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

Cliff Beall - 07:28pm Dec 27, 1997 ET (#1200 of 1200)

Steve, that is funny. Better than anything Tom ever came up with. My hat is off to ewe too.

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

Tom A - 10:16pm Dec 27, 1997 ET (#1201 of 1201) (now 1200)

Cliff Beall #1189: "Just 'cos I don't have your wit don't mean I ain't trying."

You can say that again, anytime.

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

Matt Luckett - 02:55pm Dec 29, 1997 ET (#1201 of 1202)

Tom, frankly I enjoy your sense of humor.

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

Dawn Willis - 05:07pm Dec 29, 1997 ET (#1202 of 1202)

Cliff Beall: You did a very good job of translating my bio-babble. One small misconception--the methodology for placing a specific control region on a cloned gene to produce a single protein under specific circumstances is fairly easy nowadays. And while proteins aren't always simple molecules, the key is that if only one protein is required it isn't that difficult to clone and expresss it. Molecules that aren't proteins (such as cortisone, penicillin, opium) require many steps to produce them, and each of these steps requires a protein. It is regulating all of these multiple protein concentrations and the concentrations of all of the various other molecules that can't be done with today's technology. Tomorrow, who knows?

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

Cliff Beall - 09:19pm Dec 29, 1997 ET (#1203 of 1205)

I also enjoy Tom's sense of humor, Matt. That is why I keep challenging him for more. I have had several really good laughs. My favorite was: "Spare me your sanctimony." That was really good. (But now that I have mentioned it, he'll probably say it wasn't intended as a joke.)

Dawn, thank you for your clarification. Your previous post was not bio-babble, by the way. It was very clear and concise, and I thought it answered Noel's question precisely. I just wanted more elaboration of the ramifications. I think the subject deserves it.

But now I have a new question. I understand that Polly and Molly were the result of 62 attempts. (Actually, I understand there were three successful implants, but one of the lambs died.) That is a success rate of about 3.2258 %. That doesn't sound very easy to me; it sounds touchy as hell. Can you explain how a procedure having a success rate of 3.2258 % can be considered fairly easy?

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

R Mayes - 05:03am Dec 30, 1997 ET (#1204 of 1205)

Cliff Beall: "Maybe, I am naïve, but I fail to see a diabolical use of this technology capable of returning a quick profit."

Mr. Beall, I hope you are right. The idea of cloning (humans) makes me itch inside.

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

Dawn Willis - 01:10pm Dec 30, 1997 ET (#1205 of 1205)

Cliff, the difficult part was cloning the whole sheep from a pre-existing mature cell so that every single gene would be a copy of the original. The easy part is putting a gene for protein X under the control of a milk protein regulator into the clone. In mouse experiments, this is done after the embryo is formed in vitro from sperm and egg (the "embronic stem cell"), but before it is implanted in the mother. There are other reasons--good milker, good breeder, etc., for which they may want every ewe to be identical. If all they wanted was to produce a sheep secreting protein X in the milk, they would have a higher success rate using early stage embryos rather than clones (although nowhere near 100%--I'm not sure exactly how high).

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

Noel Yap - 03:55pm Dec 30, 1997 ET (#1206 of 1209)

R. Mayes: The idea of cloning (humans) makes me itch inside.

People felt the same when invitro fertilisation was introduced. Any new technology has the potential to set off the innate fear we have for the unknown. One example I've personally witnessed was a farmer who was very alarmed that we were sending rockets to Saturn.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:59pm Dec 30, 1997 ET (#1207 of 1209)

Dawn, I am really snowed now. In an article in USA Today, sometime back, John Eppig, Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, Maine, was quoted as saying: "Sometimes it's difficult to conduct even a clinical trial with these proteins because they are so scarce and expensive." The combining of existing gene-targeting technology with the new cloning method is supposed to make the production of these proteins less expensive.

I can understand how cloning can make the mass production of the proteins cheaper if the idea is to slip a human gene for the protein into a female animal's milk gene and then clone a herd or flock from the single animal demonstrated to contain the protein in its milk. Otherwise, it would appear to be necessary to do a gene implant for every single animal to be used for this purpose. But I don't see the advantage for clinical trials if what you say is true. Why not slip the human gene for protein X under the control of a milk protein regulator into an embryo of the animal formed in vitro from sperm and egg, particularly if it is relatively easy to do. And then, after clinical trials have established the benefit, clone that animal.

In other words, based on what you have said, I don't understand the need to do these two steps at the same time. Why not do the easy part first, make sure it is working, and then struggle with the difficult part. (Or better yet, just repeat the easy part.) But Dr. Wilmut did not do this. Instead he combined these two steps in producing Polly and Molly. I assume Dr. Wilmut must have a reason, but at the same time, he now seems to be admitting that cloning was not really necessary to produce the protein. In a more recent article from the same source, he is quoted as saying: "With cloning, you can start milking and collecting proteins two years quicker than breeding a flock."

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

Dawn Willis - 01:42pm Dec 31, 1997 ET (#1208 of 1209)

Cliff: Your comments made me dig up the Science article to determine what Wilmut actually did, and it turns out that Molly and Polly are not clones of adult cells, but of fetal cells. Putting the human gene under the milk protein control into the fetal cells was easy. The nucleus of a fetal cell was then put in an enucleated egg and transferred to the ewe for gestation, the inefficient part. Injection of foreign DNA into fertilized livestock eggs has been going on since about 1985, resulting in 5% "takes" in which the timing and expression of the inserted gene, as well as its incorporation into the sperm or egg (essential for subsequent breeding of the desired flock)is unpredictable. Apparently the embryonic stem cell technique that works so well in mice hasn't been perfected in livestock. We already have strains of genetically identical mice, and mice have large litters and mature sexually much sooner than sheep. They just don't produce enough milk to be good sources of human proteins! Right now, clotting factors are extracted from gallons of human blood, with the well-known past history of AIDS contamination, etc. But clinical trials have already shown they work. Peptides like growth hormone come from zillions of tiny pituitary glands from autopsies, all very expensive. Wilmut et al. have checked out all of the fetal cells they used for presence and expression of the cloned human gene, so every lamb that results will be what they want. Now, they can either clone the adult cells of Molly or Polly, or clone more of the transgenic fetal cells (this seems to work better). I'm sure they won't go into full scale production until they have a commericially useful product. Now, are you thoroughly confused?

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

Cliff Beall - 07:29pm Dec 31, 1997 ET (#1209 of 1210)

Dawn, the technical details are over my head, of course, and I am not going to even try to understand those, but I think I am gaining a much better understanding of the relative difficulty of the various procedures used by geneticists. I carefully re-read the CNN report after reading your post and observed that it described testing by other organizations for cystic fibrosis and heart attack drugs that come from the milk of genetically engineered sheep or goats obtained by injecting genes into a fertilized egg. However, using that method, less than 2 % of those embryo implants result in live births, and only a small percentage of those actually born contain the target gene.

In view of this, the 3.2258 % overall success rate obtained by Dr. Wilmut and the other scientists at the Roslin Institute using their cloning method begins to look really good. Of the 62 embryos they implanted into surrogate mother sheep, six lambs were born, and of the six that were born, half of those had the target gene. One of the three lambs containing the target gene died (for whatever reason) leaving 2 successes out of 62 chances for the 3.2258 % overall success rate. Very good!

It also appears that I misunderstood Dr. Wilmut's reference to the breeding option. The CNN report noted that Dr Wilmut plans to breed Polly and Molly. Of course, he will need to do that anyway so they will produce milk efficiently, but, according to the report, he also hopes that by selective breeding, he can produce flocks of sheep containing the human factor IX. In other words, he is not going to miss a bet, and he will take whatever method works the best. I suspect, in the meantime, he is busy attempting to clone additional sheep with the human factor IX and other hormones, and not waiting to see if Polly's and Molly's offspring will contain the factor. Best regards, and thanks.

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

Dawn Willis - 03:10pm Jan 1, 1998 ET (#1210 of 1210)

Cliff, I also forgot to mention that cloning of human genes in bacteria is very common nowadays, and is the way many formerly rare human proteins and peptides are made. But in some instances, and the hemophilia factor may be one, bacteria don't make much of the product or some special processing feature (like adding sugars or fats to the protein backbone) is missing. And maybe milk production is even cheaper than bacteria production, once a breeding flock is established..of both rams and ewes with the desired human gene, which may take a while.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:06am Jan 2, 1998 ET (#1211 of 1212)

Dawn, it has been fun, but I think maybe we have milked this subject dry. What do you think?

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

Noel Yap - 08:10am Jan 2, 1998 ET (#1212 of 1212)

Cliff Beall: I think maybe we have milked this subject dry.

Not so fast. I've been doing some more reading about mutations and evolution.

It seems that random mutations (whether point mutations or otherwise) are not what drives evolution. This is why we haven't seen any good coming out of radiation experiments. Most (if not all) good evolution comes from the sharing of DNA among different cells -- this is shown in Genetic Programming experiments as well. This type of mutation is facilitated by viruses and bacteria.

Evolution on this scale works very well for bacteria (and other prokaryotes) explaining why they adapt so well. It doesn't work as well for more complex organisms 'cos we've developed some protection against such intrusions (though it has been shown to occur in fruit flies.)

Given these facts, it would seem that cloning of multi-cellular organisms would halt their evolution 'cos the only changes that would occur would be due to random mutations.

Note that the above considers mutations due to cutting-and-pasting from other organisms non-random; any other mutations (ie due to radiation, chemical, ...) are considered random.

My source of info is Fritjof Capra's book The Web of Life who, in turn, used, among others, Lynn Margulis's books Sym biosis in Cell Evolution and Microcosmos.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:08am Jan 3, 1998 ET (#1213 of 1214)

Noel, my "milking" comment referred specifically to the subject matter of Dawn's and my conversation, having to do mainly with the production of human protein in sheep's milk. It was an attempt at a very bad pun: my kind of humor. It did not refer to the subject of cloning in general and was not intended to shut off the cloning debate in general. It was intended only as a joke.

As you know, I tend to disagree with you on the subject of mutation, and I have previously noted that I think cloning may have the potential of establishing the relative importance of mutation in evolution. In that regard, the first conjecture I would make is that clones can evolve. This conjecture will become a theory when, and only when, a clone is made from a clone and the genetic makeup of the second clone is shown to be different from the first clone. Until then, it is conjecture only.

Assuming the first conjecture is shown to be correct--and I am confident that it will be eventually--a second conjecture will be that the mechanism of the change from one clone to the next is mutation (either spontaneous mutation or naturally occurring induced mutation), the same mechanism that I think is responsible for the creation of the different species by evolutionary means.

Your sources are uneven, it seems to me. Your primary source is not a biologist, but a physicist. Dr Capra received his Ph.D. on the gravitational collapse of neutron stars from the University of Vienna in 1966 where he studied with Werner Heisenberg.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:14am Jan 3, 1998 ET (#1214 of 1214)

Dr. Capra is undoubtedly a competent theoretical physicist. His authority in biology, however, can certainly be questioned. In addition to "The Web of Life," Dr. Capra it the author of "The Tao of Physics" and "Uncommon Wisdom." According to one source on the web, Dr Capra's "approach is based on the premise that earlier schools of science falsely attempted to force their subjects into mechanistic, easily quantifiable models, in opposition to the holistic awareness of today's scientific revolutionaries. Systems thinking and fractal geometry replace traditional analytical tools and methods." Personally, I have more faith in the "traditional analytical tools and methods," and I fail to see how mysticism fits into the equation. By its very nature, mysticism can not be scientifically evaluated. I would therefore tend to compare the Zen Buddhism of Dr Capra with the Scientific Creationism of Dr. Hugh Ross. Both men are competent physicists, but neither should be considered an authority on biology.

Your second source is a legitimate biologist. Dr. Margulis, the first wife of Carl Sagan, and the mother of Dorion Sagan, with whom she has co-authored a number of articles and books, is a legitimate biologist. Despite her association with British chemist James Lovelock on The Gaia Hypothesis, she appears to be a highly regarded biologist. Furthermore, the evidence she has gathered which imply that evolutionary change in higher organisms is caused by bacteria might seem to be highly significant.

I have always felt a certain hesitancy with the concept of "spontaneous" mutation. It seems too much like mysticism for my taste. It may be that all mutations are induced, and what has appeared to be "spontaneous" mutations may simply be mutations caused by bacteria.

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

Cliff Beall - 04:16am Jan 3, 1998 ET (#1215 of 1216)

Incidentally, due to the one time relationship of Dr. Margulis and Carl Sagan, in my search of the web to try to figure out what the heck Noel was talking about, I found a most wonderful site. It appears that before he died, cells from Carl Sagan's body were collected by scientists, and, using the same cloning techniques used for sheep earlier this year, they created embryo's which were placed aboard the Mars Pathfinder. Possibly due to extraordinary radiation patterns in flight, the embryos multiplied and it now appears that there will be shortly be "billions and billions" of Carl Sagan replicas on Mars. Check it out!

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

Dawn Willis - 11:17am Jan 3, 1998 ET (#1216 of 1216)

Cliff: I hope there ARE some Carl Sagan cells frozen away somewhere, awaiting perfection and acceptance of the cloning technique. The world could use a few more like him. But that site is unreal, isn't it? Is it a joke are are they serious? There are so many wierd things on the Web, I can't always tell.

Noel: About 10,000 mutations, or base substitutions occur in each of us every day, but most are corrected by our highly efficient DNA repair systems. The ones that lead to evolution must occur in the germ cells--sperm and egg. The group of viruses known as retroviruses can pick up DNA from their host cells and carry across species, and there are a few examples where this seems to have happened recently enough (in evolutionary terms) to measure. Clones will be just as susceptible to evolution as their "parent." It just looks as if humans will be directing evolution more than letting nature take its course....which is happening anyway because we are letting those which nature would find genetically unfit reproduce. Back in prehistoric times, I doubt if many near-sighted folks like me lived to reproduce!

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

Cliff Beall - 05:24am Jan 4, 1998 ET (#1217 of 1217)

Dawn Willis: The ones that lead to evolution must occur in the germ cells--sperm and egg.

Yes, for sexual reproduction. But that would not be the case for clones. Also, if mutations occur in some cells, due to replication errors or whatever, it would not necessarily mean, it would seem to me, that all the cells in the body would contain the same mutations. Therefore, it would appear that clones from a single animal may not be completely identical, genetically, due to possible mutations of some, but not all cells. This raises the question: are some areas of the body less susceptible to mutation than other areas? Dr. Wilmut used cells from the udder of a female sheep to produce Dolly. Is there a reason he didn't use nose hairs or toe nails (hoofs)?

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

Cliff Beall - 03:59pm Jan 4, 1998 ET (#1218 of 1218)

Noel, sometime ago, around the first week of December, we had a brief conversation which included this exchange:

Cliff Beall: Continuous occurance of mutations eventually results in a rich gene pool from which natural selection can operate.

Noel Yap: OK, but another problem exists in that different species have differing numbers of chromosomes. A being with N number of chromosomes cannot mate with a being with M number of chromosomes. If M-number came from N-number, all the M-numbers must have common parents. How did the M-number's genetic diversity come about?

I have found a source on the net, Michael W. Nachman, Assistant Professor and Curator of Mammals, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of Arizona, that indicates that South American marsh rats, containing different numbers and kinds of chromosomes, can successfully interbreed and produce normal offspring. I don't know how the chromosomes match up, but it would appear to me that this may be an example of the evolution of differing species in the making. The address is http://eebweb.arizona.edu/staff/nachman.htm.

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

Carl Nicolai - 06:11pm Jan 4, 1998 ET (#1219 of 1225)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff (#1214) The evolution of animals by breading or selection of the fittest may seem like spontaneous mutation compared to the evolution caused by genetic engineering and multiplication by cloning.

Dawn (#1216) If humans are diecting evolution, as I aggree they are doing at an ever increasing pace, then they will began not only correcting the mistakes in their genetic structure that allow for certain medical problems, but will want to acquire genes that convey superior positive qualities.

Im sure that as humans explore space the ability to live in low preasure, low gravity enviroments will be important. I'd sure like my children to be more fit than myself and any conventional evolution or breading is not going to work fast enough.

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

Gyan Doshi - 10:43am Jan 5, 1998 ET (#1220 of 1225)

I don't see what's the problem with human cloning ? Ethical violations . First of all ,I don't believe in god ,I think of 'origin of life' as a freak accident(s) of nature .Secondly ,research on cloning a human, if not actually doing it ,will undoubtedly teach scientists a lot about genetic processes and possibly even real-time observations of internal growth .The question here most people will arise is what about the cloned person ? His/Her basic human rights , well , the path to progress is not without obstacles ,however it's upto you to decide whether what is more IMPORTANT ,a possible cure for diseases ,prevention of disorders or the minor(to me atleast) ill effects of the proposed cloning .

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

Mohammed S. - 01:13pm Jan 5, 1998 ET (#1221 of 1225)

The beauty in this world is diversity. I don't really see how this life would be if everybody (or many people) look the same and have many similarities. I have known twins who didn't like being exactly the same because it causes them problems when dealing with others.

Cloning will triger more criminal activities (we are already fedup with those) since it will be hard to know who did it. Or, they may have to put all similar faces in the jail.

This is on example, but we can think of more I am sure :)

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

Noel Yap - 03:25pm Jan 5, 1998 ET (#1222 of 1225)

Cliff Beall: my "milking" comment referred ...

Yeah, I know. It was just a lame attempt at seguing.

CLiff Beall: Your primary source is not a biologist, but a physicist. Dr Capra received his Ph.D. on the gravitational collapse of neutron stars from the University of Vienna in 1966 where he studied with Werner Heisenberg.

That is correct. I plan to read his sources at some future point.

Cliff Beall: Dr. Capra is undoubtedly a competent theoretical physicist. His authority in biology, however, can certainly be questioned.

The book doesn't just talk about life, but the spontaneous emergence of order from within complex, chaotic systems. Life is just a specific occurrence that we see around us. In this sense, his expertise does lend credence to the (not his) theories 'cos the range of scientists span physicists, biologists, and neuroscientists. The one common element these scientists have is the study of systems that lie far from equilibrium.

Cliff Beall: I have more faith in the "traditional analytical tools and methods," and I fail to see how mysticism fits into the equation.

Dr. Capra doesn't throw away the scientific method (ie it's not mysticism.) His approach is that the mechanistic model tends to work only for simple systems. They cannot be used to learn about the behaviour of life itself. When talking about such "open" systems, one cannot make it linear and closed. For example, why does a tree produce so many seeds? When answering this question, one cannot merely consider only the closed system of the tree. One must take into account the environment of the tree. This is the paradigm shift that the systems approach introduces.

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

Noel Yap - 03:26pm Jan 5, 1998 ET (#1223 of 1225)

Cliff Beall: By its very nature, mysticism can not be scientifically evaluated.

I agree.

Cliff Beall: I would therefore tend to compare the Zen Buddhism of Dr Capra with the Scientific Creationism of Dr. Hugh Ross. Both men are competent physicists, but neither should be considered an authority on biology.

Please read his books (or at least The Web of Life) before making such comments. Although I might agree with everything he writes, most of it does make sense.

Cliff Beall: Despite [Dr. Margulis's] association with British chemist James Lovelock on The Gaia Hypothesis, she appears to be a highly regarded biologist.

You make it sound like her association with the hypothesis is bad.

Cliff Beall: Furthermore, the evidence she has gathered which imply that evolutionary change in higher organisms is caused by bacteria might seem to be highly significant.

This is the point I've been trying to make.

Cliff Beall: It may be that all mutations are induced, and what has appeared to be "spontaneous" mutations may simply be mutations caused by bacteria.

Exactly, so we know that point mutations are harmful or benign. We are also headed towards the possible fact that any random (or in your words spontaneous) mutations don't account for most of evolution.

Viruses have already been shown to insert DNA sequences into host cells. This would correspond to the cross-over genetic operator I've mentioned before. Although cross-over can be put in terms of insertion and deletion mutations, it tends to preserve more of the information contained within a sequence of DNA.

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

Noel Yap - 03:27pm Jan 5, 1998 ET (#1224 of 1225)

Dawn Willis: The ones that lead to evolution must occur in the germ cells--sperm and egg... Clones will be just as susceptible to evolution as their "parent."

This makes sense, but what I'm trying to get across is how and what kind of mutations occur. Do you think random mutations account for the speciation we see today? Or would you say that virus-induced mutations are what accounts for them?

Dawn Willis: The group of viruses known as retroviruses can pick up DNA from their host cells and carry across species, and there are a few examples where this seems to have happened recently enough

Would you say, though, that these virus-induced mutations, rather than spontaneous mutations, are the major driving force in evolution?

evolutionary terms) to measure. Clones will be just as susceptible to evolution as their "parent."

Dawn Willis: It just looks as if humans will be directing evolution more than letting nature take its course

Yeah, let's hope the learning curve isn't too steep and jagged.

Dawn Willis: I doubt if many near-sighted folks like me lived to reproduce!

Me, too :) I know Larmarckian evolution has been debunked, but sometimes I wonder if the proliferation of computer monitors would induce a near-sightedness trait that could be passed down from generation to generation. IOW, has the occurrence of near-sightedness gone up? If so, why?

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

Noel Yap - 03:27pm Jan 5, 1998 ET (#1225 of 1225)

Dawn Willis: The ones that lead to evolution must occur in the germ cells--sperm and egg.

Cliff Beall: Yes, for sexual reproduction. But that would not be the case for clones.

That's right. Good catch.

Cliff Beall: I have found a source on the net, Michael W. Nachman, Assistant Professor and Curator of Mammals, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Department, University of Arizona, that indicates that South American marsh rats, containing different numbers and kinds of chromosomes, can successfully interbreed and produce normal offspring.

Awesome. Thanks.

Carl Nicolai: Im sure that as humans explore space the ability to live in low preasure, low gravity enviroments will be important. I'd sure like my children to be more fit than myself and any conventional evolution or breading is not going to work fast enough.

It sounds like we could head towards a Brave New World scenario.

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:35pm Jan 5, 1998 ET (#1226 of 1226)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Noel Yap: It sounds like we could head towards a Brave New World scenario.

The scenarios in Brave New World seem extremely simple and child like compared to the reality that is emerging.

The study of the genetic code indicates that most of the information potential is not used. The figures I have are that 85% of the genetic materal does not code for anything and may be only areas for past mistakes or future evolution.

There are also trates that dont seem at all usefull such as the so called taster gene. Some people have the ability to taste an artificial chemical in very small quanities other people cannot detect it. Now this chemical is not found in nature so it is hard to understand how this came about. Maybe the trait is related to something else but no one can find it.

Also many humans contain extra chromosomes and as I mentioned before many humans are mosaic and contain cells from different fathers. In dogs and other animals that have multiple ovlulation this can be as much as 25% of all births.

Most of the interesting visible variations on humanity are surgicaly corrected at birth. (1 in 100,000 or so humans have a tail)

So we dont even know what it is that we call human at this time, let alone what we will call humans with vastly different qualities. ("man born of woman" use to work unless they came out really wierd looking)

Lets face it the vast majority of humans can not even handle the concept of "race" in a rational way. (maybe because the concept of races is nonsence to begin with)

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

Cliff Beall - 02:10am Jan 6, 1998 ET (#1227 of 1229)

Carl Nicolai: Cliff (#1214) The evolution of animals by breading or selection of the fittest may seem like spontaneous mutation compared to the evolution caused by genetic engineering and multiplication by cloning.

I was referring to so called "errors" of replication of genetic code by the body. But I am beginning to doubt if any of it is really "spontaneous."

Gyan Doshi: The question here most people will arise is what about the cloned person ? His/Her basic human rights...

There is no question in my mind about the basic human rights of a clone. They are precisely the same as yours.

Mohammed S.: I don't really see how this life would be if everybody (or many people) look the same and have many similarities. I have known twins who didn't like being exactly the same because it causes them problems when dealing with others.

Their fingerprints are different. I have brown hair--well, it is graying a bit. Lots of people have brown hair. It is all a matter of degree.

Noel Yap: When talking about such "open" systems, one cannot make it linear and closed. For example, why does a tree produce so many seeds? When answering this question, one cannot merely consider only the closed system of the tree. One must take into account the environment of the tree. This is the paradigm shift that the systems approach introduces.

I think Darwin had the right approach. Trees that produce more seed have a better chance of reproducing.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:15am Jan 6, 1998 ET (#1228 of 1229)

Noel Yap: Please read his books (or at least The Web of Life) before making such comments. Although I might agree with everything he writes, most of it does make sense.

I have discovered that the 8th chapter of "The Web of Life" has been published on the web at http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/capra_0.html . I have read a little of it tonight, and I was not particularly impressed so far, but I will read the rest of the chapter before making any further comments. One thing I have noticed, so far, is that he refers to Mahayana Buddhism in "The Tao of Physics." I thought I remembered seeing a reference to Zen Buddhism in one of the sites I visited that made reference to Dr. Capra, but I may have been mistaken. If so, I apologize.

Noel Yap: You make it sound like her association with the [Gaia] hypothesis is bad.

Well, I am not part of Vega, and Vega is not part of me.

Noel Yap: Exactly, so we know that point mutations are harmful or benign.

Well, most of them appear to be as you say. But not all.

Noel Yap: We are also headed towards the possible fact that any random (or in your words spontaneous) mutations don't account for most of evolution.

So what is the point. I think that most significant evolution is due to mutation (a change in the genetic material) whatever the cause. The combining of genes may result in specific characteristics within a species, but this type of evolution actually tends to reduce the gene pool. But mutations tend to increase the gene pool of a species, and, in some cases, it may result in diversion.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:16am Jan 6, 1998 ET (#1229 of 1229)

Carl Nicolai: The scenarios in Brave New World seem extremely simple and child like compared to the reality that is emerging.

Maybe. We shall see what actually emerges.

Carl Nicolai: Lets face it the vast majority of humans can not even handle the concept of "race" in a rational way. (maybe because the concept of races is nonsence to begin with)

You certainly have a point there. Race is nonsense.

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

Noel Yap - 03:08pm Jan 6, 1998 ET (#1230 of 1232)

Carl Nicolai: The figures I have are that 85% of the genetic materal does not code for anything and may be only areas for past mistakes or future evolution.

From what I've seen (through simulations) introns are both. Nature didn't exactly strive for parsimony. In fact, from what I've heard, genetic code is what Boris Beizer (author of Software Testing Techniques) would call pinball code 'cos a change in one area can potentially affect the interpretation of a sequence in other areas. I'm not sure to what extent this occurs, though.

Carl Nicolai: Also many humans contain extra chromosomes and as I mentioned before many humans are mosaic and contain cells from different fathers.

The only humans I know of that contain extra (or too little) chromosomes can't reproduce. Maybe cloning will change that.

I've never heard of humans having cells from different fathers.

Carl Nicolai: Lets face it the vast majority of humans can not even handle the concept of "race" in a rational way. (maybe because the concept of races is nonsence to begin with)

Maybe. Maybe not. Generally, there are some differences physiologically. I wonder what would happen if we found intellectual/emotional differences? I would say that we must remember that these are general findings and that each individual should be judged by him/herself (if at all.)

Cliff Beall: I was referring to so called "errors" of replication of genetic code by the body. But I am beginning to doubt if any of it is really "spontaneous."

I think most (probably close to all) errors are corrected or aborted. This means that any changes that are passed down must be valid code. The likelihood of random mutations causing valid code is extremely small. Bacter

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

Noel Yap - 03:10pm Jan 6, 1998 ET (#1231 of 1232)

Bacteria and viruses (as written in this month's Scientific American) can swap genes. They can also insert/delete DNA sequences into/from a host.

Cliff Beall: I think Darwin had the right approach. Trees that produce more seed have a better chance of reproducing.

But if it reproduces too well, it'll kill itself off. A dynamic balance must be held with its environment if it is to survive in the long run.

Speaking of holistic solutions to problems, I cite a March 1996 Scientific American article about the mass transit problem in Curitiba, Brazil. The city engineers realised that this problem didn't exist in isolation. They were able to come up with an inexpensive solution -- as compared to reductionist solutions -- involving waste disposal, education, and economic infrastructure. I think I've mentioned this article before so I won't go into details.

Cliff Beall: I have read a little of [chapter 8 of The Web of Life] tonight, and I was not particularly i mpressed so far, but I will read the rest of the chapter before making any further comments.

Please do. I'd be interested in your comments. I've forget exactly what was discussed in chapter 8, but please remember that he (and his sources) are talking about open systems that lie far from equilibrium. Eventually (if the universe is closed) the second (?) law of thermodynamics will win out. This book (and ongoing research), however, delves into what happens until then.

Cliff Beall: Well, I am not part of Vega, and Vega is not part of me.

Yes it is. We are part of a chaotic system. Chaotic systems are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Vega affects our gravitational, electromagnetic, ... fields (albeit extremely little), but the effects get magnified through time. (Please don't mis

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

Noel Yap - 03:11pm Jan 6, 1998 ET (#1232 of 1232)

(Please don't misunderstand this as support for astrology ;)

Cliff Beall: So what is the point. I think that most significant evolution is due to mutation (a change in the genetic material) whatever the cause.

I don't think we disagree much (if at all) about this topic once we agreed that mutations are any change to the genetic code. My point is that not all mutations drive evolution; the only ones that do are cross-over (or gene swapping.)

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

Kurt Schoedel - 09:32pm Jan 6, 1998 ET (#1233 of 1986)

I saw a post in here about virus-induced mutations. I read "The Coming Plague" and I think that viral-induced mutations are probably the major driving force behind evolution and that the so-called "junk" DNA in humans probably got there by retroviruses. Also, viruses and bacteria often swap genes such that they cannot be identified as distinct species. This is what makes the improper use of antibiotics such a public health hazzard.

The only way for humans to stay one-step ahead of the micro-organisms is through increased host resistance. That is, to always enhance and strengthen our immune systems by what ever means possible.

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

John Drezen - 05:09am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1234 of 1986)

What is wrong with you people? Can't you see the dangers in this process. Cloning? Contrary to nature in every respect.

I knew this was going to happen a long time ago when some one started talking about the possibilities. If this process worked, what are you going to create? The first thing that is going to happen is the Goverment is going to look at this for Military Superiority. Sort out all the inferior genes, keep all superior ones, and create a medical abortion, that has all the attributes the Military can use.

If this proceeds, and I am sure it will, we have entered into the Dark Ages. Man is once again playing GOD, or mother nature, which ever you prefer.

Man, who is imperfect, trying to make a perfect world. BULL. It's just another money generated venture that is going to have a horrible ending. The end of humanity, as we know it today!

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

John Drezen - 05:18am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1235 of 1986)

In message #2. I gave the same opinion on this issue. Cloning is no different than genetic engineering. Are you trying to say that genetic engineering is not going to happen? Tell that to someone else. Mankind has always abused nature. Mankind is the only genetic defect on this planet!

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

Jack Davids - 07:55am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1236 of 1986)

I am a firm believer that mankind should do most anything he is capable of... Perhaps it is time to put away our theological dogma and our beliefs that we should not play God... Perhaps it is time that we takes steps towards this... Only in this way will humanity reach its fullest potential. Jack Long Island, NY

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

PIERRE TIERRA - 09:41am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1237 of 1986)

EVEN BEFORE CLONING WAS SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE, HITLER's NAZI GERMANY EMBARKED AND IMPLEMENTED THE CREATION OF A "GERMAN MASTER RACE." NOW, WITH CLONING POSSIBLE, THE CONCEPT OF "CLONING HUMAN BABIES FOR INFERTILE COUPLES" IF BEING FLOATED AROUND. IT SEEMS TO ME THE MODUS OPERANDI IS ALWAYS THE SAME: "FIRST, DISGUISE THE INTENT WITH A SHOW OF CONCERN FOR HUMANITY. SECOND, SECURE THE SUPREME COURT LICENSE TO LEGALIZE CLONING PROCEDURES. AND FINALLY (THE COUP DE GRACE), PERVERT THE LICENSE AND "PLAY GOD." ELIMINATE THE NON-PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. THE OLD ADAGE: "THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS," IS ALIVE AND WELL INDEED.

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

Rob W. Hall - 09:46am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1238 of 1986)

I think cloning of human DNA is a worthwhile experiment. Man has evolved from more primitive forms over centuries to adapt to his environment, so why not use science to improve evolution? Over time, the science could evolve such that many diseases, birth defects, etc. could be genetically programmed out. Thus science can be used to allow mankind to evolve to healther, more intelligent creatures. Robert Hall, software engineer

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

Mitch Cowgill - 09:48am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1239 of 1986)

First we cloned a sheep, now we want to clone people. Don't you think there's enough problems in the world as it is? Why not clone poverty or the deficit and make it worse than it already is. Scientists' should be trying to find a cure for some of the diseases and illnesses instead of doing something totally useless. For those infertile people out there, that's what adoption agencies are for. Put a smile on a human being's face instead of some GOBOT!

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

Mark Stang - 09:51am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1240 of 1986)

What's the big deal here? How is this so different than artificial insemination or test-tube babies? Dropping in a cell from an adult into an embryo does not equate to genetic engineering, where specific genes are altered to produce a desired effect. Clones are exact duplicates. They will not have any "superpowers." They will have the exact same genetic strengths and weaknesses of the donor. It will be the same as twins are today, except for the age difference.

Why someone would want a clone, other than ego gratification, is another question.....

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

Doug Bailey - 09:59am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1241 of 1986)

Human cloning is only a drop in the bucket with regards to the "dilemnas" that technology will present to the human race in the coming century.

Even now, there is speculation that within the next 50 to 100 years we will have the capacity to upload the mind (neural net) of a human into a computer matrix. The implications of this technology are too many to detail here in any depth. However, here are some examples:

After you upload your mind, you could store it in the computer matrix for 'safe-keeping'; it would represent something like a snapshot of you. Then you could go out and try some very dangerous. If you died, you could simply have a body built (another technology that looms on the horizon) and have your mind downloaded into that body. Is that really you? How could it be though, you died.

More perlexing, what if you have the body made and your mind downloaded while you yourself are still alive. Now there are two of you. Which one is you? Which one should your child call mother or father? Who has claim to your assets? If you decide you do not want the copy of you to continue living, does it have a right to continue living despite your wishes?

There are a myriad of other issues out there.

The point is that humanity is on the verge of entering a new paradigm. A transhuman paradigm in the sense that the human experience will drastically change. Progress is like a juggernaut. It can not be stopped. You may be able to stifle it and slow it down, but in the end progress is inevitable. Instead of being ignorant and fearing change just because its change, lets think in more profound terms.

Anything can be made to be dangerous. When guns were invented, do you think there were those opposed to them? Of course. There are benefits and detriments to any technology. The same holds true with human cloning or mind uploading. We need to have the wisdom to harness these technologies in a way that is beneficial to humanity, not cower from

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

Joel Noonan - 09:59am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1242 of 1986)

Human cloning. Permit me to slip into a gut reaction here.

Yeeeeeuuuch.

I really think this is immoral. I really can't say why. It offends me on a gut level.

I can't imagine what it would be like to grow up knowing that you were not conceived by sperm and egg. That you started life as a liver cell (or a bonce cell or whatever they would use) that got fooled into thinking it was a fertilized egg. I'd think this would be rough emotionally.

Who would the kid's biological parents be? I guess the cell donor's parents.

This is just a little too wierd for me.

I'm all in favor of research in space exploration, nuclear power, subatomic physics, etc, but when we start messing with the very essence of who we are... Have we crossed a line? I think so but I really can't say exactly why. Human cloning wierds me out on a gut level that I really can't articulate very well.

Like I said, yeeeeeuuuch.

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

Michael Tomson-DeGreeff - 10:01am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1243 of 1986)

This issue needs to be put into perspective with history. Time and time again, scientist have made discoveries that have upset peoples' ideas about the world around them. Many of the scientific discovers that we take for granted now were met with stiff opposition in the name of god and morality. Wether we like it or not, now that this technology is here I know it will be used. I find it a bit disturbing, but I know it is here to stay.

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

Rob Baxby - 10:03am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1244 of 1986)

Don't MESS with God's work.

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

Alan Winn - 10:08am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1245 of 1986)

Deep down inside, I think everyone knows that cloning another human being is wrong.

Don't forget that a foolish thing said a thousand times is still a foolish thing.

Tick...tick...tick...tick...tick....

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

Jamison Scheeres - 10:08am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1246 of 1986)

First off, I disagree that the government will try to make soldiers from cloning. For one thing, it wouldn't be cost efficient. In this day when the military and its budget are shrinking, why genetically engineer someone for a couple million dollars a pop when there are plenty of people who could perform the job just as easily? It would be cheaper to increase recruiting efforts than to clone a soldier. If the military was in dire need of people it would reinstate the draft.

Next, I think that cloning has many benefits, but that we should be careful how we use it. Using cloning to provide children for infertile parents is not wrong. The process does not produce exact copies of a parent. The child would be different in much the same way that identical twins are different. Same genes, different people.

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

dave ashton - 10:14am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1247 of 1986)

Seed says he wants to become one with God. Hmmm - I wonder if the word "nutter" means anything to him. I share the gut feeling - yeuuch!!

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

Mike T Jones - 10:15am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1248 of 1986)

Doug Bailey 1/7/98 9:59am

Even now, there is speculation that within the next 50 to 100 years we will have the capacity to upload the mind (neural net) of a human into a computer matrix.

...

...Is that really you? How could it be though, you died.

Oh come on, that's silly. Even if you could make a copy of your mind into a computer, or even into another body, it wouldn't actually be you. Just a copy of your mind.

The cloned sheep Dolly wasn't actually her mother, just a copy of her mother. Two seperate entities.

We don't Xerox the original Declaration of Independence and then make a paper airplane out of the original. A copy is just that, a copy.

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

gary horn - 10:17am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1249 of 1986)

Does anybody else but me smell a hoax here? C'mon, the guy's name is Dick Seed! Aren't there a bunch of PR guys who like to perpetrate hoaxes on the mass media to show how gullible they are? Gary Lee Horn-- Hartford CT-- Former member of the massmedia

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

Robert Fruend - 10:20am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1250 of 1986)

This Is An Abomination: Reseacher Seed, is an amoral money monger. As for childless couples, they should wake up and realize there are to many people in the world already, causing our environment to be destroyed and polluted. We do not need clones. First they will start innocently with dancers, politicians and scientists, then graduate to criminals and deviates. We certainly need more Hitlers and Mansons and lets not forget the Bundys and the Daumers. This is not science, but a scheme based in greed and evil concepts.

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

Larry Pearson - 10:23am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1251 of 1986)

What a GREAT IDEA !!! As a sterile male, I can not reproduce, even though I'd LOVE to have a child. I'm so glad that this doctor is trying to help males like me who can't make sperm. If all these 'moralist' that object to this doctors plans were made infertile they would think his idea was great too.

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

MAK KHOJASTEH - 10:24am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1252 of 1986)

NO MATTER WHAT THE CLOSEMINDED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SAY, SCIENCE CAN NOT BE STOPPED.

CLONING HUMAN IS A SIGNIFICANT STEP IN SCIENCE.

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

Benjamin Black - 10:26am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1253 of 1986)

President Clinton has proposed banning such research for five years, saying it was morally unacceptable and could undermine society's respect for human life

Since when has society had respect for human life? Life is cheap. Murder is committed for the way someone may look at you, never mind the 50 cents in his pocket. Wars, wars since the beginning of time have resulted in the same mass butchery they do today.

If there was any "God" then "he" would have said something by now. There is only the facts, ma'am.

GO SCIENCE!

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

Ed Tuttle - 10:28am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1254 of 1986)

We, as an American Society do NOT demonstrate a deep regard for the sacredness of life and the sanctity of all life on the Earth; just look at how we're trashing the planet. Therefore, I do not deem it logical to assume that manipulating the essence of said Life (in the DNA) will be handled with any more reverence. Sorry folks, we just ain't ready yet. Perhaps in a few hundred years.

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

Simon Pope - 10:29am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1255 of 1986)

Hmm why would you want to clone?

We have a right to be unique.

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

Curtis - 10:33am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1256 of 1986)

This is a horrible idea.

If you're infertile, God made you that way for a reason. Just like he made me gay for a reason. So we can't reproduce....... it was intended that way.

Let's not try to reintroduce these Hitler ideas that are a true nightmare.

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

Eileen Heath - 10:40am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1257 of 1986)

World Peace Through Shared Pop Culture

Admittedly, Mark Stang, there really is no difference between this and artificial insemination - and even artificial insemination can have it's "Over-Achievers" (ie the septuplets).

I see only ONE really good reason to clone humans is to learn how to clone or vat grow internal organs. Think about it - organs cloned from your own tissue in case if you ever a need replacement. No more need for donors. People with rare blood or bone marrow can get transplants that are an assured match. R. Talisorian's Cyberpunk labelled this idea as "Organ Banks".

But there are always implications: moral, philosophical, and plausible. How far can we go? Where does life begin? If we "vat grow" bodies without the brains, are we guilty of killing? And ultimately, what's to keep the military from abusing this? or Corporations? What would define ownership and freedom? This could easily lead us into another form of slavery. Clinton shouldn't have said, "No cloning." He should have passed a bill of rights for the future clones. They are on their way. We're not the only people in the world who can do this. This cannot be stopped. Someone once said that "If the imagination can concieve it, and the mind embrace it, then it can be made possible." So, America - land of the free - a clone made for sexual purposes flees from China and pleads for asylum. Would this clone (male or female) have any rights? Who owns it? The owner who purchased them from the "bio factory"? The bio factory who created them? Or the person who liscensed out their genetics? THIS RIGHT HERE is the real question at hand. It's too late for should we or shouldn't we. We should look ahead and prepare for WHEN.

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

R Kurtz - 10:44am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1258 of 1986)

To create a clone of a human being means replicating the genetic material of another person. This would lead to a lack of diversity in the human race. Also it could lead to tampering with the genetic structure of given clones to create either a master or slave race. Until the race matures past the point where this kind of idea would be rejected out of hand by all, the law must control and/or prohibit such action.

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

Ryan Drake - 10:44am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1259 of 1986)

Anyone who has an ethical issue with cloning, or doesn't want to be cloned, just don't do it. Sort those ethical issues out by yourself or with God, and allow the scientists to do their work.

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

Tycho Hoogland - 10:45am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1260 of 1986)

The announcement of an entrepeneur who wishes to set up a cloning clinic is a good reason to highlight some of the dangers that biotechnology brings forth. My main concern is loss of genetic diversity when cloning and genetic screening become more widespread. People who are able to clone themselves and do genetic screening for desirable traits might give rise to a genetically very homogenous population. Screened children and clones might all have an impeccable genetic make-up, but look and act very similarly (Hasn't natural evolution shown us that genetic variation leads to much more profitable strategies?). They would furthermore be the children of the rich. The latter will perpetuate the ever increasing inbalance between rich, well-educated (more succesful) versus poor, non-educated citizens of this planet. Even if people are capable of choosing, their choice would be made for them, because no one wants a child that is less smart and popular in school then the others and teased for being "different". I think it should be time to celebrate our differences instead of killing any kind of originality.

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

Keith Corell - 10:46am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1261 of 1986)

What ethical dilemma? In vitro fertilization removes an egg from a woman, fertilizes it, and returns it to a womb to grow. Cloning would take that same egg, implant someone's DNA, and return it to the womb. Only this time, one person's genetic material is used rather than two.

As to Clinton calling it immoral, how can adding a child to a womb via artificial means be more immoral than removing it with a vacuum. Even though I'm a it's-not-my-uterus-so-I'll-mind-my-own-business type, this stinks of blatent hypocracy.

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

Stella Gold - 10:46am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1262 of 1986)

Someone ought to clone Seed, with new brains however, and then toss the old one.

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

Jeff Gandy - 10:56am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1263 of 1986)

Cloning should be considered a crime against humanity. It is the most blatantly evil concept in recent memory.

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

Pie - 10:57am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1264 of 1986)

I guarantee you that Mr. Snead has started a "fire storm" and if he thinks christians throughout this country are going to passively sit by and allow this to occur, he's got his head burried in the sand. The only way that this will "blow over" is if the good Lord himself blows this firestorm out. We are crossing the line with this and God will not permit this. Wake up people! Look around! If this occurs, we will have finally entered a point of no return. If we do nothing, we will all answer for this!

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

Eileen Heath - 10:59am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1265 of 1986)

World Peace Through Shared Pop Culture

I'm skeptical of the good Dr Dick Seed as well, Stella Gold. I mean - what's in a name?

With that one - a LOT.

On the Official topic though - In Vitro is Good, Cloning for Reproduction is Bad.

We reproduce to create new genetic algorhythms. (yeah I know, misspelled). And I know that I wouldn't want to raise ME. :)

Anyone who wants a child by cloning themselves and not introducing any new DNA has a severe Ego. I mean what's so bad about adoption?

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

George Khachadurian - 11:00am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1266 of 1986)

I cannot see the need for cloning humans at the present time, although we may have todo it in the not too distant (geological future. If it done now it would be better to do it only for experimental purposes. If we cannot solve the problems of hunger and miserable condition of life of the vast populations we have now, I see no purpose in adding to their numbers, solely because one has the economic power, and the self the "I love myself" comp;ex. That type is already causing enough damage to OUR planet.

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

Sergio Castro - 11:01am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1267 of 1986)

The root of the fear of cloning technology is ignorance. There are a lot of people out there who think that cloning a person makes an exact replica of that person. Genetically it would be the same, but its mind would be much different. As we all know, twins are natural clones, and they have very different personalities. A human is a human regardless of its origin. These people see too many sci-fi movies. Clones would not be mindless zombies, they will be people like you and me, with the same rights, motivations, and desires.

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

Lisa McG - 11:03am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1268 of 1986)

Another country heard from . . .

In one article on CNN's website, Mr. Seed compares human cloning with the evolution of the automobile.

How can one compare the evolution of an inatimate object with a human is beyond me.

He's comparing apples with oranges!

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

Eileen Heath - 11:09am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1269 of 1986)

World Peace Through Shared Pop Culture

George Khachadurian -

Sergio Castro -

I agree with you both. Cloning for now should be strictly expiremental. And cloning should NEVER be for reproduction.

Unless the world starts to become unhabitable and we have a clone bank containing genetic code and we need to repopulate the earth - But that's a LITTLE too far ahead for thinking.

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

Ryan Johnson - 11:12am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1270 of 1986)

I think that some peoples idea of cloning is a bit off (even Star Trek like if you will). When Mr. Seed (I like the statement that this is all a hoax put on by the media with Dick Seed) clones a human he is to put it simply transferring genetic material. This will not however create an exact copy (Xerox) of the original. The clone will still be unique in that its behavior will be influenced by the environment and the experiences that it has. The diversity of the human race will live on, we are not talking about carbon copies here. As for the people who believe that we should not clone because there are too many people in the world already, think about it. If any of you have children at all then you know that a child is the most precious gift and it doesn't matter if you have one or twenty, you will find a way to love and support them (for the most part, I dont want to get into a child support/abuse debate here). For those people who don't have the ability to reproduce this is a great thing, for now they too can know the joy of being a biological parent. The problem with cloning is that it is new and relatively untested. Sure we got a sheep clone, Whooptedoo!! How much more complex are we than a sheep. It was stated in the report that they belive that the clone can live a healthy, normal life. How do they know? Have they been secretly cloning humans for years now? Dr. Seed has a dream (altough it may be one of money) and may be jumping the gun on this cloning business.

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

Jeff Gandy - 11:15am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1271 of 1986)

Sergio Castro wrote:

Clones would not be mindless zombies, they will be people like you and me, with the same rights, motivations, and desires.

My point exactly. So what is the purpose?

There is not one good reason. Are we short of people on this planet? Whats wrong - do we need a 100 Michael Jordans? Do we need to change evolution?

Perhaps we need a source of transplantable organs. Hundreds of bodies being kept alive in a giant warehouse in Chicago which we can just hack up as needed. An entire "subculture" of humans.

But then they would be mindless zombies wouldn't they? And rights - well they wouldn't have rights.

It's evil.

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

J. Beliver - 11:16am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1272 of 1986)

I agree totally with PIE this cloning nonsense is going to bring about the wrath of GOD and for those who do not believe in GOD...just wait until this cloning business start and you will believe real quick!

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

Marko Grönroos - 11:17am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1273 of 1986)

If cloning is banned worldwide, the first case might easily be as follows: Sue the single lab assistant gets a baby. (And everyone wonders how did she have time to meet men while working all evenings at the lab...)

But seriously, please ban it, or soon big companies market it to every home. The world needs diversity, which is the most important resource for evolution, and not just for genetic evolution, but also for social and technological evolution. Sexual reproduction is so important for the genetic diversity that WE ALL DIE FOR IT!

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

Bill B - 11:20am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1274 of 1986)

This is a totally moot point. There is no ethical dilemma! Never in the history of mankind has technological advancement been legislated away - nor is it possible. The technology exists and will spread. The feat will be accomplished. All argument is meaningless except as a self important exercise in futility. And remember, all the opinions in the world plus a dollar will buy a cup of coffee in most places.

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

Marcus Solomon - 11:21am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1275 of 1986)

Peachfish International

cloning is not immoral. many of the means used to combat reproductive rights (particularly by the christian right) are immoral. they display and ignorance and an unwillingness to step forward into the future which is essentially futile. in ten years cloning will be a standard and accepted means of human reproduction, but until then we will have to deal with annoying alarmists who are afraid that new technology will destroy the tiny, fragile conception of reality they have constructed and which they seek to preserve at all costs, no matter how ridiculous.

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

Ed Tuttle - 11:21am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1276 of 1986)

Ryan Johnson - We are about the same as a sheep physically; except for the brain. We are a physical organism like all other animals. We will soon be easily replicating all sorts of organisms due to the advances in Computer/Genetic tech. And we will. How will we have the wisdom to not abuse it? We have not demonstrated very much so far though I am glad to hear some in this board. As for those who say CHARGE! you are probably the ones who are ignorant (or don't care) what state the Earth is in right now.

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

Lonnie Fisher - 11:21am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1277 of 1986)

Cloning could "undermine respect for human life", says Bill Clinton.

Thank you very much Mr. Clinton, but I think those mines have exploded long ago.

Clone away...Mr. Seed, what more harm could you really do to the human race.

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

Bill Menucci - 11:22am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1278 of 1986)

Legal or not, ethical or not, Christian or not, anything or not, is not the issue. The bottom line is: Cloning of human beings is going to happen whether we like it or not.

Thank you & now I am off to the hospital--CU later.

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

Val Anzalone - 11:23am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1279 of 1986)

I agree that in-vitro fertilization is a wonderful aide in helping infertile couples conceive, but cloning has many more devious avenues that can be explored. Creating a super-race, maybe. But also consider the fact that cloning can be used for the purpose of creating donor organs for oneself or for others. There is already a black market for human organs as it is, we certainly don't need to give this a leg up!

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

M. Pressimone - 11:26am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1280 of 1986)

I thought "cloning" was a Hitlerian component.

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

Thomas Carden - 11:29am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1281 of 1986)

This is perhaps the dumbest controversy ever. Due to the fact that nature already makes human clones. They are called identical twins. The media has made this out to be the first step toward immortality, the only way to do that would be a personality transplant.

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

Jamal Al-Mutawa - 11:32am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1282 of 1986)

I am surprised people are opposed to cloning, has anyone been ooposed to identical twins ? Cloning is the same thing except you are helping develop delayed identical twins. Everyone knows that identical twins are not so identical personality-wise or even habits.

Also, those that believe that the world will be poulated with cloned superhumans are mistaken. Look at the Olympics, mankind's health & lifespan & scientific achievments. It is not because of man's techincal advances that each generation is healthier, lives longer and smarter but also because of gene diversity creating a better human. Clones will be disadvantaged becasue they have "old" genes.

I say let the cloners go ahead, they soon will discover that a better alternative to extend themselves is to get married and have children rather than copy themselves.

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

Ryan F. - 11:34am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1283 of 1986)

I am already a clone! Nature and hard work did it.

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

Marcus Solomon - 11:39am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1284 of 1986)

Peachfish International

I can clone you. Watch out. I'm gonna getcha. And then there will be two of you. And four of you. And eight of you. Nobody left but you.. You will destroy he world's food supply. Bring famine on us all. All of you.

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

Rey Gaskin - 11:39am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1285 of 1986)

Mr. Seed said in an interview that cloning is a step toward becoming "one with God". Such arrogance is the same as Dr. Frankenstein's. Frankenstein's "creation" of human life independent of God's designed way came back to destroy him.

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

Jay Samec - 11:40am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1286 of 1986)

I guess I am missing something in this debate. Cloning is not going to replace normal conception. Why go to all that bother to make a carbon copy of yourself when you can have issue without high-tech intervention. Are there people who would want to duplicate themselves? Perhaps. Many people have children today for the purposes of second-hand immortality. Is this wrong? Perhaps misguided. Is it evil? No way. Should it be made illegal? How could you stop it? Cloning takes it further, but not into the netherworld.

What about cloning Saddam Husseins and Adolph Hitlers? It amazes me that this type of comment comes up in reproductive discussions. (Issues of AI and unintended incest often arise to my amusement.) Twins raised in the same family under identical conditions produce individuals. Sure, there are common characteristics, likes and dislikes. But there are two DIFFERENT people. Now, say some tyrant wanted to clone his successor. The result would be a new individual with a unique personality that looked like the original. Could the copy be as evil as the progenitor? Perhaps. Are children like their parents? Are Hussein's kids like their father?

What about cloning for spare parts? Consider this. To get a replacement heart, lungs, etc. for an adult, you would need to have a near-adult sized donor. Therefore, making a clone for a donor would take LOTS of forethought. And remember, the clone would be every bit as human as the original person - protected by the law. I can rip out the heart of my child or sibling for inplanting into myself. The same issue would occur with clones. A possible scenario for clones-as-donors would be for bone marrow replacement. This would not violate some of the presume sanctity of the individual. However, this is not new. Some years back, a woman conceived a child with the hope the baby would be a tissue match for their daughter for a bone marrow transplant. In this case, the gamble paid off. Still, th

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

Wesley Bushnell - 11:49am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1287 of 1986)

I have to admit that my response to this issue is written out of fear and ignorance. It is not possible for a person, such as myself, lacking a biological education to understand the full scope of this idea. Cloning, as I see it, is the taking away from nature the power to send the human race in it's intended direction. Like all advances in science, if abused the consequences would be dire. It is true that cloning will not be anything like what we see on Star Trek(Ryan Johnson)but science has a way of snowballing. A discovery in one field gives glimpses of new vistas yet to be explored. Before you realize it we have gone from the Wright brothers to Mir in a single lifetime. All action has a consequence to it. What will be the price that out son's and daughters pay for our discoveries.

It is apparent that our technology/materialism has out performed out humanity. Cloning is not somthing to be taken lightly and certainly not entered into for profit.

This is to much power to place in the hands of a single individual.

WB

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

Nathan Blade - 11:50am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1288 of 1986)

The cloning issue is more than just an end result...What means do you use to get to the end result...It is a little easier to decide what to do with a mutated sheep that is the result of an imperfect cloning technique. What do you do with the human product that is imperfect? Perhaps it would be helpful to read up on exactly what cloning entails...Identical twins are not a product of "natural" cloning...

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

Keith Kelly - 11:52am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1289 of 1986)

Cloning creeps people out because they mistakenly think that psychological identity comes from physical identity. I think that clones would face the same pschological challenges that identical twins often face (i.e. trying to "branch apart" and find their individual selves, since the world tends to view them as one and the same whenever they are together). Cloning is thus a little unfair to the clones and the originals. But I don't think it is a great evil, because the truth is that psychologicl independence can be found despite physical similarity. You still aren't making carbon-copies of people's essence.

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

Ilya Taytslin - 11:52am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1290 of 1986)

Several years ago a little girl developed a (non-genetic) disease of bone marrow. She had no chance of living to adulthood unless she received a bone marrow transplant. Unfortunately, neither parent nor any other available donor was compatible. So the couple asked their doctors: "If we have another child, what are the chances he or she will be a compatible donor ?". The answer was 25%.

The parents decided to gamble. They conceived another child, with intention to transplant its bone marrow into their first daughter once the child were old enough for the operation. It was a 1/4 chance, but the alternative was no chance at all.

They lucked out. Their second daughter turned out to be genetically compatible, and the older one's life was saved. Now, I do not know how the younger sister will feel about this whole story when she grows up, but personally I would be very proud to know that I was brought into this world to save my sister's life.

Had cloning been available at the time, the parents would not have had to gamble, and the older sister would have been spared the agony of waiting for the genetic test that would spell her life or death sentence. And this is the only situation where I find cloning humans desirable.

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

Charlene Nease - 11:53am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1291 of 1986)

Let's get this straight-cloning is not the same as identical twins. For one thing, it is unnatural-God makes twins-not humans.I don't see how anyone could think it's o.k. to play God. Cloning is kind of like the splitting of Atoms. Anyone remember that? They "cracked" the atom and now they have "cracked" the genetic code. Any one remember what happens next?

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

Ryan Johnson - 11:53am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1292 of 1986)

Ed Tuttle- You stated that we are basically the same as sheep except for the brain, this is obviously a true statement; but what a difference a brain makes. The human brain is one of the last frontiers of science and on that is gaining much popularity among scientists. -I am not sure that we will be cloning many organisms soon. Cloning is a new field of science, and while i share your optimism that it may be refined to good use and your pessimism that we as faulty beings don't have the wisdom to use it properly; it will take many years before science will be able to do this successfully (or not?!?). There are variables to this problem which could throw a huge monkey wrench into the whole works. -As for not caring about the state of the Earth, I take offense. I do not see why you would make such an accusation, especially to consider me ignorant. We have not treated our planet well, but the answer does not lie in controlling the world's population. The cure is wisdom, knowledge, and education. We need great minds to solve the Earth's great problems.

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

Jim Donaldson - 11:53am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1293 of 1986)

The whole idea of a human clone is 'sick'. How would you explain to a cloned child that they are not an individual but a cheap copy. If a couple can not have a child of their own then they should adopt. This idea of anything to create a child is nothing more than the creation of a master race. The government is already storing DNA from our troops for the supposed purpose of identification in case of death. What a wonderful way to screen out the perfect soldier. Hitler would be proud. The population of the planet is exploding and all we seem to do is look for ways to make it worse instead of finding ways of improving the way of life for the people who are already here. I do not believe that governments can make laws that would stop this kind of research. But this kind of trash research is what rightfully encourages people like Ted K. who in times like these is hard to dispute. Just because we can do these types of things does not mean we should do them.

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

Steven Sollinger - 11:57am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1294 of 1986)

Infertile people generally need to wake up and stop this type of madness. In vitro and cloning are both immoral and inhuman. There are many children who need families to adopt them. People who really want children enough to go through in vitro or (God forbid) cloning are not fit to become parents. They have to have "their" children, not "somebody elses". This attitude is antithetical to becoming a good parent. If you cannot put your own desires behind those of a child, you can never be a good parent. We already have the answer to the "problem" of infertility: adoption. Stop focusing on what you want, and help to meet the needs of the many children who need your love.

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

Steven Sollinger - 11:57am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1294 of 1986)

Infertile people generally need to wake up and stop this type of madness. In vitro and cloning are both immoral and inhuman. There are many children who need families to adopt them. People who really want children enough to go through in vitro or (God forbid) cloning are not fit to become parents. They have to have "their" children, not "somebody elses". This attitude is antithetical to becoming a good parent. If you cannot put your own desires behind those of a child, you can never be a good parent. We already have the answer to the "problem" of infertility: adoption. Stop focusing on what you want, and help to meet the needs of the many children who need your love.

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

Sinn Fein - 11:59am Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1295 of 1986)

Does anyone share the incredulity I feel when scientists, medical ethicists, activitists and especialy our President lineup against cloning? Apparently it is acceptable in this country to kill growing babies as late as the third trimester, but the idea of creating life is somehow frightening. What truly is frightening is that so many people, including the leadership of this country, condone heinous acts of infanticide so routinely and without forethought. To wit, partial-birth abortion. Abortion is the true medical moral abomination which we face. Not generating new life.

From CNN Community Staff:

According to the rules and guidelines, messages must be posted under your real name. Therefore, effective immediately, we are requesting that you post under your name. To change your name: click "Preferences", change name, scroll to bottom of the form, Click "Preference"). We will delete messages posted under an obvious pseudonym.

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

Dave Reedy - 12:01pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1296 of 1986)

Becoming one with God or trying to become gods? Cloning like many of the other advances in science is transforming what it means to be human. I agree with W.B. this is too much power in the hands of one or a few individuals. For once I agree with Clinton. We need to take some time on this one. We need to learn about it and think about the implications before we rush in where angels fear to tread.

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

Charlene Nease - 12:03pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1297 of 1986)

Oh ya it's all for helping us selfish humans out. Everyone talks about creating a clone for the use of Bone marrow transplants--what's next, hearts, livers?

Maybe we should just set up a slotter house for all the clones so we can use their organs!?

How selfish we are.

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

Darin Johnson - 12:04pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1298 of 1986)

I'm probably re-iterating things here, but you can't make something illegal because it's "immoral." Murder, for example, is illegal not because it's "immoral" but because it infringes on the rights of another. I think it to be orders of magnitude more frightening that one can ban research solely on that footing -- sounds extremely medieval to me.

As for those who believe that Mr. Seed is playing God, well, I don't think you give your God much credit.

Mr. Seed is not infringing on anyone's rights. I personally don't believe his activities are Clinton's (or anyone else's) business.

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

Nathan Blade - 12:04pm Jan 7, 1998 ET (#1299 of 1986)

Yo Sinn....What do you think is going to happen in the labs when experiments don't work right? Yup, you guessed it...throw that baby out...it didn't work out right? Sounds like the abomination of abortion you just tiraded about...Check out the original journal article from Ian Wilmut in Nature...Guess how many sheep were sacrificed to finally get the Dolly clone????