clone2900

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

James McNeil - 01:29pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2900 of 2927)

Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water! Cloning science can also be used to grow individual organs to save lives. Thousands of people die every year because donor organs are not available. A total ban on cloning research would stop the medical research that could save these lives.

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

Joseph Burns - 01:36pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2901 of 2927)

I firmly believe that science should dedicate more of it's time devoted in finding ways to fight deadly diseases. Such as different forms of cancer, HIV, etc. I strongly believe that certain things are meant to be in any lifetime, but not cloning humans. Life itself runs a natural course as is ; we should leave that way.

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

Bob Janitor - 01:53pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2902 of 2927)

Cloning is unnatural and immoral, by God's laws as should it remain by man's laws.

Really? Exactly where in the Bible does God say "thou shalt not clone"? Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't know anything about cloning, and you don't know anything about your religion.

Unnatural? Your COMPUTER is unnatural. Your CAR is unnatural. Your BREAKFAST is unnatural. Our SOCIETY is unnatural. Don't argue unnatural, it's just a dumb argument. If you wanna be a naked monkey boy living in a tree, leave me to my unnatural "sins" of clothing and technology.

OK, if life runs such a natural course, aren't cures for diseases interrupting this? A disease is quite natural. Curing it artifically is just as "unnatural" as cloning.

In fact, modern medicine, through the treatment of diseases, has weakened the gene pool. Whereas without technology, only the strong would survive, the weak survive and pass on their genes only because they are artifically allowed to live long enough due to technology. What's natural about that?

And I don't suppose any of you "It's unnatural! It's immoral! Oh my!" people support abortion?

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

Brent Gibson - 01:57pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2903 of 2927)

No need for a patsy next time our government wants to assassinate a president. Just clone someone and save all the taxpayers money that would have goe into the detailed framing of a UNIQUE person.

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

Joseph S - 02:22pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2904 of 2927)

Bob Janitor,

"Well, although the current success rate is low, we can test the resultant zygote and see if it's OK or not, and continue monitoring it throughout development."

But Bob you glossed over the politically-sensitive and philosophically loaded point of fertilization. There are plenty of people who would object to your testing of the 'resultant zygote' as this implies that a negative prognosis likely means disposal (or worse). "Coming to be" is tremendously loaded philosophically, spiritually, religiously, ethically, and legally - and yet you just chose to skip over it.

We have come to a point where this issue needs to be sorted out. It will not come quickly and it will requires a large-scale dialogue which will include the expertise of a whole host of people, only one part of which will be in the sciences. You are mucking around with the human psyche and what it is that makes us human. Up to now we've relegated the power of human creation only to God. The social ramifications of usurping this power are huge.

A dialogue of this magnitude will take time and research in this issue should be slow and handled gingerly at first. Actually, the dialogue probably started several decades ago.

"'Good reason' for one person may not necessarily apply to another. And the risk is fairly minimal, once you get past the low success rate. It's not like they spontaneously turn into a hideous monster at age 30 or something :-). Once the DNA is in place, it's in place."

'Good reason' in this case is intended to be a judgement by society, not an individual. You may disagree but it would do you well to consider _Frankenstein_. Legal and constitutional issues aside, it is not wise to disregard the will of the people.

Interesting point about monsters at age 30. The effects of Huntington's Chorea aren't evident until after the age of 30. I think you would find interesting a story on Nova about Woody and Arlo Guthrie about this subject. Does this mean w

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

Joseph S - 02:27pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2905 of 2927)

(cont'd)

Does this mean we can't clone humans until we understand the complete human genome down to the last base pair? Not necessarily. However, we should have an understanding of our responsibilities here before we proceed.

Your article on regneration was enlightening, thank you.

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

Julie Anne S - 02:36pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2906 of 2927)

Horrible concept, absolutely horrible.

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

Caesar Padilla - 02:51pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2907 of 2927)

I now live in fear as who will have possession of such dangerous scientific knowledge and for what exact purpose it will be used. How will this research be supervised and who will take responsibility for its outcome. Science is about to open a pandora's box which will lash out concenquences of macrabre proportions. We indeed have gained the knowledge to research and create great things but we do not yet have the nescessary "wisdom" to manage it for the benefit of humanity.

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

Bob Janitor - 03:07pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2908 of 2927)

Well, I don't think anyone can argue that, at the single-cell zygote stage, the life form is more human than a skin cell. It doesn't have a central nervous system of any sort, and while the debate rages on about abortions, in which the fetus does have a central nervous system developed, at the single-cellular stage problems are easy to correct. If the DNA insertion was not successful you just pop another in. Problems that arise in development from the cloning procedure itself simply won't happen, and if the DNA does contain genetic diseases and such, cloning a person with genetic disease is no more immoral than that person having children and passing those disease on to his/her children.

Up to now we've relegated the power of human creation only to God.

Actually, no. The sperm fertilizes the egg, the resultant zygote divides, the cells specialize, and a child is born. Just biology, no God involved. It's a predictable scientific process.

'Good reason' in this case is intended to be a judgement by society, not an individual.

So is cloning not to be treated like abortion, another hotly debated, controversial issue where one man's "good reason" gets him bombed by another man's "good reason"?

Although we are striving to learn all we can about which genes control genetic flaws (genetic disease), the responsibilities for

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

Bob Janitor - 03:09pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2909 of 2927)

cloning here, in my mind, do not exceed those of the responsibilities for sexual reproduction, or "test tube babies" for that matter.

Your article on regneration was enlightening, thank you.

No problem. According to my PWS monitor, 6 people have accessed it so far. Anyway, the URL is http://207.196.172.36/regen.txt for all that missed it... sorry about the lack of line wraps, you might want to paste it into Notepad.

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

Rajesh Naroth - 03:42pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2910 of 2927)

Research on medicine, finding cures.. YES.

Bringing a baby to the earth by cloning? NOPE.

Success in cloning doesn't mean anything. What's the big deal? You haven't created anything new. You use the force or power of "life". Whether it's plants, sheep or humans.

The point here is not about progress in science. It's about our rights to do things. Do we have the right to deprive a child of it's mother and father? Can you tell him/her that she was the result of an experiment? Do we have the right to deprive him of the many emotions that are important? Do you think the sense of importance of being part of an experiment would justify that?

Nope. I believe that the two most important things in a person in life is

1. God

2. Family And a I don't know how you'd apply this to a clone. Every human life has value. Whether we deny it or not, there is a greater power than man's intellect.

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

Ned Donaldson - 04:34pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2911 of 2927)

Scientists may try to clone human beings, but they will not be successful. Animals, like plants, are material substance that can be cloned. When they try to clone a human being they will find that though they can replicate the material substance of a human being they cannot replicate the spirit which is the source of the human life. So let them try. They will find their own "dead" end.

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

Joseph S - 04:38pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2912 of 2927)

Bob,

I'm satisfied with the fact that more than scientific knowledge will be used in determining whether or not to establish a ban or moratorium on cloning research.

I'm also confident that there are no insurmountable barriers to establishing or enforcing this ban within the US.

You give me no comfort that this area of research isn't rife with the threat of mad scientists doing whatever they can conceive of for no better reason than plain and simple hubris.

Given your flippant attitude toward the philosophy and spirituality of this subject, you can probably do more, perhaps unwittingly, to spark a careful dialogue and insure a measured approach toward this subject than I can.

I imagine I seek the same goal as anyone does - long, quality lives for myself and my loved ones. How you get there is as important as getting there.

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

tom.A - 04:40pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2913 of 2927)

I saw a picture of those cloned calves...there are obvious subtle but distinct differences visible. The differences are in the markings on the legs, forheads and backs of the animals. They are not 100% identical....I also saw identical twins. One girl had definite blue eyes the other appeared hazel or off blue or greyish. Variability goes deeper than we think it does.

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

Carl Nicolai - 04:57pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2914 of 2927)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Bob Janitor thanks for the article. Part of the aging process of humans also produces dedifferentation. This can result in loosing functionality or in the replacement of lost teeth (redentition) in some 80 or 90 year olds.

The human ova from the zygote to blastosist stage is also almost indistingushable from certain forms of cancer suggesting that the processes are related.

The human genome like many genomes has a huge ammount of information capicity that dosent appear to do anything. These introns could maybe be used to store the coding for regeneration.

There is bound to be a trade off however and so the question becomes weither to create a human that is say one half the normal size that can replace damaged limbs.

It has been suggested that most of the future advancements in genetic engineering will occur on space colonies where gravity evolved humans are not optimal and the labs are far from the prying earthlings and their restrictive laws.

By then cloning may be the least interesting of the methods of reproduction.

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

Misha Shmilovich - 05:20pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2915 of 2927)

Cloning: As a geneticist I am excited about the potential of human cloning. As a human being, however, I am less enthused. Although, the technology brings great promise in medical prosthesis and tissue replacement it is prone to too many abuses by a not yet mature species. We as human beings do not understand enough about the implications of human cloning on culture, population, and the detrimental effects it will have on ecology to seriously pursue it. Technology such as this must exist to benefit the human race not serve the vanity of the ambitious or wealthy. Lets cool-off cloning.

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

Frances Forrester - 05:22pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2916 of 2927)

To everyone concerned: Maybe I've been reading too much science fiction in my lifetime, but I believe wholeheartedly that we are moving into a weird area here. I am not a biochemist or a member of any clergy, so I will not go into the "is-it-a-human-or-a-bunch-of-cells" debate. Pardon me if I overstate the obvious, but the cloning issue for me carries the same connotations as the abortion issue. I have always been (and always will be) emphatically pro-choice where the abortion question is concerned; however, this cloning thing has me floored. In the abortion arguement, I have always stated my position that the fetus only carries the potential for "humanity" (i.e. after birth). However, I do not believe that abortion should be used as a method of contraception. So where does that leave these cloned "people"? I believe that research along these lines should be continued--I can see where major medical breakthroughs can be made here, along the order of organ transplants, cancer/AIDS research, etc. The key word here being research--notas a method of human reproduction. (Oh geez, back to the "should we clone humans for lab rats" thing again!!) Like I said, a whole new weird area to explore...

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

Frances Forrester - 05:26pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2917 of 2927)

Misha--I think you have expressed my own concerns fairly well. You are a geneticist? I'm not, so I will defer to you on this question: Is the technology to clone/reproduce individual human organs somewhere in the future, if cloning research is continued?

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

Clifford Smith - 05:54pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2918 of 2927)

I am no scientist, nor am I what I would call 'in to religion'. I will admit that I read a lot of science fiction and from this I have read many possibilities as to the uses of clones.

I feel that the ethical and legal questions need to be answered before we use the technology to clone a human.

Would it be OK to grow a clone just to harvest the organs? By cloning are we creating second class citizens? Who would have the legal custody of a clone? What rights, if any would a clone have? Would a clone be property? Would it be OK to create clones to perform hazardous jobs?

We need to address these issues before we find that we have created a new class of slaves.

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

tom.A - 05:55pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2919 of 2927)

Misha S. : Why do the clones and identical twins that I saw have subtle but obvious differences?

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

Virginia Perrenod - 06:04pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2920 of 2927)

Perhaps the publisher should issue a new print of Huxley's Brave New World. I think we should all read or reread it. Powerful human beings have always needed cheap or slave labor to perform the world's dirty work, and what is better for this than low-level clones who will never reach for something better.

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

Bob Janitor - 06:04pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2921 of 2927)

1. God

The Christian God is believed in by a minority of the people on Earth. Although most people do believe in a supreme being of some sort, it's sort of rude to try to impose a minority Christian belief on the rest of the world.

2. Family And a I don't know how you'd apply this to a clone. Every human life has value. Whether we deny it or not, there is a greater power than man's intellect.

Can a clone not be loved as a "natural" child? A clone is still born to a mother. In fact, this may seem a bit strange, but some people believe even a child born to someone else can be loved in a different family! Weird stuff huh?

I'm also confident that there are no insurmountable barriers to establishing or enforcing this ban within the US.

Unfortunately, the current legislation seeks only to ban it for infertility. Strangely intelligent, for politicians.

You give me no comfort that this area of research isn't rife with the threat of mad scientists doing whatever they can conceive of for no better reason than plain and simple hubris.

Well, there's the greater threat of these mad scientists building a nuclear bomb or making deadly biological weapons than cloning someone for infertility. Remember, laws only keep honest people honest. They won't stop rogue terrorists. And human cloning is probably worthless to them anyway (unless they're infertile mad scientists-- too much radiation or something). They want to destroy life, not create it.

I imagine I seek the same goal as anyone does - long, quality lives for myself and my loved ones. How you get there is as important as getting there.

Yes, as do I. But it comes down to this: does cloning rob society and the cloned individual of a quality life? Or, is the cloning procedure just semantics, and would they have a quality life like us "natural" humans?

I would argue that regardless of how they were concieved and who their "parent" was, they're still a human and can live like an

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

Bob Janitor - 06:09pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2922 of 2927)

(con't)

any of us.

Given your flippant attitude toward the philosophy and spirituality of this subject

Now now, no reason to turn to insults. I don't consider my statements asking where people were getting God condeming cloning from flippant, nor asking why they thought cloning was unnatural, but not so many other things like modern medicine and technology.

What is it about cloning that irritates people so much? Ignorance? The fact that it, for better or worse, creates life? I'd guess a little of both.

PERSONALLY, I do not want to see a ban on cloning. I think it's just stupid to use it for an infertility treatment, but I'm not going to go so far as saying other people can't do it. Cloning has other uses, and I'm sure we'll find many more for it if the technology is allowed to mature.

When they try to clone a human being they will find that though they can replicate the material substance of a human being they cannot replicate the spirit which is the source of the human life.

I see. Do the words "resting potential", "axonal processes" or "EPSP" mean anything to you? I didn't think so. Neural networks work. Regardless of your minority religious beliefs that cannot be proven.

Remember, the Christian church has a long history of trying to force ignorance on the population. From a solar-centric view of the solar system, to opening cadavers, to vaccines. Note the Bible doesn't condemn any of these... just the institution.

Carl Nicolai:

Very interesting. I think we should study regneration and map the genome of hydras and other animals that regenerate, and see if we can enable this in humans. Scientists have already found that neural regeneration is artifically (chemically) inhibited in humans. Regeneration has to be one of the most valuable assets to a biological life form, aside from reproduction.

And again, the interesting regeneration piece is at http://207.196.172.36/regen.txt

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

Daniel Conder - 06:24pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2923 of 2927)

If this research has the possibility of producing people with birth defects or because of errors makes someone have to suffer in life. I am opposed to it.

If it is demonstrated by critics that it is safe and anonymity (something similar to adoptions) can be preserved, I do not have a huge problem with it.

No one is advicating eliminating an identical twin just because it makes them uncomfortable.

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

Jon Hensley - 06:48pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2924 of 2927)

Bob Janitor,

Well spoken. I wish all people could see the benefits of cloning instead of dwelling in fear and ignorance.

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

Tassos Polichronopoulos - 07:00pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2925 of 2927)

As a veterinary student I think cloning will be very beneficial for the human species but then we'll violate all the lows of natural selection and we will try to walk in the footsteps of God. Take a min and think about the implications.... we will make artificial transplants to cure suffering people and we will help sterile people have children and we will increase the averege life span ;we may even be able to see a cow give birth to a dog (possible by nuclear transfer) and then what?? Before we know it earth population will be sky high and the food resources will not be enough and instead of creating paradise on earth we will make our life a living hell....(there is a good book out there "the miracle strain" give it a try..). And one last thing , for 50 years scientists belived that only DNA can carry genetic information , today they say that prions (something that we beliaved to be a pathogen so far) can carry genetic traits also...So for every think we know there are Millions that we don't know , the implications can be catastrophic for our species ...Dispite all this my hamble opinion is that cloning reaserch should be continued with some restrictions and not be totally band ,when your head hearts you take a painkiller you don't cut your head :)

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

Gary Marsden - 07:16pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2926 of 2927)

Is the issue cloning, or, is it what is done with the clones? I believe the real issue is what is done with the clones. To ban cloning is tantamount to the statement, "If God had wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings." Yet, people fly on planes all the time. And, look how many we kill...unintentionally. So, the issue is not whether we fly, or clone. The issue is what we make of the result, and, how we preserve human diginity and life.

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

Bob Janitor - 07:40pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2927 of 2927)

As a veterinary student I think cloning will be very beneficial for the human species but then we'll violate all the lows of natural selection and we will try to walk in the footsteps of God.

We already have violated all the laws of natural selection and "walk in the footsteps of God". No human evolution takes place anymore. There are no pressures for natural selection.

Modern medicine, technology, and society allow people with weak genes that would normally be selected out (killed) to live alongside the "strong" (if you will) and reproduce, spreading their weak genes. Favorable mutations are not rapidly spread as they naturally would be.

Meanwhile it has been shown that intelligent people don't have as many children as those *ahem* less intelligent.

So currently, our gene pool is getting gradually weakened. Those with "strong" or "good" genes, and those with a genetic predisposition to higher intelligence are getting diluted. The human race may very well be "devolving".

Genetic engineering and cloning could arguable be used to correct this. But we'd better hurry up while we still understand how do these :-).

Jon Hensley,

Why thank you. I agree.

There is no "caste" system in the US. We are free to become rich, or turn into a homeless bum. The Consitution and Bill of Rights do not have a "no clones" clause. FOR THE LAST TIME, CLONES (NOR TWINS) DO NOT SOMEHOW HAVE LESS HUMAN RIGHTS, LEGALLY OR MORALLY.

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

Shirley Polley - 08:01pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2928 of 2936)

I hate to think of the horrible errors we are making by dabbling with cloning. We need to leave nature take care of populating this world. What are we coming to if we don't need the human element in childbirth. I don't believe God will allow us to continue in this fashion. We will be feeling his wrath if we begin this process.

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

Shirley DiRupo - 08:55pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2929 of 2936)

I see no harm in cloning. The medical/scientific advances we could make by doing this would be invaluable. Clones would be just as human as anyone else. Remember, clones are people two!

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

Richard Kaiser - 08:58pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2930 of 2936)

I find the governments knee-jerk reaction to cloning to be puzzling...

A cloned human would just be an identicle twin to the original, but with different ages. A clone does not have the originals personality or memories, so it's not a 'copy' of a person. The clone would grow and develop into a seperate and distinct individual. Genetics only predispose an individual to a cvertain personality type, it doesn't dictate it.

Cloning, as a method of reproduction for infertile couples, seems reasonable and appropriate. The biggest thing to fear from bio-technology is gentic tampering and screening. Eugenics is a notion that never dies, and in the wrong hands bio-technology could be used to breed a population of super-humans, or even sub-humans as workers. Genetic screening could be a basis of discrimination in many areas. Either one puts too much power in the hands of the people who control the technology, be it scientists or politicians.

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

Gordon Steuart - 08:59pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2931 of 2936)

Cloning? Its an economic boon. Besides playing God, one could also play the Devil. Would you really want someone to clone 2 more Charlie Mansons, or 3 more Adolph Hitlers, or 4 more Saddam Husseins? Well I guess from an economic standpoint, imagine all the new government jobs that would be created.

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

Richard Kaiser - 09:09pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2932 of 2936)

Gordon Steuart:

What would it matter if we did clone Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, or Saddam Hussein? The clones would not be any of the above. They would be new people who would have their own background and experiences. Any of the three clones would have just as much chance of growing up as great and noble leader, or a self-serving tyrant. Clones are not 'unnatural'. A clone is nothing more than a fertilized egg with the same gentic sequences as the host from which the chromosomes were taken. The clone would be the originals brother. Not like a brother, but an actual brother. An identicle twin brother. They would be no more the same or different as identicle twins born at the same time.

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

robert culpepper - 09:13pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2933 of 2936)

wow

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

Richard Kaiser - 09:23pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2934 of 2936)

If you want to consider the impact of cloning, consider this:

What if we cloned Albert Einstein? The parents of the child would know that their child is geneticly identicle to the nobel winning scientist and would expect that their child would have the same potential. The child, once it reaches a certain age, would likely become aware of it's parentage. What would it be like to be that child? What kinds of pressure would they be under to live up to the standards of their 'brother'? What if they never did? Would they be a dissapointment to their parents? Would they be a disspointment to themselves? What would it be like for them?

That's the kind of questions we should ask. It's only arrogance which leads us to believe that it's about 'us'. If we decide to use cloning technology, our moral debates should be about the rights and sensibilties of the clones themselves. They are the ones who will have to live with our decisions.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:52pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2935 of 2936)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

James McNeil: Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water! Cloning science can also be used to grow individual organs to save lives. Thousands of people die every year because donor organs are not available. A total ban on cloning research would stop the medical research that could save these lives.

James, this deal about cloning individual organs seems to have a life of its own on this board. Except for skin--which has been successfully cloned from the foreskin of a fetus, and is considered an organ--my understanding is that the technology to clone individual organs is very far into the future, if at all. The following link (address) is to a FAQ published by New Scientist Magazine: http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/clone/faq.html.

<A HREF="http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/clone/faq.html"> http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/clone/faq.html. </A>

Frances Forrester: Misha--I think you have expressed my own concerns fairly well. You are a geneticist? I'm not, so I will defer to you on this question: Is the technology to clone/reproduce individual human organs somewhere in the future, if cloning research is continued?

Misha may provide an answer. In the meantime, if you are interested, I suggest you click the link (address) of the New Scientist FAQ above. It should answer your question.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:57pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2936 of 2936)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Caesar Padilla: I now live in fear as who will have possession of such dangerous scientific knowledge and for what exact purpose it will be used. How will this research be supervised and who will take responsibility for its outcome. Science is about to open a pandora's box which will lash out concenquences of macrabre proportions. We indeed have gained the knowledge to research and create great things but we do not yet have the nescessary "wisdom" to manage it for the benefit of humanity.

Caesar, except for a few renegades, such as Dr. Seed, there really isn't much reason to distrust the scientific community. It should be remembered that scientists are people too. Most of them are just like most of us. They desire a reputation as an upstanding and ethical citizen in their own community, as well as a professional reputation for high ethical standards among their peers. Personally, although I don't think the ethical standards of politicians are as low as some would have you believe, I generally have more confidence in the ethical standards of scientists than of politicians.

Bob Janitor: I think we should study regneration and map the genome of hydras and other animals that regenerate, and see if we can enable this in humans. Scientists have already found that neural regeneration is artifically (chemically) inhibited in humans. Regeneration has to be one of the most valuable assets to a biological life form, aside from reproduction.

The mapping the human gemone may be completed as early as 2002. It was projected to be a fifteen year project, but it now appears that it may be completed ahead of schedule. Anyone interested in the Human Gemone Project should visit the site at this address: http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/home.html. Perhaps after that project is completed, the genome of selected lower animals will be undertaken.

<A HREF="http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/home.html"> http://www.ornl.gov/TechResources/Human_Genome/home.html. </A>

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

Paul Schroeder - 11:33pm Feb 3, 1998 ET (#2937 of 2937)

Many of you discuss the results of cloning, but what about the hundreds of "no good" embryos that will be discarded during the perfection of this process? As occured with the creation of "Dolly"!!

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

Bob Janitor - 12:04am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2938 of 2939)

You ignorant fool. You don't know anything about cloning, and you don't know anything about your "religion". God never says "thou shalt not clone". Your "religious leaders" merely lie about issues and tell you what to think. And you are so ignorant to the issues and even your Bible you don't even realize it.

If the parents do not love the child regardless of his/her interests and IQ, they're not very good parents.

Many of you discuss the results of cloning, but what about the hundreds of "no good" embryos that will be discarded during the perfection of this process? As occured with the creation of "Dolly"!!

Actually, the only thing discarded as "no good" are zygotes-- the fertilized egg, a single cell that will *eventually* divide and become human. It can be determined right there if it's good or not.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:16am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2939 of 2939)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Bob Janitor: Actually, the only thing discarded as "no good" are zygotes-- the fertilized egg, a single cell that will *eventually* divide and become human. It can be determined right there if it's good or not.

How can you be so sure, Bob? When Wilmut cloned Polly and Molly, for example, he started with 477 embryos. Of these, he implanted 62. Of the 62 he implanted, three were carried to term. One died after birth, leaving Polly and Molly. I would seriously doubt that Dr Wilmut would implant embryos that were obviously defective. The question is: how could he have made so many errors, if whether the embryos were any good could be determined "right there"?

Although I agree with much of what you say, I think it is foolish to act as if cloning is a snap, and that there are no unanswered questions. The technology is difficult. I think we ought to admit it.

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

Bob Janitor - 02:23am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2940 of 2971)

The question is: how could he have made so many errors, if whether the embryos were any good could be determined "right there"?

Hmmm, you might just have a point here. After the DNA is correctly inserted, though, I don't see where it can "go bad".

I've said several times cloning is both expensive and difficult, even if the currently low success rate picks up to some degree.

BTW: thanks for pointing out that FAQ. Although I do disagree with one point in it:

Could people be cloned without conscious brains (so their body parts could be harvested with fewer moral qualms)?

The FAQ states this would be difficult/impossible to genetically inhibit. However, they did not consider a massive surgical lobotomy, if you will, of most/the entire central nervous system (spare the brain stem, maybe) at an extremely early point in development.

In addition, neural tissue transfers have a 100% success rate, and it would be theoretically possible to do a "brain transplant" into your "new body". Scientists have even done cross-species brain transplants in lower animals, producing some very strange hybridized behavioral results.

You could even theoretically enable aggressive regeneration in your "new body"... whaddya think?

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

André Juvenelle - 04:12am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2941 of 2971)

André Juvenelle Cardiac Surgeon.

Cloning is the result of combined advanced technological research and basic science. As such it is neither bad nor good. Science IS neutral. It will lead towards a future that is in the hands of Man and man only. I have too much respect for the concept of God to believe that He would contradict His own laws and play sorcerer. He therefore shall never interfere withe the FREE WILL He is supposed to have given man. That includes freedom of making clones. Believing in almost complete determinism from the three first minutes of the Universe does not make things look too different

Either our species will adapt in the Darwinian way , or it shall desappear from the Universe . Until then it is true that we must go on and learn to do what it takes to survive as a species. I'm personnally against anything that would devaluate life , life in general but Human life in particular.

That includes :Injust Wars (sic), overpopulation ,savage exploitation of labour , starvations and famines , cloning , bosom renting and the like , death penalty - ( Thou shalt not kill ) .

However i'm for legal abortion ( although it may appear as a form of life destruction to many ) for the following reasons: In my country ( France) the number of illegal abortion ( before the law that leagalized it ) counted in the hundred of thoudands a year ( perhaps 5 to 800 thousands ). The number of resulting deaths in young women was overwhelming and so was the number of permanently incapacitated and ill young women. Legal abortion has brought those figures down to irrelevant numbers.

Note: About the completely different Islamic view on the subject one should refer to

Human Cloning: An Atlantean Odyssey?

as quoted in this very CNN issue.

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

Bob Janitor - 04:24am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2942 of 2971)

How does cloning devalue human life? If anything twins are treated with more popularity and awe than us clone would be almost totally developmentally different from his "brother". And as loved and same time or grow up in the same environment. The "singles". A clone, however, would not be born at the respected as the human being-- because that's what clones are.

Yet you are for abortion. Abortion is a murder of convienience. Legallized abortion does devalue human life more than almost anything else.

Hypocrite!

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

Paul Davies - 05:40am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2943 of 2971)

It's too late for sheep and cows to be uncloned. The technology exists, for better or worse. The issue now is one of control of cloning. And controlled it must. A parallel with the creation of nuclear weapons may be drawn, look what happened then, divergent views for divergent powers. Only now are we seeing some sort of harmonisation. We can't let this technology take on a life of its own. It's not an FDA problem, it's a world problem. The FDA should not do anything in isolation! The status quo, no cloning, should be maintained until global debate and agreement has taken place.

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

Pabini Gabriel-Petit - 06:17am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2944 of 2971)

I don't know what all the fuss is about cloning humans. It's a good reproduction option for couples who haven't been able to have children. Any living creature that lives and breathes has a soul, including clones. Cloned humans wouldn't be mentally, psychologically, or spiritually identical to their genetic progenitors, because their life experience, or karma, would be different. Scientists can't clone souls. As long as we have respect for all human life, there's really no problem. I hope the government doesn't play big brother and interfere with scientific progress.

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

Pabini Gabriel-Petit - 06:29am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2945 of 2971)

Schemes that would allow individuals to clone new bodies ƒor themselves to inhabit are pretty misguided. Our Creator has already nicely solved that problem. It's called reincarnation. A recycled body wouldn't meeet all of the needs of an evolving soul. Life's enough of a merry-go-round as it is. What's the point of hanging on to the past when the future awaits.

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

William Hoaglin - 07:49am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2946 of 2971)

Fear of the unknown is what bothers people the most.

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

Rachel Holmes - 08:05am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2947 of 2971)

To clone humans is man playing around in Gods back yard and could change the natural evolutionary process of man. It could start a hiearchy of gamates. In other words the genetic make-up of some individuals may be deemed unfit for cloning, therefore putting them below the new society of perfect humans. Cloning could on the other hand be a good thing if scientist limited this new found knowledge to the cloning of human organs only. In other words if some one needed a new heart then that heart could be cloned for that individual. To create a human clone is to create another species of humans and the implications of that is wrong, but to create a human heart is to create life for the species that we are.

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

HH Cota - 09:04am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2948 of 2971)

It's too early to legislate research. Had we allowed ignorance-based morality to dictate pure science, we would not have blood transfusions technology, gene typing, etc. Let's deal with facts and stay away from fear based science fiction.

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

Bob Janitor - 10:18am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2949 of 2971)

The status quo, no cloning, should be maintained until global debate and agreement has taken place.

Ha! You think the world could agree one way or the other? We can't agree about abortion or even kicking Iraq's butt.

Our Creator has already nicely solved that problem. It's called reincarnation.

No, I'm sorry. Your antiquated religious myths are false. Once you die, your neural net breaks down, thought processes stop, and it decays. You cease to exist. THIS IS A FACT. SENTIENCE, THINKING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE ALL PART OF THE BRAIN. If you believe otherwise, PROVE IT. Good science is public and replicable.

To clone humans is man playing around in Gods back yard and could change the natural evolutionary process of man. It could start a hiearchy of gamates.

Qualify that statement. HOW is playing around in God's back yard? And if it starts a heiarchy of gamates, GOOD. The current gene pool is being weakend through technology, modern medicine, and the fact *ahem* people with a genetic predisposition to higher intelligence reproduce less. We're devolving as a species. We need to use biotech to improve ourselves before it's too late, because there is no more human evolution.

HH Cota:

Preach on brotha!

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

tom.A - 10:24am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2950 of 2971)

I saw those cloned calves...there are obvious subtle but distinct differences visible. The differences are in the markings on the legs, forheads and backs of the animals. They are not 100% identical....I also saw identical twins on TV. One girl had definite blue eyes the other appeared hazel or off blue or greyish. Variability goes deeper than we think it does.

Picture yourself in a world where many look the same...the level of confusion that would or could result would be quite insane....just what is the point of cloning humans anyway?...aside from some totally vain motivation...even if you had a son, daughter or relative that died or was diseased, you WOULD NOT be able to replace them anyway. Personalities are separate and unique. I am totally for cloned organ research...it has real benefit. Just think, genetically repairing a pancreas then replacing the damaged one...great stuff.

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

Glenn Curry - 10:52am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2951 of 2971)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

We invented all of the thousands of god myths, why shouldn't we "play" the part? Cloning is merely another of modern medical advances that can be used for good or or misused based on the intent of the individual. The same can be said for asprin or surgery. Only those with limited grasp on reality, probably because of a philosophical basis grounded in some antiquated superstition in one of those god myths, would find another medical advancement to be a problem. Just as they did with vaccines and vivisection, or even for medical practitioners washing their hands and sterilizing instraments. Ignorance and superstitions have always worked against the betterment of society.

It's time for the world to grow up and stop having ignorant knee jerk reactions to scientific findings that will benefit us.

Or maybe we should follow Saudi Arabia's lead. They decided in 1992 that contrary to ALL scientific evidence to the contrary, the world IS flat and by law that is all that will be taught or allowed in that country. Yep, that's what we need more of!

Where is the Inquisition when we need them?

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

Manfred Sheets - 10:53am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2952 of 2971)

If you ban it (ie, cloning) in one country like the US, then the answer is to move your research to some developing country hungry for investment. That's my suggetion. One country willing to support this may be Brazil. They have the infrastructure to develop cloning, would be fantastic for the medical industry, which already is big down there, and could essentially thumb their noses at idiots who want to stop the progress of science. You guys at the FDA can ban this, ban that, but, hey, simply take the technology elsewhere. I fully support cloning in all ways. Look, I would love to have one of me cloned in some sort of suspension, so I could replace my old heart, eyes, even parts of my brain tissue. Imagine how long we can extend our lives! Part of the solution may be to gfind a way to just clone organs that we need, so you idiots out there won't complain about "human rights." Is an organ a human being. Not!

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

Mark Wright - 10:59am Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2953 of 2971)

All living species have inherent reproductive processes and individual traits that assure continuance. Remembering complementarity we must also agree that living species also have inherent flaws. Some of these flaws manifest as an inability to reproduce. This a NATURAL flaw. It is meant as a means of population control for species in accordance with the demands of ecological systems in which species live. Cloning seems a just a TAD BIT unnatural. Even for childless couples. Maybe we should just let genetic engineering run rampant. Perhaps then nature will come up with something more devastating than we have ever seen to keep our population under control. Genetic lines rise and fall through time. Genes take care of themselves. We should stand back and let them! Thank you.

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

Damian Brennan - 12:12pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2954 of 2971)

I'm a big fan of scientific progress but cloning if fundamentally different from medical advances such as germ theory or vaccination. Look at the possibilities of cloning beyond what is making news headlines (i.e. cloning for reproduction).

What about the search for immortality. If me heart is going bad, why not clone myself but alter the process slightly to produce a me without a functioning brain. That way, the body is "brain dead" and its organs can be harvested to retrofit me with healthy organs without fear of rejection by my body. If you have the money and a lack of scrupples, why not. Maybe as I approach middle age and expect that my health will start to deteoriate, maybe I would have a couple of clones started so that there would be there when I needed them. Forget the government playing big brother, this would be the market as big brother.

Damian Brennan, NY

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

Bob Janitor - 12:16pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2955 of 2971)

I saw those cloned calves...there are obvious subtle but distinct differences visible.

Yes. Although a clone may be genetically the same, developmentally it's quite different, be it obvious physical characteristics or more subtle things like fingerprints.

Cloning seems a just a TAD BIT unnatural.

Cloning happened before sexual reproduction. So if anything, it's more natural. Yes, people with genetic flaws that inhibit their ability to reproduce shouldn't. But what about people with other genetic flaws like Cystric Fibrosis? They too are weakening the gene pool, especially with their recessive disorder. Genetic engineering can solve these problems. We have the technology today to correct genetic problems before a child is born, but we don't. It's stupid.

Perhaps then nature will come up with something more devastating than we have ever seen to keep our population under control.

Well, the next ice age would probably do it. Or, technology makes tons of children for cheap agricultural labor unnecessary as it has in the US, and the population of the world stablizes as it has done in the US (sans immigration).

Manfred Sheets:

Exactly!

Glenn Curry:

Preach on brotha!

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

Bob Janitor - 12:26pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2956 of 2971)

cloning if fundamentally different from medical advances

Cloning is both different and similar. It has many uses, and probably some we monkey boys can't think of right now.

This may OR may not work, scientists are still uncertain as to how organs are rejected, but genetic similarity seems to be a key.

Better yet, enable aggressive regeneration (http://207.196.172.36/regen.txt for a regeneration primer) in the new body, correct any genetic flaws, enhance it (maybe, if this can be done), and do a brain tranplant. Even cross-species brain transfers meet with a 100% success rate. Only one body would be used, and you wouldn't need another since it'd regenerate itself. Most of us would kill another to survive in self defense... to heck with turning the other cheek. Is this different? Or is it better since the other person never had a brain and was never sentient?

Maybe as I approach middle age and expect that my health will start to deteoriate

After about age 21, your health deteriorates as certain cell types don't regenerate and they die, and once enough of them do so do you. Telomerase also limits other cells to 50 divisions, although all of these limitations are artifical and need not exist.

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

Damian Brennan - 12:38pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2957 of 2971)

The point here is that this is an area of science that demands governmental regulation. The use of vaccines is regulated. Organ transplants are even more regulated. Is anybody suggesting that cloning be less regulated?

One important thing to consider is that a global approach is needed on this issue. It would do no good to ban a practice in America while it is legal in other places.

How about another ethical issue to consider. If I drop a strand of hair on a visit to my doctor, assuming the technology exists, does he have the right to produce a clone from my DNA. Essentially, does my right to privacy or property protect my DNA from copying without my direct consent?

Damian Brennan

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

Emmanuel Asomba - 01:16pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2958 of 2971)

The issues of cloning is something quite sensitive; because the fact of banning its implementatrions in the States does not mean that it is going to be prohibited worldwile. But for a deeper aspect that issue is something in which governements should try to alternatively find safety nets. The advance of science is a great step for humanity; but do you have as human beings the right to interfere in the natural process of life? In the advent of this process of cloning the stakes are high but we all know that we are creatures of habits; and sometimes the true purpose of science are sometimes overwhelmed by the social nature of man.

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

Benjamin Coomer - 01:22pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2959 of 2971)

Cloning is one of the hottest topics of debate right now as it starts to come close to the point where human beings can artificially create life.

Humans seem to have a natural repugnance for this idea. Just look at works like "Frankenstein," or any other numerous pieces of liturature in our bookstores. But it isn't just cloning that scares us, it is almost anything new. We fear new things because they might represent something that is beyond our control and beyond our understanding. Therefore we immediately try to regulate anything that comes before us in an attempt to give ourselves a degree of control over it. If we can't do that we immediately try to ban it. We ignore any benefits that may come from something in favor of our hysteria.

We will always need to be cautious when approaching something as new (and yes, I say new, for humans have not been reproducing by cloning for sometime now, give or take a couple hundred million years) and radically different as cloning. But we can't let our own paranoia get the best of what could be an incredibly useful science.

Think about it. We could be able to recreate entire organs for people who have lost theirs through illness or injury, without the fear of rejection by the host. Or be able to eradicate serious birth defects in all people with a little work on their embrio.

As to playing in God's territory, I ask you, did God intend for us to live in misery and pain? He gave us minds so that we can improve ourselves and our invironment, so that we can discover His works around us. So far, I have not seen any lightning bolts or earthquakes in response to cloning. It could be that He approves.

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

Damian Brennan - 01:33pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2960 of 2971)

Religious hyperbole aside, let's look at how serious this issue is. When you talk about cloning organs, exactly where do you grow them? In a test tube? Can't do it yet - and maybe not ever. After all, it's more than genetics that go into developing a body. The mother's body interacts with a fetus in many ways that we know of and even more that we don't know of. Replicating the development of a body exutero may not be possible for generations. So what are we left with for growing these organs? You've got it - live hosts.Do you want individual scientists regulating the practice? I for one do not. I say that the public has a right and an obligation to help steer the future of this world. The notion that every discovery in science is progress is laughable. Progress is the correct use of scientific knowledge, not it's discovery.

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

Bob Janitor - 01:51pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2961 of 2971)

Is anybody suggesting that cloning be less regulated?

Nope. But not banned.

It would do no good to ban a practice in America while it is legal in other places.

Exactly.

does my right to privacy or property protect my DNA from copying without my direct consent?

I don't believe so... no more than someone getting the same haircut as you have. Legally you don't own any intellectual rights to your DNA, and after your hair falls out I don't think it's considered to still be your property.

but do you have as human beings the right to interfere in the natural process of life?

Heck, why not? We as humans have been interfering in the "natural" process of life since we've existed. Cloning is just semantics. And there's nothing about the default or "natural" way that makes it right.

human beings can artificially create life

Not really. Cloning is just a DNA swap trick in a developing organism. It still had to form with its sexually reproduced DNA in the first place, and it still has to be born to a mother.

We fear new things because they might represent something that is beyond our control and beyond our understanding. Therefore we immediately try to regulate anything that comes before us in an attempt to give ourselves a degree of control over it. If we can't do that we immediately try to ban it. We ignore any benefits that may come from something in favor of our hysteria.

Exactly.

We could be able to recreate entire organs for people who have lost theirs through illness or injury

If you're going to grow a brainless replacement body "organ farm", why not just plop your old brain in it at the same time instead of letting 90% of the new organs go to waste? If you enabled aggressive regeneration in the new body you wouldn't need any futher bodies either.

give or take a couple hundred million years

Humans have only been around for about three million years.

Or be able to eradicate serious birth defects I

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

Bob Janitor - 01:53pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2962 of 2971)

(con't)

Or be able to eradicate serious birth defects in all people with a little work on their embryo.

That's genetic engineering, not cloning.

He gave us minds

Actually, an electrical discharge served as a catalyst for CH4, NH3, H2O, and H2, which formed into lipids, carbohydrates, amino acids, proteins, and nucleotides. Protein-RNA systems and lipid spheres were formed from the first monomers, then came enzymes and other proteins. This allowed for self-replicating, membrane-bound proto cells which later developed into living cells. Through the years living cells developed into multicellular organisms and cells specialized-- including neural cells.

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

tom.A - 02:00pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2963 of 2971)

Bob Janitor (aka Noel Yap and/or cliff beale): Why the name change? Trying to hide something?...those calves developed exactly the same and there are subtle differences...you just can't fluff it off by saying "developmental differences" without explaining....the same for the identical twins I saw with differently coloured eyes.

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

Raymond Ancog - 03:39pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2964 of 2971)

Human cloning is inherently, intrinsically unethical and immoral. It's as plain and simple as that. Once you've come to realize that, no amount of arguments, no matter how persuasive, can ever justify it.

We seem to have this attitude that our most valued beliefs and principles have to be compromised in the name of scientific progress because they get in the way. I think we've become too proud and need a dose of humility every now and then. I'm a scientist (geologist), but I know better than to heap unfettered praise about the promises of science.

Besides which, how do we know there aren't any unforeseen or hidden side-effects to cloning? Geneticists may have tried their best to make cloning as safe as possible, but I still can't help but wonder.

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

Amber Lyn - 04:29pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2965 of 2971)

Resident ponderer...

What do you think about cloning human babies for infertile couples?

There are plenty of children available for adoption. If someone wants raise a child created via cloning, make them (the person(s) wanting a cloned child) pay for it in full.

What steps do you think the FDA should take to control cloning?

None. What does the FDA have to do with cloning in the first place? As far as humans are concerned, this should be regulated like any other medical procedure and for insurance it should be treated like non-essential cosmetic surgery.

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

Liz P. - 04:35pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2966 of 2971)

The greatest REAL threat unregulated cloning may represent is to the gene pool. Constant copying may be the easiest means to get a desired genetic product (sheep, cow, whatever). But for each cloning, an opportunity for sexual reproduction and the "new" genetic combo that results is depleted.

What does this mean? One need only look at the cheetah to see how dangerous the potential. Thousands of years ago, nearly all cheetahs died. So few survived that every one of the cheetahs on the planet today is descended from a highly restricted gene pool and is nearly an identical "twin" of every other cheetah. Hence, cheethas are the closest thing in nature to a cloned species.

One disease, like distemper, could easily exterminate every animal because of the lack of genetic variety that enables certain individuals of a species to exist as a resistant mutant -- a happy result of sexual reproduction.

The implications. . .

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

George E. Tessier Jr. - 04:44pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2967 of 2971)

Cloning is the best thing that has happened to the human race! It will eliminate disease and suffering in the future. We should go full speed ahead on human cloning

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

Nick Ervu - 05:33pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2968 of 2971)

I think the whole issue of human cloning has been misunderstood and overblown. You shouldn't ban something which produces no victim.

There is one problem, though, namely how society will react to someone who has been born by cloning. Imagine the media frenzy! Therefore, a legal precaution should ensure privacy and non-disclosure clauses for all those involved in cloning.

As to those who say "God didn't intend for people to be born by cloning," I say, God *did* intend just that, otherwise God wouldn't have created companies like Clones-R-Us.

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

Bob Janitor - 05:41pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2969 of 2971)

Bob Janitor (aka Noel Yap and/or cliff beale): Why the name change? Trying to hide something?...those

What are you talking about?

calves developed exactly the same and there are subtle differences...you just can't fluff it off by saying "developmental differences" without explaining....the same for the identical twins I saw with differently coloured eyes.

OK, here's how genetics is involved in development. Life begins with an egg. After the egg is fertilized by sperm, the cell starts dividing and specializing, eventually growing into a animal. But although DNA controls the blueprint for the animal, it will develop differently from an identical twin due to environmental factors while it's growing. Such as fingerprints and birthmarks, or physical pressure on one part of the fetus. There are other things that affect development as well, and the mind will develop quite uniquely from the genes, although they control some factors. Even though identical twins look quite similar, there are differences, and they don't necessarily have the same opinions or personalities. These differences are greatly exaggerated in cloning because while twins grow up in the same environment, a clone does not.

What makes you say this? Qualify your statments please! Lies by religious leaders that are believed because you don't know anything about cloning, nor your own religion?

Besides which, how do we know there aren't any unforeseen or hidden side-effects to cloning?

How could there be side effects? It's not like at some point in the future the clone breaks down into some psychopathic mutant. Once the DNA is cloned, the person develops as normal. Cloning is as simple as that.

The greatest REAL threat unregulated cloning may represent is to th

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

Bob Janitor - 05:41pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2970 of 2971)

(con't)

represent is to the gene pool. Constant copying may be the easiest means to get a desired genetic product (sheep, cow, whatever). But for each cloning, an opportunity for sexual reproduction and the "new" genetic combo that results is depleted.

Very true. However, the human species have ceased to evolve due to a lack of selective pressure in our society. Modern medicine and technology are also weakening the gene pool, to a greater extent than cloning ever will. Also, more intelligent people have been proven to reproduce less, so our genome is almost "devolving" with, dare I say, less strong and smart genes. Cloning is expensive and difficult, and will never see wide enough use to threaten the gene pool due to genetic similarity. In a sense, cloning for reproduction is a lot like incest.

Cloning is the best thing that has happened to the human race! It will eliminate disease and suffering in the future. We should go full speed ahead on human cloning

Well, I think the computer game Quake is the best thing that ever happened to the human race personally. Cloning itself will not eliminate disease and suffering. Even a lot of creative genetic engineering will not help this.

Disease is simply impossible to get rid of, even if we manage to genetically boost our immune system. Cloning, if anything, worsens this in the same way incest does-- it lessens our genetic diversity.

Suffering is part of the circle of life. Unless you are hooked up to IV nutrient drip and have an electrode stimulating the pleasure centers of your brain 24/7, you will suffer.

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

Jared Christophel - 07:20pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2971 of 2971)

Bob, you said there are no possible side effects to cloning. I don't know that you have enough evidence to say that. What about the aging of the DNA used to produce the identical twin? Look at Dolly, her DNA was already 6 years old before she was born. Are there not some unseen mutations that that could have occured, or will she age prematurely?

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

joe greyz - 08:07pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2972 of 2981)

I do not quite know the benefit of human cloning, but if it is a success-the military will surely exploit this technology to the fullest-mindless fighting machine?

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

tom.A - 08:13pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2973 of 2981)

Bob Janitor:

What are your credentials?....you seem to be taking on some kind of "authority" here...

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

Frank Joyce - 08:22pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2974 of 2981)

Jared: your right! there will be various side effects from cloning. Cells used in cloning are not as heavily protected as cells naturally used to perpetuate a species. For this reason no one is sure if the clones may actually be carrying new mutations. It would be very easy for many genes that were once homozygous to become heterozygous via a mutaion and be undetected inthe new clone. As of yet there is no 100% accurate way of determining this. Cloning however will not likely be used to a great extent because of the problems of Immunity. Cloning decreases the diverstiy that naturally protects populations from pathogens. Studies on cloning plants for agriculture have shown that wehn an entire field is fileed with genetically identical plants, they tend to be quickly wiped out by a single pathogen. basically this means that if one is susceptible they all are.

Clones are not identical to the parents that they came from. Not only do you have a Nuclear inheritance, there is a cytoplasmic inheritance as well. Thus the genes used to influence the earliest events in development are actually from the mother and not the cell itself. The mother produces mRNA and stores it in the egg. These RNA's that exist in the cytoplasm are then responsible for directing early development. It is also known that Mitochondria are inherited solely from the mother. This means that If the enucleated host egg used is from an animal other than donor of the adult cell nucleus, It would not be a true clone. It also means that you can not truly Clone males.

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

Bob Janitor - 08:53pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2975 of 2981)

(con't)

Cloning is the best thing that has happened to the human race! It will eliminate disease and suffering in the future. We should go full speed ahead on human cloning

Suffering is part of the circle of life. Unless you are hooked up to IV nutrient drip and have an electrode stimulating the pleasure centers of your brain 24/7, you will suffer.

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

Bob Janitor - 09:50pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2976 of 2981)

Look at Dolly, her DNA was already 6 years old before she was born. Are there not some unseen mutations that that could have occured, or will she age prematurely?

Unseen mutations could've occured, and she very well could age prematurely. Please see:

http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/clone/clockoflife.html

I do not quite know the benefit of human cloning, but if it is a success-the military will surely exploit this technology to the fullest-mindless fighting machine?

This sort of thing is illegal, the military cannot enslave humans except via selective service in a time of war.

What are your credentials?....you seem to be taking on some kind of "authority" here...

I know stuff. I don't know. I don't have a PhD in reproductive biology, but it seems I did pick up on a few biological issues and I'm trying to share my knowledge here as factually as I can. If there is something I do not know, I do my best to fully research it and make an informed statment. Remember, I'm not the end-all know-it-all... everything I say could be a lie :-). Study things yourself and reach your own conclusions-- but don't rush in with emotions and ignorance as many have done with cloning.

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

Paul Swoboda - 10:01pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2977 of 2981)

My concern with cloning has little to do with its possible amorality or direct social consequences. I would like to contend that, should anti-cloning legislation be passed in North America, or any other subset of the world's nations, that legislation would be physically unenforceable while international boundaries exist, unless local governments are willing to go to drastic and certainly unethical measures to enact enforcement.

The problem is highly similar to enforcement difficulties caused by encryption legislation, where countries such as the USA and France have imposed export and internal restrictions on the transmission and use of encryption algorithms: These algorithms can be employed anywhere on the planet, and while it may be remotely possible to stop citizens from using certain methods of encryption locally, it is extremely difficult to prove that someone has encrypted data illegally, even when authorities have been given the actual encrypted data to analyze. With cloning, the existence of borders and cloning-neutral states means that any capable body of individuals anywhere in the world can set up a lab, offer cloning and genetic manipulation services at rates competetive with other such labs, and maintain a clientelle comprised of citizens of possibly every country in the world, including those countries that have banned cloning.

When a woman desires to give birth to a cloned child, she has only to come up with the necessary funds required for a return ticket to a cloning-neutral state, plus the cost of the cloning operation. She can then return to her own country, impregnated with the clone, and have a normal pregnancy and childbirth. The question remains; however: What then, assuming that a clone is somehow detected, either during pregnancy or after birth, in the home country? The following are some options, all of which I think are equally unlikely and undesirable:

1. Levy a fine against the woman. This fine would of course also indire

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

Paul Swoboda - 10:02pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2978 of 2981)

(same as 2977)

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

Cliff Beall - 10:06pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2979 of 2981)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Bob Janitor: You could even theoretically enable aggressive regeneration in your "new body"... whaddya think?

I think I would probably be happier with my old body--properly regenerated, of course. Seriously, I would have a problem with the "massive surgical lobotomy" you suggest. It sounds too much like the intentional introduction of a severe birth defect in the unborn child to me.

This technology holds the promise of reducing or, perhaps, even eliminating birth defects. That is the part I like.

Pabini Gabriel-Petit: Our Creator has already nicely solved that problem. It's called reincarnation.

Funny, it just now occurred to me that the reincarnation idea is a strange religious idea in the conventional sense. All other major religions have a text of some sort on which the faithful rally. Reincarnation is different. It seems to have a life of it's own apart from any "standard" text or reference. In that sense it is somewhat like the "cloning for body parts" idea on this board:-)

Bob Janitor: Once you die, your neural net breaks down, thought processes stop, and it decays. You cease to exist.

How can you know this of certainty, Bob, and can you prove it? And, by the way, please don't say I have the burden of proof since I am not asserting anything. I admit I don't know. That is why I call myself an agnostic. But if I can't know, how can you know? The reverse of this statement is called religion that can't be proved. I think we agree on that. But what do you call this? I call it religion that can't be proved. (God, it is fun being an agonistic!)

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

Cliff Beall - 10:08pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2980 of 2981)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Manfred Sheets: Look, I would love to have one of me cloned in some sort of suspension, so I could replace my old heart, eyes, even parts of my brain tissue. Imagine how long we can extend our lives!

Suspension or not, it would appear to me that you are talking murder. If you don't call it murder, what do you call it?

Manfred Sheets: Part of the solution may be to gfind a way to just clone organs that we need, so you idiots out there won't complain about "human rights." Is an organ a human being. Not!

And the "independent life" of this impractical idea goes on.

Bob Janitor: We have the technology today to correct genetic problems before a child is born, but we don't. It's stupid.

Well, it appears the technology to end birth defects will soon be here. When the technology becomes available, we will be stupid indeed if we don't use it.

Damian Brennan: The point here is that this is an area of science that demands governmental regulation. The use of vaccines is regulated. Organ transplants are even more regulated. Is anybody suggesting that cloning be less regulated?

Hard to argue against that point.

Bob Janitor: Nope. But not banned.

Hard to argue against this point too.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:16pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2981 of 2981)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Benjamin Coomer: Think about it. We could be able to recreate entire organs for people who have lost theirs through illness or injury, without the fear of rejection by the host.

Does the "independent life" of this impractical idea ever end?

tom.A: Bob Janitor (aka Noel Yap and/or cliff beale): Why the name change? Trying to hide something?...

Very funny tom. But Bob isn't even close to being like either Noel or myself. He is more like Tom Anderson. As a matter of fact, I really thought I would miss Tom after he left again, but with Bob around, I have almost forgotten he went away again.

Bob Janitor: What are you talking about?

Its an inside joke, Bob. tom used to call me "Cliff Yap," back before anybody knew who Seed was. He claimed we hogged the board the same way. This was back when the board had an average of about three messages a day.

Bob Janitor: Very true. However, the human species have ceased to evolve due to a lack of selective pressure in our society.

I do not agree that the human species has ceased to evolve. But I have argued that before and don't have the energy to do it again right now.

Jared, I think that was a pretty fair question. I'm not sure if Bob will think so, however.

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

Bob Janitor - 10:37pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2978 of 3022)

I would like this too. Unfortunately, gene correction therapy has all but failed, so you cannot enable regeneration in your "old body", and the only sure way I can think of is to regrow a "tweaked" version of your body and transplant your brain, and have your body provide the neural regeneration chemical to your brain.

It is an intentional severe birth defect. However, it's for a good reason. The fetus would never grow a neural network, and would never be sentient. It'd be just an engineered mass of non-thinking cells designed to support a brain- your brain.

Would I do something like this to ensure I didn't die? Yes. I don't want to die. And I would sacrifice a non-sentient, non-thinking life form to achieve this.

In my mind, it's more ethical than eating meat or killing animals for a reason, and slightly less ethical than killing plants for resources.

Thought I probably stand alone here.

This technology holds the promise of reducing or, perhaps, even eliminating birth defects. That is the part I like.

I like that part as well.

How can you know this of certainty, Bob, and can you prove it?

Deny it all you want, but you do have the burden of proof! Sorry! It can be proved the neural network is responsible for these things. Can I prove it? No, I'm not a neural researcher... but others can and have proved it.

The ancient egyptions believed conciousness rode in the heart and the brain was trash. But, we know today that the brain is where conciousness, knowledge, and memory is.

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

santian - 11:02pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2979 of 3022)

Imagine a human Like Hitler combined with some D N A of Staline and some Cesar too . Do you think ?, this monster can live from hand to mouth .

Good night.

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

Bob Janitor - 11:08pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2980 of 3022)

Imagine a human Like Hitler combined with some D N A of Staline and some Cesar too . Do you think ?, this monster can live from hand to mouth .

Once again, ignorance and emotion prevail! For the last dang time, genetics has something to do with how the mind will form, but for the most part it will be unique from the cloned "host".

In fact, identical twins growing up under the same environment are even psychologically quite different and are both unique individuals. The differences only increase as the clone grows up in a different environment from his "brother".

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

Bob Janitor - 11:09pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2981 of 3022)

I would just like to add that DNA extraction from Hitler and Ceasar would be impossible, and probably from Stalin as well.

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

Bodhi Garden - 11:21pm Feb 4, 1998 ET (#2982 of 3022)

I would like to be first, second, third, fourth.......

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

luis modesto - 12:06am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2983 of 3022)

I'm too ordinary to clone, let's clone a De Vinci or Booker T Washington, or how about Clinton - now there is something to shake a stick at.

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

babel dispersus - 12:26am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2984 of 3022)

...omega

BAN IT!! Definitely ban it... what else is there to do? It shatters the very foundation of our knowledge, so we must deny it in order that our authoritarian knowledge remain true. For if the Book is not the whole of truth, then we know nothing. I cannot accept that I have been living a fantasy my entire life. Are you telling me there is no soul? Are you crazy, I cannot accept that. I cannot simply decay without continuing on in some way. But then we have this undeniable, yet unreconcileable fact that cloning can and does work, despite all objections in favor of previous conceptions. Are we not usurping God's power? If so, then what is the consequence? Could we in fact do so if He did not allow us?

Since we can create life in a completely mechanical fashion, are we anything but machines? Input goes in through the senses, gets interpreted by previous experience, and is returned in the form of actions. If there is no soul, then what are we? Do we have individual consciousness, or are we just a very advanced processor? Is there such thing as original thought, or is everything entirely determined externally? If we are nothing but organic robots, then what is the point of life? Is there one? If we do not interpret reality but only process sensory information, does reality even exist? And without a soul, then what is free will? And without free will, the universe is deterministic... almost deistic. But is that not a direct contradiction of the first premise of this line of thought?

No... I cannot accept the consequences to this cognition. It would require the complete and total annihilation of my entire belief structure, which is a part of what I am, if I can even be said to exist. I must continue to believe that I do, for what is more real than the self? If you cannot be sure of your own perceptions, then faith in anything -- especially reality -- rests on a nonexistant foundation.

babel dispersus

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

Tina Yows - 01:40am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2985 of 3022)

I don't EVEN want to go swimming in THAT gene-pool!

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

Mr. Mister - 01:53am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2986 of 3022)

I will not and can not provide a perfect answer so let's consider a few questions before we make decisions on this. Do we really need to clone anything? Life has been doing fine for billions of years without our interference. We have a long list of man made occurrences that are catching up to us. Global warming, Ozone holes, Air and water pollution. We are just starting to feel the effects of these things and they will get worse. What if this is a horrible mistake we are leaving for our children? The benefits may be great but are they worth the risk? If we can't deal with the worst case scenario then we shouldn't take the chance. More later. WSH

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

Mr. Mister - 02:11am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2987 of 3022)

Watch sci-fi movies. No really. Most science fiction is based on a fear of the unknown or something known that we can't control. Have you ever seen a movie where cloning was a good thing? Does The Fly, Jurasic Park, and The Island of Dr. Moreau ring a bell? We as a people fear this idea and maybe there's a good reason. This is a tangent but, what about DNA testing for paternity, at a crime scene, etc. This is no longer a 100% means of identifying an individual. Want to frame someone for a murder? Clone them and have the clone do the killing. There are just too many new things that we need to consider before we continue to proceed with this. More Later. WSH

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

Dorothy Williams - 06:20am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2988 of 3022)

I really don't feel we have to worry about people being cloned for the simple fact, is the way the world is in such an upheavel, we will be witnessing a worldwide distruction soon.

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

Carl Nicolai - 07:11am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2989 of 3022)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ban cloning? Well lets see now. John Doe whose wife has a host of genetic problems and has no desire to pass them on to another generation, but who loves children decide to unite one of his cells with one of hers by cloning. They cant find a doctor to do it but John is a real savy technition and has no problem mastering the necessary skills as witnessed by his three cloned cats.

The federal agents in charge of enforceing this ban get word of john's plans and tell him that they will have to arrest hm if he even attempts to clone a human. John tells them to bugger off and buys some self defence tools. I mean John is a vet and is highly trained in killing people. I mean this guy is a loyal american. No one had to draft him to defend his country. He would willing give up his life in defence of his loved ones. John and his wife are home selecting which one of the 7 zygotes they wish to implant when the Feds attack.

Does John:

1. Say "Oh well I guess you cought me cold. Go ahead and send me and my wife to prision for 5 years and distroy my future family"?

2. Pick up a gun and procede to get himself, his wife, and 3 federal agents seriously dead?

3. Push the button that releases the AZ157D9 virus that only he and his wife have the vaciene for?

Now immagine that John is a not a person but a recognised solvern country and you begin to get some idea of what the clone wars will be about.

Hi tech? In 20 years cloning a new life form is a high school biology experiment.

Ok maybe 40 years.

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

Anibal Luporini - 07:25am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2990 of 3022)

I always thought that making babies through making love was beautiful, natural and needed. Didn´t those cientists read Aldous Huxley´s Un Mundo Feliz??? Clonning is a great idea, but I don´t think it´s necesary.

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

YEHUDA DOUTCH - 09:38am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2991 of 3022)

sadam be carfull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Jonathan Green - 09:51am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2992 of 3022)

I don't think that cloning should be outlawed in the states, but I also don't think that the government should be responsible for the consequences or support of anyone who does try to clone anyone for any reasons other then, for example, their organs.

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

tom.A - 10:14am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2993 of 3022)

You can't replicate people exactly. Even if you did clone hitler, it would probably be a "kinder gentler" furer or "just another guy" that looked like the original. The same with Einstein or anyone else. Personalities are unique and impossible to recreate.

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

Kristina - 10:48am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2994 of 3022)

I don't know about an all out ban of cloning, but if cloning ever becomes common, what would the social status of clones be? I think clones would be discriminated against, pushed to the lowest rung of the social ladder. Who knows, in some places they might clone humans to use as slaves. People (in general) are afraid of cloning, and would likely fear clones. People tend to be violent toward what they fear. What would happen to these poor clones, who had no say in how they were born? If this sort of thing does happen, it would be cruel and inhumane to clone humans, bringing them into a world where they would only be abused.

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

Lilbern Geiger - 11:39am Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2995 of 3022)

I am just wondering if this could possibly be a source of spare parts for replacement. Would the problem of rejection be eliminated? What about fingerprints in the FBI files, would they be the same as the original? Lots of possibilities here,

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

Patrick Dolan - 12:40pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2996 of 3022)

If cloning humans is allowed at all, then we have to take a serious look at how sacred marriage is and how sacred having children is. In my opinion, human cloning defaces and/or defames the magic and anticipation of having kids. What's so special about having children if you know EXACTLY what's going to happen if one clones themselves? Human cloning may tarnish the whole image of everything humans are about...personalities, looks and qualities. Males or females attract each other by: dressing nice, keeping good hygine, and socialize about the excitement and anticipation of what might happen on a blind date. Everything about getting butterflies when you find out a girl or boy likes you is gone. We are here to propogate the species, but if we do it by cloning, then we have really missed the point of life and that is very sad. SCIENCE HAS GONE TOO FAR!! Just stick to the fundamentals!!!!

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

deanna jarrell - 12:55pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2997 of 3022)

The question of the humanity of clones could get us into the war to end all civilization. What would an army of clones be called? Could you program their behavior as you would any other property? The technology of DISPOSABLE HUMANS, coupled with the resources to produce armies at will, could redefine our roles and importance to society. All past horrors of slavery, genocide, genetic manipulation, abuse and brainwashing will need to stand aside to this new world wide danger. What happens when we clone humans simply to provide wombs for the mass production of clones? Are you scared yet? Scared enough to do what?

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

Shawn M. Richardson - 01:17pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2998 of 3022)

Just think about how the criminals of the world are seeing this issue.....if they got a hold of the stuff they could be free to committ random acts of violence. If that was possible the whole world would be full of serial rapists and murderers.

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

Jon Hensley - 01:39pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#2999 of 3022)

It absolutely amazes me how ignorant and fearfull you all are to cloning. Get your wild imaginations back into the real world!

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws