human psychic to do such a thing. Therefore I think there has to be a profit motive for it to occur in a significant way. My question is, how is South Africa or Korea to profit by this?

I would point out that unlike the cheap computer chips and software imported into the US illegally during the earlier days of the computer revolution, the illegal importation of medicines (mainly prescription type drugs) into the US and other developed countries will be much more difficult, since medicines are much more intensely regulated than computer chips.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 01:12pm Dec 21, 1997 ET (#1157 of 1161)

Carl Nicolai: Your vision goes further than mine. It could be made into a movie. Scary but true. Deregulation in bio-tech is an invitation to eventual havoc. The thought of rendering high class-expensive pharmaceutical drugs to the level of the aspirin is wild.

What do you mean by illegal drugs? That means different things to different people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 04:12pm Dec 21, 1997 ET (#1158 of 1161)

On the other hand, I would also hazard to guess that there is a relatively narrow spectrum of drugs that organisms are able to produce. Many or all (correct me if I am wrong) pharmaceuticals are synthetic eqivalents of naturally occuring substances in plants. Why not clone drug producing plants?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 10:55pm Dec 21, 1997 ET (#1159 of 1161)

It sounds like both ethics and intelligence are necessary to sustain our growth.

Keith Fosberg: Humans engage in very deep specialization, but in a flexible way.

Yes, but not completely flexible. I don't think I'll ever see a retarded person becoming an engineer or physicist (or doctor or lawyer if that's what you're into :)

Keith Fosberg: Might be just a bit "chicken and egg" here.

Yes, like I said before, there is no top or bottom.

Keith Fosberg: Intelligence and ethics are linked in our history. Your "stone tool" example is excelent.

I guess you got the point even before I posted it.

Keith Fosberg: If each human had to go kill a deer and dig up some roots for dinner there would be no time to dedicate to building infrastructure.

But we'd be more in balance with our environment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:35am Dec 22, 1997 ET (#1160 of 1161)

Cliff Beall: That is the mechanism of capitalism. It says nothing about the type, or system, of "values" required by a religion.

Under pure capitalism, lives, and everything else, also have monetary value. These are quite different from the values taught by religion. This would explain how women could get pregnant on purpose just so they can sell the fetus.

Cliff Beall: When we slavishly do it the way it has always been done, because it has always been done that way, we truly are like bees.

In a normal distribution, half of the population is below average. These people are not able or don't want to introduce anything innovative. I would also say that people hovering around the mean won't contribute anything new. Therefore, most people fall into the category of non-innovation.

Cliff Beall: I agree we have dependencies of the type you note. Please explain the use of the word "cyclic" in this context.

Well, innovators' contributions depend upon mediocres' contributions and vice versa. If you were to try to draw a dependency tree, you wouldn't be able to 'cos neither of them is the root and neither is the leaf. Their dependencies form a cycle, and hence they have a cyclic dependency.

Tom A: All power to them but I surmise the drug companies hate that term "low cost".

Only when their R&D money wasn't the one that found it.

Cliff Beall: And by the way, how did this come about? Individual initiative. The role of the individual is not dead. Individuals make a difference.

Yes, but not for most individuals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Willis - 11:00am Dec 22, 1997 ET (#1161 of 1161)

Tom A: You're right. There IS a limit to what animals can produce. Not very many drugs or even hormones are peptides or proteins, which are the ultimate end-products of cloning a gene. Steroid hormone synthesis, for example, requires several different enzymes (proteins) in addition to a variety of substrates. We aren't going to have a flock of sheep secreting heroin (or whatever your drug of choice may be) in their milk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 11:57am Dec 22, 1997 ET (#1162 of 1164)

Dawn Willis: My drug of choice is alcohol and cannabis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 02:14pm Dec 22, 1997 ET (#1163 of 1164)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

Hmmm....

I would like to clarify a significant diference between a hive organism and a social organism.

The organization and roles therein of the hive are fixed. each component member caries out those tasks assigned to him/her/it by the evolution of the species.

When I speak of specialization in mankinds "social organism" I mean something more akin to lawyers, doctors, and botanists.

Also, I'm sure it was not meant in this way, but.....

Before anyone takes off on any tangents about how the "noble savage" should be the human ideal; This planet can support ~ 200M humans. When you suggest "returning to nature" you are also suggesting the genocide of nearly five billion persons.

We are nature, as much as anything else. We simply have to behave responsibly as we can easily wreck ourselves!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:46pm Dec 22, 1997 ET (#1164 of 1164)

Keith Fosberg: When you suggest "returning to nature" you are also suggesting the genocide of nearly five billion persons.

I know that. I was just stating another view point. The current thinking that humans should dominate is no more correct than humans should live in balance with nature. Another way to look at it is currently, we would rather save individual lives at the cost of increased suffering.

Keith Fosberg: We are nature, as much as anything else. We simply have to behave responsibly as we can easily wreck ourselves!

Yes, and no. We are still part of our surroundings (ie we affect our surroundings and vice versa), but we've broken every metric set by nature (ie we shouldn't have the populations we have now if we returned back to nature; our lifespans should be around thirty years according to our heart rates). Since we're breaki ng rules, we should know what we're doing and their consequences. We currently do not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:02pm Dec 22, 1997 ET (#1165 of 1178)

Tom A: Carl Nicolai: Your vision goes further than mine. It could be made into a movie. Scary but true.

Well, at least, it is scary.

Noel Yap: In a normal distribution, half of the population is below average. These people are not able or don't want to introduce anything innovative. I would also say that people hovering around the mean won't contribute anything new. Therefore, most people fall into the category of non-innovation.

On the scale of Thomas Edison or Dr. Wilmut, perhaps not. But have you ever heard of Team Based Management (TBM)? I am not sure it does all that much for an engineering or scientific environment. But when implemented in a shop environment, in a meaningful way, it is astounding what it does. You might think the guys in the shop are just shop people--that they're not creative types. But if you are prepared to spend a little money to implement their ideas, just watch. You might not think taking those guys off the job once a week to attend a TBM meeting would increase productivity, but it does, and in ways you never thought possible.

Noel Yap: Only when their R&D money wasn't the one that found it.

But it is a sure fire way of getting companies to spend more on R&D. When the competition comes up with an innovation or improvement that threatens to blow your product line out of the water, it is amazing how R&D dollars materialize. (However, it is at lot nicer to be on the other side of the fence, putting pressure on the competition, and you get more R&D dollars that way too.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 05:07pm Dec 22, 1997 ET (#1166 of 1178)

Tom A: What do you mean by illegal drugs? That means different things to different people.

Dawn Willis: We aren't going to have a flock of sheep secreting heroin (or whatever your drug of choice may be) in their milk.

I think Carl was referring mainly to pharmaceuticals. He mentioned "intellectual rights," specifically, in his last sentence. But I think you are right. This technology will not be used to reduce the cost of aspirin. The advantage of this technology is mainly in developing effective treatments for genetic defects and illnesses, and, probably, extending our life spans. But, as they say, that is a bunch.

Keith Fosberg: We are nature, as much as anything else. We simply have to behave responsibly as we can easily wreck ourselves!

I basically agree. But that doesn't mean we have to take ourselves too seriously, and it doesn't mean we can't have fun. (Consider and admire, for example, Tom's drugs of choice.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. dat - 06:14pm Dec 22, 1997 ET (#1167 of 1168)

Hmm, I wonder if this has been suggested yet? How about CLONING PRINCESS DI. And then maybe we won't have to listen to any more news stories about her death.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim Gorski MD - 12:11am Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1168 of 1168)

This whole hoopla over cloning is absolutely BOGUS. An out-of-synch identical twin. Big deal. Nobody says that one of a member of identical twins is "not a real person." So if people are cloned, so what. What is FAR more concerning is the technology of replacing a portion of cytoplasm from an egg to "rejuvenate" it and allow women with old eggs to get pregnant with them. The problem here is the mitochondria. There may or may not be risks in having mitochondria from more than one "mother." No one knows. But I guess that's just too complicated for the typical scientifically-illiterate dimwitted glued-to-the-TV American to grasp

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ashley Badorek - 01:01am Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1169 of 1178)

Wow such deep conversations, all I can say to that is Baaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaa

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ashley Badorek - 01:05am Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1170 of 1178)

C Dat, you need to see dat remote, any Di news change channels. I haven't seen any new news on her death lately,and I don't have to listen to anything if I don't want to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:43am Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1171 of 1178)

Tim Gorski MD: But I guess that's just too complicated for the typical scientifically-illiterate dimwitted glued-to-the-TV American to grasp

You sound a bit angry, Doc. But there is no sense in railing against scientifically-illiterate dimwits on this board. We are all extremely enlightened as you can readily tell from our discourse.

Seriously, Doc, what is it you would want the scientifically-illiterate dimwits to understand: that the hoopla over cloning is bogus, or that mitochondria from more than one mother is possibly dangerous?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 02:42am Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1172 of 1178)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Tim Gorski MD. What is FAR more concerning is the technology of replacing a portion of cytoplasm from an egg to "rejuvenate" it and allow women with old eggs to get pregnant with them. The problem here is the mitochondria. There may or may not be risks in having mitochondria from more than one "mother."

A portion of the cytoplasm? We are going to find a damaged ring of mitochondral DNA and replace it with a non damaged one?

Shiesh.. If we could analize and isolate tissue at that level why not just send in a nano bacteria robot to fix it?

If you are worried about alien cytoplasm why not just take several eggs from the same mother and select the least damaged one (heck it's probalistic that given enough of them at least one will not be damaged) and scavage the others for "spare parts".

A remedial idea is to find females that "might" want to have children when they are older and just harvest and freeze their eggs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:51am Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1173 of 1178)

Cliff Beall: But have you ever heard of Team Based Management (TBM)?

But teams are no longer individuals.

Cliff Beall: You might not think taking those guys off the job once a week to attend a TBM meeting would increase productivity, but it does, and in ways you never thought possible.

'Cos the team is now acting as a single entity. If you want to call this entity an individual, then I guess the individual still has a major role in this society. Then again, I wouldn't consider this an average individual.

Cliff Beall: But it is a sure fire way of getting companies to spend more on R&D.

Yes, 'cos the risk factor would decrease by magnitudes.

Cliff Beall: When the competition comes up with an innovation or improvement that threatens to blow your product line out of the water, it is amazing how R&D dollars materialize.

This is another reason.

Cliff Beall: (However, it is at lot nicer to be on the other side of the fence, putting pressure on the competition, and you get more R&D dollars that way too.)

And incur a lot more risk.

Tim Gorski MD: An out-of-synch identical twin.

Yes, but we controlled the "fertilisation." Also, since this is a process new to mammalian reproduction, we don't know what dangers may lie.

BTW, what is "fertilisation" called when it's really not fertilisation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:52am Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1174 of 1178)

Tim Gorski MD: There may or may not be risks in having mitochondria from more than one "mother." No one knows. But I guess that's just too complicated for the typical scientifically-illiterate dimwitted glued-to-the-TV American to grasp ...

We'll have to find out.

These boards are a good remedy to the misinformation spread by today's media and no-content TV (although I make room for the latter.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 09:38am Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1175 of 1178)

Packing material, Don't Eat!

I want to make just one more run at the issue of man/nature and then I will leave it alone:

We typicaly see a dimorphism in phylosophy and common usage between our species and all others, as if homo sapiens sapiens were a sperate phenomoma from all other life.

The only argument I can see that supports this is the religious phylosophy of "Special Creation," for all other logic tells us that we are nature, just as much as a Roe deer.

It has been suggested that our technology separates us from "nature." I don't think this is a valid argument. Our technology is one of our attributes, just like our potential for extream stamina. If we visited an alien world and found it overrun by a form of algea that had developed a trait that killed all other life on the planet we would see this as an ecological disaster on the same scale as nuclear war here, but we would consider it natural.

Is this tendancy to view mankind as separate from "nature" a logical view, or is it simly our need to be "special?"

This is important. We need to clarify issues of this nature as we assert more and more direct control over the way in which we interreact with the rest of the biosphere.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Halinen Mari - 01:28pm Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1176 of 1178)

This connects with the HACKERS discussion. It all revolves around advancing technology and how much control should we have over it. Clinton isnt going to stop progress and experimentation, even though the public may be told that.Cloning experimentation will go on either legally or illegally if some corporation sees a profit in it in the future. REALITY CHECK. MONEY RULES. yes, and cloning will be abused as equally as we can find good and decent reasons for allowing it. It is just advancing technology and growth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 01:49pm Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1177 of 1178)

Cliff Yap: I didn't say this "This technology will not be used to reduce the cost of aspirin"

I said reducing cost to the LEVEL of aspirin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 03:27pm Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1178 of 1178)

Keith Fosberg: Is this tendancy to view mankind as separate from "nature" a logical view, or is it simly our need to be "special?"

Man is a part of nature in that we cannot live with out from and without it.

Man is apart from nature in that we have created things nature would never have.

The two statements are not contradictory 'cos the meaning of "nature" differs between them. In the first, it means the entire universe including its laws. In the second, it's limited only to the emergent behaviour brought about by chaotic systems (ie the things we build/make are not emergent behaviour, they are thought about and designed whereas genetics, cellular specialisation, ... are not.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Willis - 04:47pm Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1179 of 1182)

Tim Gorski: A priori, I can't see why mitochondria from more than one mother would be dangerous, but that will be easy enough to test in animals. If I were trying to regenerate old eggs, I think I would remove the old gal's nucleus and put it in a young gal's cytoplasm, so that all of the mitochondria were young. However, now that a GA gynecologist has perfected the technique of freezing human eggs, this is a better alternative for those who have the foresight at 25 to know that they will want a baby at 55!

Tom A: Alcohol is already easy and cheap to produce, as I'm sure you know. Cannabis and other non-peptide pharmaceuticals (which is most of them)will not benefit from cloning, but peptide hormones such as insulin, growth hormone, and other peptide hormones and factors will.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 05:06pm Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1180 of 1182)

Dawn Willis: That was a joke!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 05:37pm Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1181 of 1182)

Dawn Willis: Cannabis and other non-peptide pharmaceuticals (which is most of them)will not benefit from cloning, but peptide hormones such as insulin, growth hormone, and other peptide hormones and factors will.

What's different between the production of non-peptide pharms and peptide hormones that lend them not to benefit from cloning?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 07:02pm Dec 23, 1997 ET (#1182 of 1182)

Noel Yap: But teams are no longer individuals.

My reference to TBM was in response to your assertion that "half of the population is below average. These people are not able or don't want to introduce anything innovative. I would also say that people hovering around the mean won't contribute anything new. Therefore, most people fall into the category of non-innovation."

Your statement did not refer to the individual, and I was not referring to individualism in this context. My reference to TBM was simply an objection to the idea that most people "are not able or don't want to introduce anything innovative." It is my opinion that people, in general, are quite creative, whether working as a team, or as an individual. Remembering is a creative process. Most people are capable of remembering and do it all the time. It should not surprise that they are creative in other respects too.

Tom A: I said reducing cost to the LEVEL of aspirin.

Tom, I had not remembered your reference to aspirin when I said that this technology will be not be used to produce aspirin. (I admit your words are golden, but they are not so golden that I should remember everything you have ever said.) My aspirin statement was in response to Carl's statement that, "Bio tech is going to make the production of all kinds of chemicals dirt cheap." I think medicinal applications of this technology will be limited mainly to treatment of genetic related illnesses and other defects where specific cost savings can be realized. The cost when using this technology will not be at the level of aspirin, but it is likely to be quite inexpensive as compared with other methods.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

R Mayes - 03:49am Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1180 of 1189)

Wouldn't the criminals of the world love to get their hands on this technology? Think of it! The real one commits the crime, and the clone does the time! This is a very, very, very, dangerous game that they are playing. Leave it alone folks. Let the world procreate naturally ("be fruitful and become many"). Man's intelligence is becoming his own ignorance, and will eventually lead to his undoing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:09am Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1181 of 1189)

R Mayes: The real one commits the crime, and the clone does the time!

This wouldn't work unless the criminal had thought of cloning himself at a young age -- the clone must still grow up like anyone else.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:43pm Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1182 of 1189)

R Mayes: The real one commits the crime, and the clone does the time!

It wouldn't work anyway. It doesn't work for identical twins because, among other things, the finger prints are different. The same would be true for clones.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim Gorski - 12:54pm Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1183 of 1189)

Dawn Willis, you say "Tim Gorski: A priori, I can't see why mitochondria from more than one mother would be dangerous, but that will be easy enough to test in animals." The matter of mitochondria is *way past* the * A PRIORI* stage. There is compelling scientific evidence that in all sexual reproduction in eukaryotes, the progeny only get mitochondria from one parent. Even in species like slime mold where there can be a dozen different "sexes," the partner that acts as the "mother" and the partner that acts as the "father" is governed by the genetics of the mitochondria. In other words, intracellular competition between organelles is something that nature rigorously avoids. A priori, there may be a good reason for that. But my point was that cloning, for obvious reasons, fires people's imagination. But try bringing up potential problems with cytoplasm manipulation and all you get is yawns. I conclude that the majority of the discussion about biotech that floats around in the popular media is just as ill-considered and the product of ignorance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Garry D. Merritt - 12:55pm Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1184 of 1189)

PLEASE CLONE THE FOLLOWING AND PUT UNDER MY TREE TOMMORROW MORNING!!!!!

1. Claudia Schiffer 2. Tyra Banks (2 of Her!) 3. Martha Stewart (Target Practice) 4. Bill Gates (So I can Mug Him)

Thank you Santa!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 05:09pm Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1185 of 1189)

Cliff Yap: "The cost when using this technology will not be at the level of aspirin, but it is likely to be quite inexpensive as compared with other methods."

Lighten up will ya! Everyone have a safe holiday.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Luckett - 05:57pm Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1186 of 1189)

I have two things to ask -or say- about cloning: For one- What about Clone civil rights? Will they have the same rights as the original possessor of the DNA? When we start cloning people, then we'll have another civil rights debate over the status of clones (which the clones will win, since they can then clone themselves, thus outnumbering the original babies. And, another thing- I do see a practical side to cloning. Perhaps we can use it to replenish the rainforest or other endangered species. If we slightly alter the DNA to produce a different baby from the original, then perhaps we can solve that problem right there. Merry Christmas, everyone. P.S. Does Santa clone his elves? Who would want such an unthankful job? What are the benefits?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 06:24pm Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1187 of 1189)

I just witnessed absolute proof that identical twins are not identical. There was this program on TV and they were interviewing a panel of teen twins. There was a pair of identical twin females. One had definite blue eyes and the other did not. They appeared greenish or hazel-like.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 06:30pm Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1188 of 1189)

Matt Luckett: Your right. What I just saw shows that natural clones are not truely identical. They too are individuals. So rights would be an issue for artificial clones. I wonder if Dolly, molly and polly are pondering this. NOT!

Santa is not a thankless job. If you want to thank him, send him a letter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 10:00pm Dec 24, 1997 ET (#1189 of 1189)

Tom, I thought I was light enough when I said that I admitted that your words are golden, but they are not so golden that I should remember everything you ever said. Just 'cos I don't have your wit don't mean I ain't trying.

All of you, have a safe and happy holidays. Cheers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 11:59am Dec 25, 1997 ET (#1190 of 1194)

It has occurred to me that not all the people on this board celebrate Christmas. To those who don't, may peace be with you. On this day of glad tidings and good cheer for some of us, it has occurred to me that I am not as cognizant of the special days of religious observance of other cultures, nor the significance with which those days are held, as I would like to be. I would therefore appreciate it if those of other cultures would send me an email at [email protected] about your own special days of religious observance.

To those of you celebrate Christmas, Merry Christmas. To those of you with the tendency to drink too much, don't. And if you do, Tom, don't drive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom A - 12:41pm Dec 25, 1997 ET (#1191 of 1194)

Cliff Beall: Spare me your sanctimony.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 02:57pm Dec 25, 1997 ET (#1192 of 1194)

Why? It's free. Cheers again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Willis - 07:05pm Dec 25, 1997 ET (#1193 of 1194)

TIM GORKSI: I know that all of the mitochondria come from one parent (the mother, or of a specific mating type in the case of lower organisms). However, I don't know of any experiments in which mixed mitochondria, specifically two maternal mammalian mitochondria, have proved harmful. Please give me reference if you do. It would, of course, make it difficult to prove lineage, since that is done through mitochondrial DNA.

TOM A: I figured you were joking, but I think some people seriously believe sheep can be cloned to produce all kinds of pharmaceuticals in their milk, and it isn't so. Because,

NOEL YAP: When one clones a gene for the purpose of getting an animal to produce it in milk, the DNA for the coding region of the gene (for say, clotting Factor) is attached to a control region that responds to the hormones that cause milk production--this keeps said gene from being expressed in other tissues. Also, to be secreted in milk, specific DNA coding for secretion signals are attached to the gene for the factor. DNA from cloned gene is transcribed into messenger RNA in response to milk production hormone and RNA is translated into proteins or peptides. You get one peptide (which is a short protein) per gene. Steroid and various ring compound pharms are the end-products of many various enzymatic reactions, which means that many proteins in tightly regulated concentrations, are required to make them. Plus, you need to have the right concentrations of the various substrates and cofactors present--which can be sugars, amino acids, lipids, vitamins, minerals, etc. And the end products may be easily diffusible out of the cell, water soluble or lipid soluble--they are just entirely different types of molecules. I hope this makes some sense to you!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 08:04pm Dec 25, 1997 ET (#1194 of 1194)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Well I see a Fort Lauderdale couple are offering to couples having problems bearing children, six of their frozen embryos. They were left over after the couple had a successful birth.

I guess they own them. Of the ownership rights they seem to have include make, use, distroy, and give it seems. What about buy and sell?

And it seems that since everyone in this group agrees that a firtalized ovem is equivelent to a cloned zygote, outside of a possable joint ownership issue we have the makings of the traffic in human beings if selling is allowed. (would you beleive proto human beings?)

Now the couple is specifying that the receivers be a couple and that the children be raised as Christian.

Sure sounds like tradeing is going on.

If there are conditions of transfer then value is being exchanged.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:37am Dec 26, 1997 ET (#1195 of 1197)

Dawn Willis: I hope this makes some sense to you!

Dawn, you post was very clear, concise and to the point, probably the most impressive post I have seen on this board. You clearly know what you are talking about, and it shows. However, it is quite technical and while it answers the question, specifically, it does not address the ramifications in simple language to the extent I would like to see them addressed. Let me try to understand it, and you can tell me if I am close.

As I understand it, messenger RNA is, essentially, a copy of the underlying DNA coding. Thus the RNA provides the blueprint for protein construction, based on the blueprint provided by the DNA. Proteins do all the work of capturing energy for a cell based on complex chemical reactions. Therefore:

1. If the DNA molecule for a particular person is defective, i.e. fails to contain the necessary instructions, or contains faulty instructions for a needed protein, the needed protein is not produced and that person is not healthy.

2. If a person containing the defective gene is provided the needed protein, that person can be made healthy. The problem may be the availability of the needed protein, in sufficient quantity to solve the problem. In this case, cloning has the potential of providing the needed protein in sufficient quantity to do the job.

3. The methodology for attaching a DNA sequence to a specific control region to produce a single protein or peptide is difficult. Attempting to apply this technology to produce many proteins in "tightly regulated concentrations," in combination with other substances such as sugars, amino acids, lipids, vitamins and minerals may be stretching the technology. Furthermore, alternate sources for these drugs in sufficient quantity may be available. Thus in some cases cloning may not be needed, in some cases it may not be cost effective, and in some cases it may not be possible.

Am I close or not? (I hope you are not laughing too much.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Yap - 07:46am Dec 26, 1997 ET (#1196 of 1197)

Matt Luckett: Will they have the same rights as the original possessor of the DNA?

I believe they should, but I can also see there'll be lots of problems in legislation (possibly due to lobbyists representing rich people and corporations.)

Matt Luckett: since they can then clone themselves, thus outnumbering the original babies.

This will take some time since the clones will first have to mature to be able to vote and voluntarily clone themselves. In the meantime, originals can pass legislation forbidding clone civil rights (including the right/privilege to clone.)

And, another thing- I do see a practical side to cloning.

Matt Luckett: Perhaps we can use it to replenish the rainforest or other endangered species.

There is no theoretical reason why we can't do this now. The practical reasons I see is lack of resources (ie where'll we put the new rainforests?)

Dawn Willis: I hope this makes some sense to you!

Thanks. If I understand correctly, the stuff producible in milk are simple molecules (produced through a simple process) while the stuff that's not is made through a complex chemical pr ocess. Correct me if I'm wrong (or if I've oversimplified things :) and thanks again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

R Mayes - 06:40am Dec 27, 1997 ET (#1197 of 1197)

In reference to my earlier message, the "criminal" idea was actually just a bit of sarcasm on my part. Some of the posts on this board are "over my head" intellectually, but I do have sense enough to realize that there are as many (probably more) negative reasons to continue studying this scientific breakthrough as there are positive. Any information regarding this subject should have NEVER been allowed to reach the news media. This is the type of subject that should have been classified TOP SECRET by any and all persons involved. Since it was released to the media, we are to assume that the ones who have this knowledge are the "good guys." But now, the whole world is aware of what has been discovered. You can bet your Christmas stocking that there are already some dark, twisted, minds hard at work on some outlandish scheme(s) for cloning technology. Also, now that the "bad guys" know the technology exists, the "good guys" have no choice but to continue on with their work. Someone is going to have to have the knowledge to make sence of all this when it goes bad--and it will eventually. It's just a question of how and when. Take care all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 03:43pm Dec 27, 1997 ET (#1198 of 1200)

R Mayes: Any information regarding this subject should have NEVER been allowed to reach the news media. This is the type of subject that should have been classified TOP SECRET by any and all persons involved.

It is rather difficult to keep the existence of fundamental knowledge secret. It would be even more difficult to use the knowledge while keeping its existence secret. I mean, suppose they did try to keep it a secret. Down the road, somebody is going to become curious and make the connection between the sudden supply of certain needed proteins and those flocks of "identical looking" sheep in Scotland.

R Mayes: But now, the whole world is aware of what has been discovered. You can bet your Christmas stocking that there are already some dark, twisted, minds hard at work on some outlandish scheme(s) for cloning technology.

Maybe, I am naïve, but I fail to see a diabolical use of this technology capable of returning a quick profit. Assuming I am wrong and there is one, keeping any such diabolical use of cloning a secret would be also be difficult. In addition, even for those who know most about the technology, the technology is very difficult to use. I understand that Molly and Polly were the result of a total of 62 attempts. In short, there other, more enticing areas for criminal behavior.

R Mayes: Also, now that the "bad guys" know the technology exists, the "good guys" have no choice but to continue on with their work.

I think Dr. Wilmut and his group will continue with their development project to develop treatments for certain devastating illnesses since they expect to make a profit. Nothing wrong with that. Society will benefit. As for other possible uses, I say, keep it in the open. Any attempts at secrecy is suspect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Markle - 06:38pm Dec 27, 1997 ET (#1199 of 1200)

I think the government should make these cloned sheep fill out a double ewe two form!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws