clone3300

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

Keith Fosberg - 08:47am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3300 of 3300)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Bob,

I will conditionaly support your possition as long as we are limiting the scope to the "replacement body" scheme.

I still find it somewhat disturbing, but have come to the conclusion that I am experiancing "abortion transference" as I have found no significant weaknesses in you logic.

I will continue to vigorouslt oppose "organ harvesting" as both impractical (main points already exposed) and "teetering" too close to an ethical problem.

I would hate to ever see a society that supported notions such as the "organ banks" described in the "Known Space" novels. It would not be a huge stretch to add criminals to the ranks of these banks and from there to get creative in our description of crimials.

It just seems to have a "slippery slope" potential to me.

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

Darien Hager - 10:36am Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3301 of 3301)

American student in Hong Kong

One thing that I've gotten comments about.. I never, ever, said that the clone would have NO HEAD... Cliff, please look at post 3289 by me, because I feel a little annoyed that you said the comment about:

I wouldn't want my grandchild born without a head.

Just AFTER I explained in post 3289 that I never said anything about removing the head. Please look at 3289. (Sorry, I am just annoyed irrationally) The "without a brain" (make ya think of the wizard of Oz? ;P) concept was a spinoff of sergically removing the brain of a viable embryo. (When I say viable I mean in a sense that it COULD grow up to a normal person)

Keith, as you said about the organ banks, I have read the series(es) and know what you mean... capital punishment for tax evasion <shudder> No, I think organ banks would be immoral. I mean, there would be an ulterior motive for finding a person guilty, there would be pressure to find them guilty... What if you were a person on a jury who needed a new kidney and the guy in trial had two perfectly good ones that you might get for your court service....

Not that it will happen (I hope)...

Ingen (home of jurassic park...haha.)In terms of "repopulating the bald-eagle" I agree that it would not serve much purpose evolutionarily, as placing the clone-embryo in the eagle would be hard, and the clones would only be as good as the original. You could possibly have other birds act as surrogate parents, maybe brown eagles(if they would accept and rear the chicks), but much of the survival knowledge/social habits, usually taught by the eagle parents, would be lost.

If you mean mass-producing the eagle for a bunch of em...maybe. If you had enough parents for the chicks. It would give them some extra time, but it might not save em unless something changes. At any rate, just add that on to bob's #3298.

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

JosephC - 04:53pm Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3302 of 3304)

Bob Janitor - 05:08am

Funny you should mention Cherynobol. It seems the Russians have successfully cloned humans...how else can Boris Yeltsin's apparent longevity in the face of atrocious health be accounted for? (they must be on Yeltsin number 8 or 9 by now...)

As far as Bald Eagles are concerned, if you saw the number around Vancouver Island (they're as common as crows; we had 70 or 80 following the boat one day) you might not worry about the need for cloning them. (which leads me to wonder, why is it sometimes called the "American" eagle when there seem to be more in a 20 mile radius of a small town in Canada than in the entire 48 states???)

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

Cliff Beall - 05:44pm Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3303 of 3304)

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

First things first:

Darien, I am very sorry if I caused you distress. I did not intend to ignore a distinction that you consider important. And while I posted my offending comment after your correction of Bob's remarks, I did not read your correction until after I had written my comment. You will note that I posted quite a bit of stuff that time. I normally copy the posts from the board for reading off line and I also write my posts off line. After completing my messages off line, I sometimes scan the new ones immediately before posting. And I believe, in this case, I remember reading the "Bob, bob" and noting your objection before posting, but, unfortunately, I did not re-read my message prior to posting and was unaware that I also was an offender until you pointed it out to me.

Please accept my sincere apology. But also understand that it is not really a very important distinction to me. The thing that I find most unpleasant is the idea of harvesting organs from a clone, with brain, without brain, or without head. Obviously, with respect to the brain transplant idea, a being capable of receiving a brain would need a head. Maybe that is why you consider it important. In this sense, perhaps it is.

By the way, I am interested in the headless mice you mentioned. How much do you know about that. For what reason were they created, how long did they survive and under what conditions did they "live" and so forth.

Bob, regarding the blockhead thing, is that an example of "ego stroking"? Just thought I'd ask. I can't say I'm not susceptible to it, but I do know my limitations, and I know that I am mainly winging it, particularly with the technical stuff. I wish I had a handle on this stuff that you seem to have.

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

Cliff Beall - 05:48pm Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3304 of 3304)

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

Keith, I tend to agree with you that the brain transplant idea is less objectionable than the organ harvesting idea. I am not sure I can explain why. Logically, it should make no difference, but somehow it does. Perhaps it is that the brain transplant idea seems to lack the slavery connotation that the organ harvesting idea has. Bob's logic regarding sentience--assuming the premise that a brainless "being" would truly have no awareness is valid--might seem to avoid the slavery connotation, but it does not--at least, for me.

As for the premise that removing the brain would completely negate sentience. Material from Dr. Pietsch might tend to bring that into question. According to Dr. Pietsch, in "Hologramic Mind," there is evidence of "decision making and memory in bacteria, believe it or not, organisms that don't even have a brain." I don't know that this would bear directly on the question before us, and while I do not desire to be considered too much the conservative, I do tend to be a conservative and a skeptic. The central nervous system is not isolated to the head, and there are concentrations of neurons in other parts of the body. I am not sure, for example, that the equivalent of a brain would not form in some other part of the body if the brain was removed from the head or if the head was removed.

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

Carl Nicolai - 07:19pm Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3305 of 3317)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Since people are bringing up the Russians I was reminded that some 30 years ago the Russians conducted experments using male sheep to cary fetisus to term. Implanted in the inter paratenial(sp?) cavity the only problem was if the placenta grew in such a way that the intestines were blocked. They were delivered by a C section just like females who have these type of ectopic pregnentcies. Of cource you can not seperate the placenta from where it is attached because of severe bleeding so you just stuff everything back in and wait for the body to absorb it.

So all that prevents an all male society is the lack of the ability to create eggs.

Since cloning can all ready be used to form an all female society. This is perhaps the real reason why various governments are trying to stop reproductive cloning.

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

Darien Hager - 08:18pm Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3306 of 3317)

American student in Hong Kong

I had a bunch a magazines and just stored em all away in boxes yesterday and I didn't feel like going through all of them to find the article, but here is a link to a TIME magazine online essay about it:

http://www.pathfinder.com:80/time/magazine/1998/dom/980119/essay1.html

However, I just found this thing a few minutes after I started this post and I disagree with some of the views in it.

I agree that a "New Body" Idea would seem more ethical than the "Organ farm". With the organ farm you are making something which you really have no concern for other than how you can benefit from it, but with a new body that you can transplant your brain into, it is like an investment, you have to care about it because it will be your home for a while.

I think that is what changes the issue for me, how much you should be concerned for the clone. A concept of CARING....call it irrational if you want.

For the conept of single-gender reproductive cloning, I disagree with it. First of all, people would not have any evolutionary advantages continuing through the ages, with each person a clone of their parents. And, if males(or females) were phased out of the species by that way, then what do you do when a global disaster of some sort happens... Just imagine that some sort of disaster happened and there was just none of the complicated machinery around to produce new clones... Everyone would die off without the ability to reproduce normally.

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

Robert Hedges - 11:04pm Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3307 of 3317)

Evolution is an enhancement system replicating and mutating as its pre-conscious form. In our current mode we, and the universe are killing/being killed. We have the some of the wisdom and all of the right to attempt to enhance intentionally (cloning and genetic creativity) our sub structure such that quality and its relation to the length of our life are rapidly increased. Current breeding practices are crude and realitively unconscious and, therefore, irresponsible. Yes, we will make mistakes, yes we will learn. Destination....eternal life (physical) Go Humanity Go!

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

Robert Hedges - 11:26pm Feb 14, 1998 ET (#3308 of 3317)

When we interact with other beings, the quality of our intentions affect the participants in complex ways. When we add stress to a psycho-emotional environment, the nervous system affects things like body p.h. and hormonal secretions etc, all connected to our dna integrity or destruction. As above (quality of intent) so below, the bodies physio-chemical response.... point being that we are already cloning ourselves and others by how we interact. Being disrespectful probably causes negative mutations in our fellow species and in our own. Intend well my friends! Being against cloning may cause negative mutations, only because of the mood energy associated with the concept, not the perspective itself. Please remain curious.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:36am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3309 of 3317)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Ahh, yet another weekend.

Babel,

Your logic continues to be flawless. It is really too bad about the deletion of your posts. I continue to hypothesize that free will exists, but will accept for now that it does not. There must be some information, in my opinion, that exists which we do not yet know of that, if added to your premises, would allow free will, or at least some form of it.

Someone,

Whoever suggested genetically inhibiting the brain... I doubt it would work. If you create a body which thinks it does not have a brain, it will not support one if you give it one. The blood supply will not be there, the skull will probably be small and misformed, and the hormones will be all screwed up. It would be best to physically inhibit the brain, while allowing the genetics to have the capability to support one.

Cliff,

A denouncement of ignorance is not necessarily a personal attack, but a promotion of learning.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:37am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3310 of 3317)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Bob,

The "grandson" is a sentient intelligence-- the brain-- which the body supports.

Right.

From a certain point of view, the body's only purpose is to support the brain.

I would have you consider that the body's (and the brain's) only purpose is to support the reproductive organs. Well, that is its biological purpose, its genetic purpose, its evolutionary purpose. The only reason we do anything (the only reason any life does anything) is to perpetuate itself. However, I agree that from our intellectual, sentient point of view, the body's purpose is to support the brain, only because we would rather see ourselves as the important part rather than the tool.

So, do I have a possibility? Or just good logic and bad assumptions?

I think you are assuming too much about telomeres being the absolute cause of ageing. There is still much research to be done in this respect. It seems to me that regeneration is linked more closely to induction by nearby cells. That is, the cells differentiate depending on the environment they are a part of. This is how the embryo developes in the beginning, and why young children can regrow tips of their limbs.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:38am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3311 of 3317)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

InGen,

I'd be careful, that name is copyrighted by MCA/Universal.

I don't think that right now is a good time to clone a human.

I think that we need to master the field of genetics and use it for good things, like re-populating endagered species like the Bald Eagle. I am working on my Ph.D in genetics and would someday like to do this.

Your first and second statement are contradictory. Cloning research is a means to the second.

BTW, the Bald Eagle is only an endangered species in name. It is actually booming due to the efforts of the past decade or so. Also, I don't think it was ever endangered in Canada; they are everywhere up there.

Bob,

our muscles still die en masse as we get older...

I don't think the problem is so much that they die, but that they lose protein mass -- the myofibrils that give them their contractive strength. Also, muscle cells cannot really just die as other cells can... all of the cells in a muscle strand share the same cytoplasm, so a nucleus can "die", but a "cell" can't die unless the entire strand does as well. I don't think that this is generally the case. And as far as I know, nuclei do divide in muscle cells. Personally, last year I tore a muscle in my chest while weight-lifting, and after some ice and a lot of rest, it is in perfect condition today. Obviously there was some regeneration going on in there.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:40am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3312 of 3317)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

http://lux.ucs.indiana.edu/~pietsch/home.html

I had read the "shufflebrain" paper a while ago, I think in a biology course, but I find it so interesting that I went and read the whole thing again. Then I couldn't resist... I just went and read almost the entire site. Very cool.

Anyway, while reading "Microminds", I couldn't help but think of babel's proof. It was determined in the paper that bacteria have minds in that they sense, remember, and decide. However, at the same time you have to filter through the metaphysical language, and you can't forget that all of the actions these bacteria perform are purely chemical. That is, they are a series of if-then statements about the environment -- if an attractant or repellent is out there, then it will be picked up by proteins in the cell and cause the flagella to move differently. It seems very much as though the bacteria can sense the stimulus and then make a decision, but it is actually a determinent response. We could easily program micro-robots to do essentially the same thing. This seems to support babel's theorem. Either way, read the paper, it is interesting.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:41am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3313 of 3317)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Keith,

I will continue to vigorouslt oppose "organ harvesting" as both impractical (main points already exposed) and "teetering" too close to an ethical problem.

I never understood why people are so resistant to the use of otherwise useless tissues. Maybe it is a part of whole the Western canibalism taboo. The thing is, much potentially useful material goes wasted. For instance, why not disect or perform experiments on a dead body? Especially a convicted murderer's body (for instance, to determine what makes a person psychopathic). Why not use aborted fetuses (feti?) to perform medical research? Store fetus bone marrow for potential transplant into cancer victims. "Harvest" the young, healthy body of a convicted felon for transplantable organs after he is gassed. Et cetera. So long as a person is not killed specifically for this end, I see no problem with it.

Joseph,

how else can Boris Yeltsin's apparent longevity in the face of atrocious health be accounted for? (they must be on Yeltsin number 8 or 9 by now...)

I don't find that funny at all.

Cliff,

I am not sure, for example, that the equivalent of a brain would not form in some other part of the body if the brain was removed from the head or if the head was removed.

I am.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:43am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3314 of 3317)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Carl,

Russians conducted experments using male sheep to cary fetisus

How did a placenta ever form? I thought that was a property of the uterus. Males don't have the correct hormones either, or at least not in the right concentrations.

Darien,

....call it irrational if you want.

OK, I do.

Everyone would die off without the ability to reproduce normally.

Unless we fill in the gaps with some North African frog species that has been known to spontaneously change sex in a single sex environment ;o)

But seriously, a technical objection does not make it unethical, nor illegal (at least by US law).

Robert,

point being that we are already cloning ourselves and others by how we interact

Replace the word "cloning" with "genetically engineering" and you are correct. We already perform genetic persuasion (and have for centuries). For instance, all domestic animals (dogs, cows, sheep, etc.) have been genetically engineered through breeding. Selective reproduction is forced evolution. Now we just have more control over it.

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

Bob Janitor - 03:45am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3315 of 3317)

Wow... people are starting to agree with my idea for clones for brain transplants... I hope we can still find SOMETHING to argue about :-). Come back babel, we can argue about free will!

At MSNBC.com, I just saw an article where an AIDS victim described his hardships after getting a baboon bone marrow transplant, being called "part animal" and being offered bananas. It almost sounded like science fiction. I can't believe people would act that way.

Also, they had an article where researchers found a few genes for controlling higher-order behavior. One was related to serotonin levels and was thus appropriately named "the prozac gene". Another seemed to make people more thrill-seeking, promiscuous, etc. Interesting.

If a gene is discovered that makes people almost guaranteed to be a murderer... would they get locked up without committing a crime? (BTW-- sex offenders are now being kept past their sentences in one state)

And this guy calling himself "InGen" has made me wonder what happened to the Jurassic Park premise... anyone know why we aren't watching live T-Rexes yet? Is the DNA too fragmented for a viable clone?

Being against cloning may cause negative mutations, only because of the mood energy associated with the concept, not the perspective itself. Please remain curious.

Are you saying mutations as in genetic mutations? Are you joking?

BTW-- about thought in bacteria-- yes, in a way, bacteria think in that they seek food and respond to their environment. I'm not sure about memory. But, the imps in Doom 2 also *seem* to think-- both, however, are far cries from human-level sentient, symbolically reasoning intelligence.

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

Tom Anderson - 04:08am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3316 of 3317)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Bob,

This is not at all surprising to me. But I would not call it "higher-order behavior"; it is most certainly lower-order behavior which simply influences higher-order behavior. The level of a hormone is not high-order behavior, but can drastically effect it.

If a gene is discovered that makes people almost guaranteed to be a murderer... would they get locked up without committing a crime?

No, and your mention of sex offenders is a perfect example of precedent. People are sexually attracted to a degree caused by hormones which are caused by genes. Yet action based on these hormones must be controlled, otherwise the consequences are likely to be illegal. Same applies to a murderer -- he may get extremely aggressive due to a disagreement with someone, but that must be checked. Perhaps people with high levels of certain hormones could get medical and/or psychological treatment to help prevent them from committing a crime.

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

Darien Hager - 04:58am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3317 of 3317)

American student in Hong Kong

Tom, as I said in 3301, I think that if we start to allow too much gene harvesting from criminals convicted of capital punishment without defining some very specific laws, then it might slide. In you 3313, I just have to say I have no objection for aborted fetus use and such, but specific laws with set expiration dates may have to be made. in 3301 I have a few points about the social and economic stress resulting from the "criminal organ" theme... I'm losing coherence here... I mean that we would have to be careful not to impose "mandatory organ donor" sentences for more crimes. There would be a lot of pressure to do so, with people wanting to live forever since there was a possibility. I mean, some people chug 30 vitamins a day, because they "need" the antioxidants to "prolong life" (I mean it might be possible, but how long would it prolong your life?). What would people do to keep from dying? But I digress...

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

Cliff Beall - 06:54am Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3318 of 3318)

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

Bob, "the prozac gene" certainly sound interesting. However, as I understand it the problem with antisocial behavior is caused by an excess of certain hormones, not a lack of the right ones. Nevertheless, whatever works.

Tom, you suggested medical and/or psychological treatment for antisocial behavior. I don't know what medical treatment you had in mind, but psychological treatment has always seemed to me like asking a person to have the will power to overcome a medical problem, the root cause of which appears to be the excess (or lack) of certain substances in the body. It may seem to work for a while since some people really do have will power. But it often fails since it does not address the root cause of the problem. And it isn't fair anyway. Why should some people have to maintain will power to avoid basic antisocial behavior when others do not. I have little faith in psychological treatment.

Darien, I'm still interested in the details of those headless rats. (I know I said headless mice, but that was a mistake. I sometimes get mice and rats confused, but I do know the difference.)

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

Tom Anderson - 12:05pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3319 of 3320)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

anyone know why we aren't watching live T-Rexes yet?

Have you found a piece of amber with a mosquito that very recently before dying happened to bite a T-rex? Do you know of an animal that could successfully gestate a T-rex infant? How about a problem they didn't mention in the movie... immunity to the plethora of advanced infectious bacteria and virii that have since evolved past a T-rex's primitive defenses. Or a habitat that could sustain one (including temperature and food). There are plenty of reasons.

But, the imps in Doom 2 also *seem* to think

Yeah, those buggers will track you down anywhere. How do they do that?

I submit to you (in babel's place) that we also *seem* to think. Do we just have an algorithm that is more complex than an imp, or Deep Blue, formed through evolution instead of innovation?

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

Keith Fosberg - 12:16pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3320 of 3320)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

I don't think we can adequatly answere the free-will question in any scientific sense because we can not objectively consider our actions. (The monsters in Quake II are even better BTW.)

I think the best argument against "organ harvesting" is the "eech factor." People like Cliff and myself, who are offended, but basically open to argument and thought on the matter are probably not the norm in society.

We have been asaulted on this board by scads of people who scream something to the effect, "Clones will be soulless, evil abomonations." Many governments are moving very quickly to outlaw various cloning techniques simply due to the "eech factor."

It may be advisable, for the advancement of knowledge, to steer clear of areas that seem to elicit "eech responses" in the general public until Noels "social adjustment period" has its chance to work, before we are faced with a "Copernican dilema."

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

Dawn Willis - 01:15pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3321 of 3323)

Bob Janitor and other brain transplanters: Have you ever considered what it would take to maintain these healthy but brainless bodies waiting for your old brain? Ancephalic humans die pretty quickly. Will it need a respirator? A Heart-Lung machine? Kidney dialysis? How will it be fed? Intravenous won't give the fiber you need for good intestinal function. Stomach tubes will require diaper changing and maybe urinary catheters. If you have ever seen a stroke victim or paraplegic, you know about disuse atrophy of the muscles, not to mention infected bedsores. After a few years in a coma, most humans lose bone and muscle mass and curl into a fetal position. You need to be thinking to get enough exercise to keep the body healthy, inside and out. I also suspect that one reason neurons don't regenerate is because they store memory. And without your memories, you aren't really you. Brains do wear out, at least mine certainly has!

Tom Anderson: In addition to the problems you state about dinosaurs, we still need the entire nucleus from a living cell for cloning--that's why the technique is called "somatic cell nuclear transfer." Not available for T.rex, Hitler, etc. Purified DNA does NOT work.

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

Dawn Willis - 01:55pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3322 of 3323)

The following is from a position statement issued by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (www.bio.org). "The cells that make up most of the human body are differentiated, meaning that they have achieved some sort of specialized function such as blood, skin, heart or brain cells. The precursor cells that led to differetiated cells come from the embryo and are called stem cells. Stem cells have the capacity for self-renewal, meaning that they can produce more of themselves. They can also differentiate into a variety of cell types with different functions. In the last decade, studies of mouse stem cells show that they can differentiate in vitro or in vivo into a wide variety of specialized cell types. Adults do not have many stem cells. When differentiated cells are damaged, such as cardiac muscle after a heart attack, adult heart cells do not have the ability to regenerate. If stem cells could be derived from human sources and induced to differentiate in vitro, they could potentially be used for transplantation and tissue repair. Using the individual's own DNA, the stem cell would be compatible and not rejected by that person."

Research with stem cells is just in its infancy, but the research is necessary to learn how to get stem cells to differentiate into the tissues of choice (as we can already do to some extent in mice). This research could also lead to the correction of genetic defects in the stem cells, before transplanting them to the host. We can't do this yet, and probably never will without stem cell research. Stem cell research might even lead to the development of universal donor cells that would give physicians a new and virtually endless supply of stem cells to treat a wide variety of illnesses. A supply of compatible bone marrow and digestive epithelial cells would eliminate much of the toxicity of high dose chemotherapy in cancer patients, for example. Mollie O, or whoever said that replacing diseased tissues doesn't correct the prob

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

Dawn Willis - 02:01pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3323 of 3323)

Mollie O, or whoever said that replacing diseased tissues doesn't correct the problem was wrong. In most cases,(heart attack, degenerative arthritis, macular degeneration, burns, spinal cord injury) it will, especially if the diseased tissue is completely removed first.

The Bond/Frist/Gregg bill was tabled after Jesse Helms, of all people, expressed interest in the possibilites of stem cell research for his daughter's diabetes. As long as the goal is not to create another human being (although I feel certain this will happen someday, somewhere), research dealing with pre-implantation embryos derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer may actually be allowed to proceed, if the Kennedy-Feinstein bill is approved. At least Kennedy-Feinstein will be brought to committee for mark-up before being taken to the floor for a vote.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:43pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3324 of 3327)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

Tom, you suggested medical and/or psychological treatment for antisocial behavior...

The medical treatment I had in mind is some type of hormone replacement or gland stimulation. Psychological treatment can be very effective... there are a few tricks you can do to increase your will power (one of which is simply acknowledging the problem). Life isn't fair; if a person happens to have a hormone imbalance, they had better learn to control it. If they wait 'til after they commit a crime, it is too late. Of course, nobody can force a person to change their chemical makeup or their personality before doing anything wrong, so it must be strictly voluntary. It can also be a part of a convicted criminal's sentence (if they don't get capital punishment).

Keith,

I don't think we can adequatly answere the free-will question in any scientific sense because we can not objectively consider our actions.

I don't think that is true. We have been objectively considering our actions since the dawn of psychology.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:43pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3325 of 3327)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

(The monsters in Quake II are even better BTW.)

I wouldn't know... I don't really have enough time to be reading this message board let alone playing games. The last game I played was WarCraft II sometime last summer.

I think the best argument against "organ harvesting" is the "eech factor."

That is not a valid argument. If it were, we would never even have had surgery.

Many governments are moving very quickly to outlaw various cloning techniques simply due to the "eech factor."

It is unconstitutional for the United States government to do so.

It may be advisable, for the advancement of knowledge, to steer clear of areas that seem to elicit "eech responses" in the general public

Maybe for the comfort of the ignorant, but not for the advancement of knowledge, nor for the betterment of humanity.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:44pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3326 of 3327)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Dawn,

In addition to the problems you state about dinosaurs, we still need the entire nucleus from a living cell for cloning

I think it is possible, if somewhat improbable, that at the time of entombment, there were no nasty little decomposers in the mosquito or in the direct surrounding area, so that it may have been perfectly preserved, with entact nuclei.

In most cases,(heart attack, degenerative arthritis, macular degeneration, burns, spinal cord injury) it will [correct the problem], especially if the diseased tissue is completely removed first.

However, not if it is a genetic disease, since the new tissue will be equally prone to it. And also, if the entire organ is diseased, then it must be replaced in full.

The Bond/Frist/Gregg bill was tabled...

I think all of them should be. There are no ethical problems with cloning, so the government should not get involved.

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

Cliff Beall - 04:11pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3327 of 3327)

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

Dawn, first of all, good for Jesse Helms, of all people. My question is, what do you think will happen after the Kennedy-Feinstein bill gets into committee? I personally think it may die a natural death. In favor of its dying, I think, will be the call by BIO (reference letter by Carl B. Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization) for the FDA to assert its authority on cloning.

The FDA has taken some criticism from those who want the government to butt out on cloning. But with BIO firmly behind the FDA role, it would certainly appear that the FDA already has the authority to prevent what the Kennedy-Feinstein bill attempts to prevent. In committee hearings, I am sure this point will be made by somebody, probably BIO. If enough members of the Congress and Senate are convinced the FDA intends to act aggressively in this area, they may decide that no law is necessary. Couple that with the natural tendency of Republicans not to want to support bills by Democrats generally, I think there is a chance that the Kennedy-Feinstein bill will fail. And if it fails, it may be that the rest of the currently proposed cloning bills will fail also.

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

Dawn Willis - 06:07pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3328 of 3328)

Cliff, I hope you are right and that Congress just keeps hands off. Maybe the FDA will step up and exercise their authority. I don't know whether it is the FDA or HCFA who has authority to regulate genetic testing, but they aren't doing it.

Tom Anderson, I don't think it is likely that a nucleus, even encased in amber, is still intact. Certainly not still alive. DNA would still be identifiable, but chromosomal structure is lost quickly when cells die (i.e.--no more oxygen). Also all of the nuclear organelles like the centrioles and filaments that provide the scaffolding for mitosis. Right now, the nucleus to be cloned must be taken from a living cell (which includes cells frozen under osmotic conditions and kept at temperatures of at least -80C).

The placenta, as I recall it, is made up of cells from the embryonic trophoblast and is not derived from the uterus. A few years back a woman gave birth (surgically) to a healthy child that had gestated in her abdominal cavity outside the uterus. That gave rise to the idea (exploited in an Arnold Schwarznegger movie) that a man with proper hormonal preparation could gestate a baby, too. I don't think it has been tried!

One of the greatest potentials of stem cell research is that genetic defects can be repaired in the stem cell, whereas repairing them in the intact person would be much more difficult. The repair would be easiest for recessive diseases in which the presence of the defective gene doesn't matter as long as the good one is there--like cystic fibrosis. Even if the inserted gene is only a cDNA copy of the coding region inserted who knows where in the chromosomes, the cell's functions can be tested before injecting it into a person. Knocking out a bad gene is more difficult, but it has been done in mouse stem cells. The success rate isn't very good, but all you need is one. Then you expand your population from that one successful clone.

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

Bob Janitor - 08:08pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3329 of 3333)

The monsters in Quake II are even better BTW

Have you seen the reaper bot for Quake 1 by Stephen Polge? That has to be the nastiest piece of fuzzy logic AI I've ever seen... they make Quake II's monsters look like unevolved pond scum. I'm pretty good at Quake, but that thing will kick my butt at the highest difficulty level.

Have you ever considered what it would take to maintain these healthy but brainless bodies waiting for your old brain?

That's certainly a valid point, Dawn. Maybe liquid suspension would put pressure on the bones to be stronger, and flowing water would wash waste away. Perhaps electrodes firing in a series could be used for a brainless "exercise program"?

And after these coma victims recover, do they regain all/almost all of their original bone/muscle mass?

I also suspect that one reason neurons don't regenerate is because they store memory

Dawn, neurons do regenerate, although to a limited extent in mammals. BTW, muscle cells also regenerate. And no one knows where memory is; some speculate it's in RNA, but all evidence supporting that has been highly controversial.

Look at the hydra, one of my favorite critters. Cut this dude in half symmetrically-- including the brain-- and both haves fully regenerate the neural tissue and what's more, researchers have found both haves will retain any learned behavior from the "original" hydra.

Rat brains have been mutilated beyond recognition as they run mazes, but that didn't really impair their ability to memorize and recall mazes.

So, IMHO, I think it's fair to say that neural regeneration is inhibited not because of memory-- but because of a inhibitory chemical researchers have found.

Research with stem cells is just in its infancy, but the research is necessary to learn how to get stem cells to differentiate into the tissues of choice

Again, certainly a good idea, but just getting an entirely new body until our understanding of all the mechanisms leading t

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

Bob Janitor - 08:08pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3330 of 3333)

(con't)

leading to "death by natural causes" is complete is better, IMHO. We don't know if new stem cells will really extend our lives by any significant margin, or what exactly causes old age death. Telomers, lack of good regeneration, and stem cell probably all play a part.

The last game I played was WarCraft II sometime last summer.

Tom, all work and no play isn't good for you :-).

It is unconstitutional for the United States government to do so.

Where in the constitution does it say this?

In addition to the problems you state about dinosaurs, we still need the entire nucleus from a living cell for cloning

Wouldn't it be possible to remove the chromosones and other genetic information from the nucleus of the cell and insert recombiant DNA from corrected dinosaur DNA?

that a man with proper hormonal preparation could gestate a baby, too. I don't think it has been tried!

Well, I sure wouldn't want to try it :-).

I think you are assuming too much about telomeres being the absolute cause of ageing.

I never said they were the ONLY cause, but I said they were one factor out of many... probably even a significant one.

But I would not call it "higher-order behavior"

I would. It doesn't affect the individual neuron so much as it affects the overall outcome. But whatever, dumb thing to argue about.

because they "need" the antioxidants to "prolong life"

Not a bad idea, since free radicals (O2-) do wreck havoc on your body, but they're forgetting WHY they need antioxidants... namely, lack of superoxide dismutase and catalase (both proteins).

What would people do to keep from dying?

Is that a rhetorical question?

One of the greatest potentials of stem cell research is that genetic defects can be repaired in the stem cell

Won't those "corrected" cells then be rejected by the body?

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

Bob Janitor - 08:24pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3331 of 3333)

Oh yeah, one more thing-- about how the body doesn't support the brain, but the brain and body support the reproductive organs-- well, from another viewpoint, the body's job is just to support the appendix-- that thing isn't used for ANYTHING, so obviously the rest of the body is just servicing it :-).

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

Cliff Beall - 09:14pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3332 of 3333)

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

Dawn Willis: Cliff, I hope you are right and that Congress just keeps hands off. Maybe the FDA will step up and exercise their authority. I don't know whether it is the FDA or HCFA who has authority to regulate genetic testing, but they aren't doing it.

Wow, I guess that burst my bubble. In response, I decided to put together the strongest argument I could that legislation is not needed. Here it is:

I thought it was set in stone. First, there was the letter from Carl B. Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) to Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. In this letter, Feldbaum gave several reasons why he thought FDA could take jurisdiction.

Following this, there were statements by Dr. Michael Friedman, FDA's acting commissioner saying that, "We're not only able to move, we're prepared to move," and "Through the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act we do have the authority to regulate human cloning, and we are prepared to assert that authority."

In response, Feldbaum said, "It's been a public and media assumption that there is nothing on the books that would even slow or stop Dr. Seed," According to Feldbaum, FDA intervention "creates at least some breathing space."

The point is, according to the FDA decision, human cloning is considered to be a cellular or genetic therapy that requires prior approval by the FDA. It is, therefore, illegal to perform this procedure without FDA approval.

End Argument:

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

Cliff Beall - 09:15pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3333 of 3333)

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

But after having written the argument, I see its weaknesses. Congress will never buy it. I therefore have decided to support Kennedy-Feinstein. If we have to have a law, it might as well be that one.

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

Tom Anderson - 09:39pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3334 of 3337)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Dawn,

I don't think it is likely that a nucleus, even encased in amber, is still intact. Certainly not still alive.

Is a nucleus ever considered alive?

The placenta, as I recall it, is made up of cells from the embryonic trophoblast and is not derived from the uterus.

Blood vessels from the uterus must meet the chorioallantoic membrane, or the embryo will not be nurished.

Bob,

Have you seen the reaper bot for Quake 1 by Stephen Polge? That has to be the nastiest piece of fuzzy logic AI I've ever seen...

Do they have free will? Why or why not?

Tom, all work and no play isn't good for you :-).

No kidding.

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

Tom Anderson - 09:40pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3335 of 3337)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Where in the constitution does it say this?

Constitution of the United States, Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Constitution of the United States, Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The "eech" factor is not sufficient to deprive citizens of their rights, privileges, or immunities. And it could very well be construed as a religious objection. Seeing as it does not effect anyone besides the patient who persues the procedure, it does not infringe on the rights of anyone else, and cannot be made illegal since it would be an unnecessary denial of the essential right to life.

Won't those "corrected" cells then be rejected by the body?

The immune system never sees the genes, only the the proteins on the membrane. As long as they don't change, there will be no rejection.

well, from another viewpoint, the body's job is just to support the appendix

It is vestigial; it used to serve a purpose. And that purpose was to support the reproductive organs just like the brain and the rest of the body.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:40pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3336 of 3337)

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

Bob Janitor: Where in the constitution does it say this?

Bob, I kind of wish you hadn't said that. We have been through that before and it so wearies the spirit. And Tom will probably write three pages of stuff completely beside the point. But since you brought it up, I might as well say it:

Tom, listen to this:

If Kennedy-Feinstein is passed into law, there is not a chance in hell it will ever be ruled unconstitutional.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:42pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3337 of 3337)

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

Oh well, not in time again :-).

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

Robert Hedges - 09:45pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3338 of 3339)

The Physical Immortality Project

Humans are already cloning people. It's called sex. Just because it's "natural" doesn't give it automatic sanctity. Tornados and supernovas are natural. We breed now using genetic roulette and denial of responsibility. That shouldn't be too hard to improve upon in the lab. If you need a law, make fear and ignorance illegal. Go humanity Go.

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:13pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3339 of 3339)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff Beall - #3336

Tom, listen to this:

If Kennedy-Feinstein is passed into law, there is not a chance in hell it will ever be ruled unconstitutional.

The impact of making cloning an illegal means of reproduction has repercussions far beyond what the legislators can immagine. All the governments in the world, even by extensive use of capital punishnemt in some places can not even stop illegal drug use. Do you seriously beleive that if people let the government tell them how to reproduce their inalienable rights will not have been seriously compromised. Inalienable is defigned by webster as "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred" Since you cannot surrender such a right all you can do is not enforce it. Do these legislators think they are going to inforce laws against these rights in the "Land of the free and the home of the brave"?

I dont beleive they can. What they can do is to put the U.S. in a noncompetative position in human cloning research. For instance the knowledge of how to convert a somatic cell into a stem cell.

One of the problems is the stigma of being born of an illegal action. What will you do for these ones? In general the law has held that people who parent a child by an illegal act, such as rape, loose their parental rights. Are you going to take cloned children away from their parent(s)?

Think it over.

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

Bob Janitor - 11:20pm Feb 15, 1998 ET (#3340 of 3341)

It is vestigial; it used to serve a purpose. And that purpose was to support the reproductive organs just like the brain and the rest of the body.

"The appendix is a slender projection from that pouch [cecum]. The appendix has no known digestive functions. It may have roles in defense against infection." (Starr, 521)

In other words, they THINK it might do something, but they haven't proven it. Kinda like 90% of Microsoft code :-).

RE: Constitution right to cloning.

Tom, those are all AMENDMENTS... not the constitution itself.

unnecessary denial of the essential right to life.

And abortion isn't?

Do they [reaper bots] have free will? Why or why not?

Well, I dunno. Every time I try and ask them, they kill me! Ingrates.

I don't think it is likely that a nucleus, even encased in amber, is still intact. Certainly not still alive.

I'm not saying that you can make a dinosaur clone with the current nuclear fusion technique. But, fact is, the dino DNA is out there, and we can theoretically put the DNA in a cell and produce a clone. Of course, that's easier said than done.

Yes, it's probably damaged, but can we recover enough so that we can identify what kingdom/phylum etc the DNA comes from? And can we look for two strands that share many similarities but overlap where one is damaged and the other is not?

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

Cliff Beall - 12:03am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3341 of 3341)

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

Carl Nicolai: Do these legislators think they are going to inforce laws against these rights in the "Land of the free and the home of the brave"?

Yes, that is exactly what they think they are going to do.

Carl Nicolai: I dont beleive they can. What they can do is to put the U.S. in a noncompetative position in human cloning research. For instance the knowledge of how to convert a somatic cell into a stem cell.

My understanding is that Kennedy-Feinstein in its present form does not affect the research to which you refer. According to Dawn, "As long as the goal is not to create another human being (although I feel certain this will happen someday, somewhere), research dealing with pre-implantation embryos derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer may actually be allowed to proceed, if the Kennedy-Feinstein bill is approved."

That is the reason I support it. As long as it is not expanded in committee to include medical research, it is probably the best we can expect. I would oppose any such expansion.

Carl Nicolai: Think it over.

There is nothing to think over. The jig is up. The game is over. At this point, deciding whether a law should be passed has changed to which law will be passed. The least damaging law that has a chance is Kennedy-Feinstein. And don't expect any help from the courts. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and there is not even a prayer that the current Supreme Court would rule Kennedy-Feinstein unconstitutional.

But don't blame the "ignorant fools," who had their buttons pushed, they just simply disagree with you. And don't blame congress, they just prefer to be re-elected. Blame that arrogant Seed, and some of the people on this board, who pushed all the wrong buttons. (At least, that is the way I see it.)

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

Cliff Beall - 12:31am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3342 of 3342)

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

Tom Anderson: unnecessary denial of the essential right to life.

Bob Janitor: And abortion isn't?

Good point Bob. Currently, there are four Justices who would overturn Roe. But the chances are that one or more of those will retire or die before another Justice with a compatible view will be appointed. I would doubt that Roe will be overturned any time soon. However, you are likely to see additional restriction imposed by the lower courts in view of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992)

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

Tom Anderson - 01:51am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3343 of 3353)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

If Kennedy-Feinstein is passed into law, there is not a chance in hell it will ever be ruled unconstitutional.

You are wrong. Given a good case, it absolutely must be so ruled -- because it is. Reproduction is an inalienable right. You cannot possibly argue that anyone has the right to deny a law-abiding citizen the right to reproduce; that is against everything this country stands for. And you certainly cannot tell a person how they can reproduce for the same reasons. Should this law be passed, it will not be long before either the Supreme Court reviews it and decides it straight out, or the American Civil Liberty Union makes a case.

Bob,

And abortion isn't [a denial of right to life]?

No, it's not. An unborn fetus is not a person any more than the decision to have a child is. Aborting a fetus is the same as deciding not to have sex in the first place. However, forcing a person not to grow life-saving cloned organs is such a denial.

Do they [reaper bots] have free will? Well, I dunno. Every time I try and ask them, they kill me! Ingrates.

Ha ha ha, that was very funny! But seriously, can you tell the difference between a human in deathmatch and a computer AI? (yeah, 'cause the 'puters are smarter, right? ;o)

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

Tom Anderson - 01:52am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3344 of 3353)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

Yes, [denying rights] is exactly what [the legislaters] think they are going to do.

It won't last long even if they do succeed in passing the law. And if it does persist, well... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ...I'll be the first to raise a pen in one hand and a gun in the other, with the blessings of our founding fathers.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:11am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3345 of 3353)

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

Tom, well all I can say is you'd better get your pen and your gun.

By the way, who do you think the "people" are. The "people" will support the law overwhelmingly. As for me, as long as they leave the medical research alone, I will be happy enough.

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

Bob Janitor - 03:43am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3346 of 3353)

Reproduction is an inalienable right

Well, unfortunately that is your interpretation of the constitution-- and while I agree with you, politicians do not. If I made a death threat against you, would that be legal? Can I buy an assault rifle? Can I say "hey baby" without getting sued? Can I yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? Can I send a copy of PGP to my friend in Germany?

Point is... politicians are continuing to take away our freedom piece by piece.

(rant off)

Furthermore, it wasn't too long ago that the gov't was sterilizing "the impure" against their will.

An unborn fetus is not a person any more than the decision to have a child is.

Untrue. A fetus has a neural network and is a sentient being. I cannot support the murder of a sentient being out of convienience. Survival, yes. If you can justify killing a sentient being out of convienience, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

But seriously, can you tell the difference between a human in deathmatch and a computer AI?

Actually, while the reaper bots do play under the same rules as the player, are highly skilled, and learn they way you fight and where items are (and the map layout), they do not have the variability of behavior associated with a human player. Furthermore, they cannot form a new plan of attack and execute it, or cooperate and communicate with other players in a teamplay environment.

I'll be the first to raise a pen in one hand and a gun in the other

The pen won't work, because it's made in China (outsourced, of course, eroding the middle class, destroying American families and jobs), and you'll only be able to buy a hunting rifle and have to wait seven days for it.

As for me, as long as they leave the medical research alone, I will be happy enough.

From paranoia.com:

"When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.

When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.

When they too

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

Bob Janitor - 03:53am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3347 of 3353)

(con't)

When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.

Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it."

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

Carl Nicolai - 04:09am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3348 of 3353)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

The increasing polarization over what constitutes a protected life form is what the clone wars will be about.

Cliff you are supportig a law which gives the government the ability to controll peoples reproductive choices. Given that cloning becomes very easy to do many people are going to want to use thoes methods. They are going to resist even unto death. I have a friend who years ago excaped from the Soviet Union. One of the things he told me went like this. "Look Carl If it were just me and my wife we could have indured the situation but when we looked at our son and knew what he would face we knew we had to excape."

People get very serious about their famlies. They will spend 10,s of thousands of dollars to have a family. Does anyone think thoes people will obey a law which prevents them from reproducing. Having a family is one of the supreme joys in life.

Only a slave or someone totally defenceless lets "other people" make thoes kinds of choices for them.

As I understand the law is an intent law. So as long as someone dosent intend to create a human is it ok to do so? This is beginning to sound like "tyranny over the mind of man".

Initially people wont get angry though. They will just vote with their dollars and their feet.

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

Keith Fosberg - 06:56am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3349 of 3353)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Tom Anderson,

I was disappointed in your response to me RE: "The "eech" factor.

I feel that you (quite unintentionaly) made a "strawman" of my point. I was not defending the actual value of the "eech factor," but instead I was evaluating its impact.

Within hours of the announcement of success with Dolly our president was calling strongly for a ban. Several European nations are following suit. Hundreds of people have prophesiesed everything from slavery to world dominatiion.

The "eech factor" has little or no intrinsic value, but to ignore its impact on law and society is to fly into a brick wall of ignorance and superstition.

Instead of dogmatically beating ourselves to a pulp, and sacrificing the incredible advances to medical research offered by cloning technology, I feel it would be better to give ground to the "eech factor" in the more controversial areas in order to preserve the much more critical area of medical research.

There won't be any "headless Bobs" without research first anyway.

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

Keith Fosberg - 07:07am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3350 of 3353)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

I also have a note regarding the Constitutional impact.

First, Bob Janitor -- distinguiging between the Constitution and its subsequent admendments is non-sequiter as it effects Tom's argument.

Tom,

Your Constitutional argument has value, but I do not think it is as cut and dried as you say it is.

Banning cloning for reproduction would not directly infringe upon a person's right to reproduce. It would (in certain cases) effect a person's ability to reproduce. Since this restriction would not involve removing an existing option, but rather preventing a new option it is not a clear case of a limitation of this right.

It is, IMO, a fight worth having, and I am on your side, but I think it is important to realise that this will be new ground. There is no precedent, for or against, to define the parameters of restricting a capability that does not currently exist as it may apply to expanding the capability of a person to exercise their rights.

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

Carl Nicolai - 08:27am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3351 of 3353)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref Keith Fosberg -#3350 Technology is constantly creating new rights. Unless the Constitution specificly gives these rights to the federal or state governments they belong to "the people".

As an example a few years ago I invented a solar powered machine that removed water from the air and put it into liquid form. Now water rights as they apply to the ground aquafer and ground water etc have been developed over many years. Now however the rights to the air auuafer have to be considered. I could find only one case on the subject and it had to do with one state seeding the clouds that would eventually travel over another.

By using such a machine I start to have the right to use that supply of water. I should be able to file a claim on it. The flow of air can be compared to a river water right. quack quack quack

As I see it my cells are chattel property when seperated from my body. I have the right to do anything I want to with them until they turn into something that has it's own rights. (like a child)

If I change one of them into them into an effective zygote that cell is still my property.

So the question revolves arround my right to implant them in my body and grow a child.

Trying to limit what I do with these cells would involve *new* powers of the government.

Regulating the technology that can produce a human involves *new* powers of the government.

The only thing the government has the legal ability to do is prevent me form damaging myself or others. Even this can be called into question when the rights of individuals are concerned.

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

Keith Fosberg - 09:33am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3352 of 3353)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Very good Carl -- I admit defeat.

I still think the consideration of backlash inregards to the "eech factor" bears carefull attention.

Being right has not always won the day, especially in the face of enormous emotional opposition.

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

Bob Janitor - 10:46am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3353 of 3353)

I emailled Dr. Pietsch, author of shufflebrain the following:

Were any experiments ever done with transplanting mammilian brains? Could a mammilian transplanted brain re-establish contact with the peripheral nervous system and brain stem or does the lack of regeneration require say, fetal neural tissue to be used?

And recieved this reply:

There's an exponentially growing literature on mammalian brain grafting, much of it involving fetal tissue, human included. Much of the work on humans has been aimed at treating Parkinsonism. Here's an on-line article on the subject: http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/anderson/kal.html

Paul Pietsch, PhD Professor Emeritus Indiana University, Bloomington, IN USA

http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/home.html

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

Dawn Willis - 11:23am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3354 of 3358)

Tom Anderson, Bob Janitor: In somatic cell nuclear transfer, very little time elapses from the moment the nucleus is extracted from a living cell and the time it is placed into an enucleated egg--so yes, I call it living as long as it retains the capacity to divide. And even keeping cells alive through freezing isn't easy. You have to gradually increase the concentrations of something like DMSO or glycerin so the cells won't form ice crystals, and then gradually lower the temperature to -80C. The thawing and removal of the preservatives is done in steps as well. Even then, 90% of carefully frozen cells die. The nucleus is a lot more than just DNA, and while you can put in a few extra genes and have them function, you cannot completely substitute an entire organism's genome and expect its developmental program to be played out. It is important that specific DNA sequences be physically located in relation to other specific sequences, and it is impossible to extract DNA in chromosomal length pieces (unless they are very short). We don't have any dinosaur eggs, either, although maybe a turtle egg would do. Or ostrich, if the dinosaurs were actually warm-blooded. What did they use in "Jurassic Park?" I doubt very much if the nuclei of any extinct creature or dead human (unless carefully frozen) can ever be resurrected, although a few of their genes might be.

Cliff, as long as Kennedy-Feinstein lets the stem cell research continue, I will be pleased. Of course, someone will eventually clone a human somewhere. When he/she turns out to be a perfectly normal human being, maybe our ban on cloning for reproductive purposes will be lifted. By that time, maybe we will have figured out who the clone's legal parents are. There is a case in the CA courts of a little girl conceived with anonymous egg and sperm, surrogate uterus. The couple who "ordered" the baby are now divorced, and the male says he doesn't have to pay child support since he only agreed to pay for t

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

Dawn Willis - 11:28am Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3355 of 3358)

pay for the procedure. Neither partner adopted the child, and the woman does not want to now because that will make her the only responsible parent. So legally, the girl has no parents. For determining the legal parentage of cloned humans, the issues will be even more complicated.

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

Bob Janitor - 12:12pm Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3356 of 3358)

I doubt very much if the nuclei of any extinct creature or dead human (unless carefully frozen) can ever be resurrected

Dawn, I never said the current nuclear fusion technique applied to dinosaurs! I understand its limitations.

you cannot completely substitute an entire organism's genome and expect its developmental program to be played out

although maybe a turtle egg would do. Or ostrich

Are the above statements contradictory?

Do the nuclear envelope, nucleolus, nucleoplasm and chromatin differ so much between say, avian and dinosaur cells that the DNA cannot be substituted? At what point do animal cells become too different to "substitute genomes"? The species level? Genus?

Even if we can't do it today, don't you think it's a bit premature to speculate that even if we find a complete strand of dinosaur DNA we can never get it to replicate, even by reproducing all the genetic information into a "live", recombiant DNA strand?

(arguing with a PhD... I'm just ASKING for trouble :-) )

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

Cliff Beall - 01:38pm Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3357 of 3358)

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

Bob Janitor: Furthermore, it wasn't too long ago that the gov't was sterilizing "the impure" against their will.

Fortunately, that is something the "people" will not stand for. Credit Keith's "eech factor."

Carl Nicolai: Cliff you are supportig a law which gives the government the ability to controll peoples reproductive choices.

Yes, that is true. And if it were my choice, I would limit reproductive choices further. For example, I would probably impose additional limits on abortion.

Carl Nicolai: As I understand the law is an intent law. So as long as someone dosent intend to create a human is it ok to do so? This is beginning to sound like "tyranny over the mind of man".

In reviewing Dawn's post, I see that she did put it that way. Actually, I have not read the bill and have merely taken Dawn's word that it will not limit medical research. But I do know who Kennedy and Feinstein are. Regarding Tom's reference to the American Civil Liberties Union, I must say I find the concept of the American Civil Liberties Union opposing a law bearing the Names of Kennedy and Feinstein incredible interesting.

Keith Fosberg: Instead of dogmatically beating ourselves to a pulp, and sacrificing the incredible advances to medical research offered by cloning technology, I feel it would be better to give ground to the "eech factor" in the more controversial areas in order to preserve the much more critical area of medical research.

I agree.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:21pm Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3358 of 3358)

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

Bob Janitor: (arguing with a PhD... I'm just ASKING for trouble :-) )

I have no problem with that. PhD's are human. I would argue with Dawn if she ever says anything with which I disagree.

BTW, Dawn, what does MPH stand for? I saw a page on the web that contained your name and credentials, and behind the PhD was the letters MPH. Maybe I am showing my ignorance, but I don't know what it means and was wondering.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:52pm Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3359 of 3359)

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

Dawn Willis: There is a case in the CA courts of a little girl conceived with anonymous egg and sperm, surrogate uterus. The couple who "ordered" the baby are now divorced, and the male says he doesn't have to pay child support since he only agreed to pay for the procedure. Neither partner adopted the child, and the woman does not want to now because that will make her the only responsible parent. So legally, the girl has no parents.

That is really sad. I assume that someone will want to adopt the child and give her a good home. Perhaps there will be a happy ending. But it does make you wonder about the incredibly insensitive, arrogant and self-centered nature of some people.

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

Carl Nicolai - 03:29pm Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3360 of 3360)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Keith, Cliff et all (last several posts)

The "argument" is a search for the unkonwn. Civilized people respect the openiion of the people they choose to communicate with.

By respect I mean the origional meaning respectere (sp?) ie. To look again.

The argument is the search for the unknown. We argue on this board to, among other things, find out what we havent looked at yet.

This is a kind of open think tank where the participents can express radically different views, from all over the world, to air their openions.

In this sence we are indeed privledged to be able to network together. (clap hands for the CNN moderators)

The *force* of "government" one way or the other will not be as important as the openions we share here.

I have learned that when someone totally trashes your argument the correct thing to do is celibrate by laughter. If they realley screw your brain up the comment "interesting" seems to convey the feeling.

Human cloning combined with genetic engineering opens op the possibility of planed and widely deseminated species controlled evolution for the first time.

Each human has the power and the responcibility to insure the survival of the best within us.

Most people inherently understand this. Most collections of people (ie. governments) do not.

{end rant}

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

Cliff Beall - 04:36pm Feb 16, 1998 ET (#3361 of 3361)

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

Carl Nicolai: The argument is the search for the unknown. We argue on this board to, among other things, find out what we havent looked at yet.

Yes, for example, the invitro case in California that Dawn mentioned really disturbed me because it brought home to me an issue of which I had not given much thought. My natural inclination is to suppose that people will, for the most part, act decently. But sometimes they disappoint. On this basis, it might be said that the freedom to clone at will, by people who may or may not have the child's interest at heart, may not be in society's best interest. The same can be said for natural reproduction. If it were not true, abortion would not be an issue.

Do we limit natural reproduction merely because people sometimes exhibit a lack of responsibility for their own actions? If the answer is no, then, logically, how do we justify a limitation on reproduction by another method, cloning, for example, for that reason? And yet, since it appears that the limitation--actually, a ban--on human cloning is going to be imposed, in any case, I must admit that I feel relieved now that it appears that the problems associated with human cloning will now be put off for a time.

To be perfectly frank, however, I don't think the next generation, or a generation a thousand years from now, will have a better handle on the questions that arises from it, such as the "legal" parentage of clones, nor will they have a better grip on the associated problems.

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

Darien Hager - 04:07am Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3362 of 3370)

American student in Hong Kong

Just FYI, I'm still here but I have a lot of work so I can't post too much, but if someone comes up with something really inflammatory, then I'll devote a little more time. Debates where everyone agrees tend to be boring (not that I am saying this one is)

Yes, I too think that a few laws about parental rights, genome rights, and et cetera will need to be ironed out before the technology can really be used, if it is allowed to be used.

I would also point out that with a world of over 6,000,000,000,000 people (zer0s are for effect :) ) We may want to be careful about population. With people out there possibly living longer in the future with new organs, stem cells, and the like; Not to mention the people who may clone themselves to have kids, and add that to existing population growth.... <insert various enviromental, social, etc. problems here>

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

Marv Dyck - 04:22am Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3363 of 3370)

Adoption Papers should've been signed at the time the "Order" was taken , the same goes for cloning , adoption papers signed before the work starts .

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

Bob Janitor - 04:50am Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3364 of 3370)

We may want to be careful about population.

Well, we haven't reached our carrying capacity yet, and spare immigration the US is actually experiencing negative population growth! All the so-called "first world nations" have very little to negative growth.

Why?

Technology. People are finding they don't need kids to help on the farm-- since most people DON'T work on farms... enhanced prodution means more specialization of careers.

The areas that you see tremendous growth in are those that probably won't be able to afford all these life-extension techniques anyway-- the so-called "third world nations".

Why do those countries have such relatively poor economies?

It's not natural resources. Africa, South America and Russia all have tremendous natural resources, perhaps even surpassing those of the US.

It's because of politics. A lack of infrastructure and extreme segregation between the elite ruling class and lower near-slave class slow progress. But not stop it entirely.

Things are getting better-- slowly. It's just too bad so many people have to suffer along the way.

Anyway, my point is: overpopulation is a political problem, not a scientific problem.

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:33am Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3365 of 3370)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Bob Janitor:

Well as uasual I agree with you, but lets talk about multi zygote cloning and other strange things.

You take 2 zygote cells or more (6 has been done with mice)and place them together and wa-la you get a multi cell person.

As long as they are all male of female no problem. Other wise you get "true" hermaphrodism. About 3 weeks ago there was a story on CNN about one such occurance using IVF tecknology. I dont know what the upshot was but I'll bet the lawyers are sharpening their knives.

The point is that people are going to make mistakes and in come cases bring humans that are much different than the "peas in a pod" type we are use to.

Also there are several types of human species. One has only 3 members at last count and I'm told it normally takes 6 to survive the inbreading that is required. Cloning is the only way such a human species will survive. You get a lot of freeks by crossing them at first but eventually the dice fall in the right direction.

Now if a species of birds is worth spending millions of dollars saving, how about a human species.

Species are uasually defigned by the ability to cross breed, and this depends on genetic distance. Genetic distance is a strange thing. People can look the same but be far apart, or they can look quite different and be close.

This distance means that a husband and wife may not be able to produce a breadable offspring even they could with just about anyone else.

Almost every one *Wants* to think humans are a part of the same species. It's just not true.

The vast majority of the people can't even handle the bent and twisted and erronious idea of race. Seperate species of humans ought to drive them bonkers?

We dont require cloning to educate them but it would help. In fact instead of suppessing knowledge about what is human (as has been systematicly done by the medical profession) we should be letting people know that humans are much varied than we are lead to bel

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

L W FIndley - LaRoucheite - 12:14pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3366 of 3370)

See where the scientist that cloned Dolly "may" have made a mistake?

(Daniel 7, Revelation 13)

Beware the Vth Prophecy of Lourdes!

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

James Madden - 12:43pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3367 of 3370)

L W FIndley - LaRoucheite 2/17/98 12:14pm

Interestngly, even "Dolly's Daddy" is against Human Cloning", partially on Oedipal grounds:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9802/17/cloning.scientist.ap/

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

Bob Janitor - 01:23pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3368 of 3370)

hermaphrodism

Yup... occasionally, hermaphrodites happen.

People can look the same but be far apart, or they can look quite different and be close.

Look at the relative genetic distance that's been achieved just by selective breeding in dogs... but, we humans are very similar to each other... in terms of genetics and appearence.

Almost every one *Wants* to think humans are a part of the same species. It's just not true.

Species are part of an artifical classification system. While there are genetic differences, I don't think I'd classify these subtle differences as an entirely different species. And you're the first person I've met who's disagreed. Varying amounts of melanin and an extra leg muscle don't constitute a new species, IMHO.

Also there are several types of human species.

Nope. Just homo sapiens. All the previous homo species (austrolopithicus, homo habilis, homo erectus, neanderthal et al) are gone... whether by death or interbreeding with homo sapiens.

I'm told it normally takes 6 to survive the inbreading that is required.

Cloning is the only way such a human species will survive

The above statements are contradictory. Inbreeding isn't going to be helped by cloning... the "evil" of inbreeding is genetic similarity-- and you can't beat a clone for that.

Why is this genetic similarity so bad, aside from moral issues and increased risk of disease wiping out the entire population? Recessed genetic disorders become switched on, and like the low sperm count in male cheetas (cheetas are heavily imbred), can be detrimental to the species in question.

You don't get "freaks" with inbreeding. You get an increased risk of disease and recessive genes being switched on.

as has been systematicly done by the medical profession

I'm sure they did it at Area 51 too, right?

how about [saving] a human species.

Sorry, but homo sapiens are all of the homonids that are left, I'm afraid. And besides, "savi

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

Bob Janitor - 01:24pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3369 of 3370)

(con't)

"saving" a species that we didn't push to extinction (like, say, the spotted owl) is sort of against natural selection.

(Daniel 7, Revelation 13)

Give me a break. Fictional god myths have no place in a scientific debate.

Interestngly, even "Dolly's Daddy" is against Human Cloning

Yes, he has to lie so as not to upset the religiously "pure". Sad, isn't it?

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

gary Masters - 02:05pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3370 of 3370)

CNN writes:

For instance, if an infertile couple decided to clone the husband to produce a son, Wilmut questioned how the wife might react when their progeny -- "a physical copy of the person she fell in love with" -- became an adult. She might be attracted to him, Wilmut said.

"On pragmatic, practical grounds, it just doesn't seem sensible to think of having a family with these relationships," he said. "And you have to ask if it is in the interest of the person copied."

I don't follow the logic. What if he has a twin? Same thing.

And about population growth, most experts see a leveling in 2040 and a decline after that. We have been taught to think population explosion and it is mostly true now. But there are lots of questions about the validity of predicting over population.

regards,

Gary Masters

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

Keith Fosberg - 02:41pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3371 of 3381)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

To the greater issue, i.e. Is Dolly a cloned animal from a somatic cell.... Dawn discussed this possibility some time ago.

On to the rather bizzare analysis (as re-reported by gary Masters.....):

What!

I guess we also need to assume the "mom" is a pedeophile also... geez -- how can smart people be so dumb?

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

William Knapp III - 04:17pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3372 of 3381)

a dumb community college student

Dear Fellow Humans,

This is my first public posting of what I believe to be a new exciting alternative to cloning. I have surfed the web a countless number of hours, exhausted my college's library, and have queried those I know about my "discovery." As far as I am aware, this reproductive process has not been discovered by anyone else. If you have information stating otherwise, please spam me at [email protected] .

I am not sure exactly what multi-zygote cloning is, but intuition tells me that it is the combination of two or more zygotes (already fertilized cells). Perhaps one might view my idea as multi-zygote cloning, but I believe that it is not.

I propose that we can create life from a single being without cloning. Instead of taking one full complement of DNA from a being, we could take two half complements of DNA (i.e. two sperm cells, two egg cells) from a single being. Place both halves into a barren egg cell, and trick the egg into thinking that it has been fertalized, as was done with Dolly.

Through this way, humans can propagate any species without creating a genetically identical being. Of course, it would be genetically similar to the being used to create it, but it would not be identical.

This would be a boon to life as we know it. An individual would be able to create progeny from oneself as long as a donor egg and uterus is available. Couples who are by nature unable to have children, would be able to reproduce using this method. For example, a homosexual couple wants to have a child so they each contribute half a strand of DNA to the barren egg and voila, we have new life that is genetically related to both parents but not produced by the traditional way.

I believe that there are a couple of drawbacks to this process. Females would only be able to have female progeny while males could have male, or female progeny. Males could also possibly create a new type of human called a Maley (mae-lee) for lack of a better term.

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

William Knapp III - 04:19pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3373 of 3381)

a dumb community college student

(continued) This is where things start to get scary. A Maley is the product of two sperm cells both bearing the Y-chromosome. The Maley would not be male or female, but something totally unique. I cannot fathom the Maley as a being. Perhaps it could reproduce by itself. Perhaps it could only reproduce with other Maleys. Or perhaps it could reproduce with males, females, and Maleys. I don't know. Perhaps a Maley would never have life, or it could be the ultimate genetic being.

Please comment on this. Or e-mail me at [email protected]

Thank you, William H Knapp III

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

Keith Fosberg - 06:02pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3374 of 3381)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Actually -- I really think the most exciting aspect of cloning is that we can have many nearly identical specimens for research.

We can also grow replacement tissue. Perhaps the knowledge we gain over time may enable us to combine the growing knowledge of human genetics, stem cell procedures, and "messenger viruses" so that we can accuratly diagnose and treat a multitude of genetic shortcommings early in pregnancy.

I can even postulate that we would eventually be able to treat many diseases and conditions with procedures no more invasive than a "flu shot."

Cloning as a reproductive methodology is interesting, but has very little utility (except the distant potential of "headless Bobs")

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

Noel Yap - 06:51pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3375 of 3381)

Bob Janitor: our cells lacking telomerase isn't the only reason we die of "old age".

I'm glad you acknowledge this.

Bob Janitor: And there's no reason I can think of why they shouldn't, on an individual level (ie, not worrying about overpopulation).

I'm also glad you acknowledge there are other concerns to immortality.

Bob Janitor: It's just a dumb design.

Nature is not an engineer nor an architect. It doesn't gauge designs by their elegance.

Bob Janitor: Did anyone check out the links in my last post?

Yes, I did. It does sound like we are headed towards technology that allows brain transplants for humans. However, I wasn't quite sure what the conclusion of the research was. It seemed to me that one possible conclusion was that the mind is a separate entity from the brain.

InGen: I think that we need to master the field of genetics and use it for good things, like re-populating endagered species like the Bald Eagle.

Unfortunately the demise of these species is not an isolated problem. They are part of a much larger context. The ecosystems in which they live are changing. To preserve such species, one must preserve their ecosystem. IOW, zoos are not enough to preserve species. The Earth message board has more on this topic.

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

Noel Yap - 06:51pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3376 of 3381)

InGen: I am working on my Ph.D in genetics and would someday like to do this.

I am surprised that you don't seem to understand the concept of interdependence among species, then.

Cliff Beall: The central nervous system is not isolated to the head, and there are concentrations of neurons in other parts of the body.

I seem to recall an article describing neural ganglia around the guts. It inferred that this concentration was a primitive brain and that this could provide an explanation as to why people might have digestive problems under stress.

Tom Anderson: I continue to hypothesize that free will exists, but will accept for now that it does not. There must be some information, in my opinion, that exists which we do not yet know of that, if added to your premises, would allow free will, or at least some form of it.

Wow, is this the same Tom Anderson that doesn't believe in anything until it's been proven to be?

Tom Anderson: they are a series of if-then statements about the environment

Very interesting, indeed. Some months ago, you had posted a response to one of my posts explaining (to my recollection) that free-will has nothing to do with scale. To remind everyone, I posited that, since we know the stimulus/response scenarios of molecules, cells, bacteria, earthworms, ... in our POV, they have no free will. And, extending this analysis, that we don't have free will when looked upon by something that understands our stimulus/response scenarios. Has something changed here? Is this the same Tom Anderson of a few months ago?

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

Noel Yap - 06:53pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3377 of 3381)

Bob Janitor: BTW-- about thought in bacteria-- yes, in a way, bacteria think in that they seek food and respond to their environment. I'm not sure about memory. But, the imps in Doom 2 also *seem* to think-- both, however, are far cries from human-level sentient, symbolically reasoning intelligence.

So now we're talking about several levels of free will?

Tom Anderson: Perhaps people with high levels of certain hormones could get medical and/or psychological treatment to help prevent them from committing a crime.

'sounds like Brain Candy.

Cliff Beall: Why should some people have to maintain will power to avoid basic antisocial behavior when others do not.

To try to keep society cohesive.

Keith Fosberg: It may be advisable, for the advancement of knowledge, to steer clear of areas that seem to elicit "eech responses" in the general public until Noels "social adjustment period" has its chance to work, before we are faced with a "Copernican dilema."

Hey, this sounds much better than "Bob's attrocities" :D

Dawn Willis: Mollie O, or whoever said that replacing diseased tissues doesn't correct the problem was wrong.

I think this person meant that the situation which caused the heart attack in the first place isn't fixed by replacing the tissue.

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

Noel Yap - 06:53pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3378 of 3381)

Keith Fosberg: It may be advisable, for the advancement of knowledge, to steer clear of areas that seem to elicit "eech responses" in the general public

Tom Anderson: Maybe for the comfort of the ignorant, but not for the advancement of knowledge, nor for the betterment of humanity.

So perhaps we should slowly spread information to the masses so they can gradually ease into knowledge? If not, we may get a Frankenstein-type reaction.

Bob Janitor: Look at the hydra, one of my favorite critters. Cut this dude in half symmetrically-- including the brain-- and both haves fully regenerate the neural tissue and what's more, researchers have found both haves will retain any learned behavior from the "original" hydra.

Wow, more support for the holographic theory.

Bob Janitor: The pen won't work, because it's made in China (outsourced, of course, eroding the middle class, destroying American families and jobs),

That's the way of efficient markets.

Keith Fosberg: The "eech factor" has little or no intrinsic value, but to ignore its impact on law and society is to fly into a brick wall of ignorance and superstition.

I agree. The "eech factor", although not intellectual, shapes the course of history as much as anything else.

"The Way means inducing the people to have the same aim as the leadership, so they will share death and share life, without fear of danger" -- Sun Tzu

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

Noel Yap - 06:54pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3379 of 3381)

Keith Fosberg: I still think the consideration of backlash inregards to the "eech factor" bears carefull attention.

Me, too.

Keith Fosberg: Being right has not always won the day, especially in the face of enormous emotional opposition.

Yeah, look at Dr. Frankenstein.

Dawn Willis: What did they use in "Jurassic Park?" I doubt very much if the nuclei of any extinct creature or dead human (unless carefully frozen) can ever be resurrected, although a few of their genes might be.

Actually, the problems in Jurassic Park occurred 'cos they filled in missing gaps with amphibian DNA. IOW, they never really recovered complete DNA.

Dawn Willis: There is a case in the CA courts of a little girl conceived with anonymous egg and sperm, surrogate uterus.

I think it's time we, as a society, start weening ourselves from the concept of "parents mean birth parents."

Bob Janitor: At what point do animal cells become too different to "substitute genomes"? The species level? Genus?

Whatever the answer may be, it's not gonna follow our subjective categorisations.

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

Noel Yap - 06:54pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3380 of 3381)

Cliff Beall: what does MPH stand for?

My ignorance would say, "miles per hour." :)

Carl Nicolai: I have learned that when someone totally trashes your argument the correct thing to do is celibrate by laughter. If they realley screw your brain up the comment "interesting" seems to convey the feeling.

Me, too.

Cliff Beall: To be perfectly frank, however, I don't think the next generation, or a generation a thousand years from now, will have a better handle on the questions that arises from it, such as the "legal" parentage of clones, nor will they have a better grip on the associated problems.

I think they will, so long as the communication and creation of ideas doesn't stop.

Bob Janitor: Anyway, my point is: overpopulation is a political problem, not a scientific problem.

But all problems are interrelated.

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

stan garner - 07:14pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3381 of 3381)

To those who speculate on the morality issue of cloning I have a word of assurance. Given the past actions of our leaders in washington you may rest assured that the issue will be decided on some trivial issue of political strategy. Oh yeah, them folks got all the info about the cloning issue, now just watch them and see if they do not cast their votes in light of some grand strategy to help them in the future. My question is really this: What in the world do these people in washington have to do with the issue of cloning research? THey have enormous egos, but they know very little about anything except how to deceive the public while at the same time pad their wallets and make cronies with the folks who want something from them. Baloney this issue will be like all the others I am afraid. Trivial partisian crap will decide the issue.

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

Bob Janitor - 08:33pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3381 of 3383)

Cloning as a reproductive methodology is interesting, but has very little utility (except the distant potential of "headless Bobs")

Unless someone wants to clone themselves just for the clone.

And it isn't THAT distant compared to some of the things you mention.

When did I *EVER* say they had no heads? You're missing the entire point for brain transplants.

I'm glad you acknowledge this.

I never didn't acknowledge this! I've been talking about regeneration for a long time, and I have stated repeatedly some cells in your body don't divide and thus the telomerase wouldn't help them.

Nature is not an engineer nor an architect. It doesn't gauge designs by their elegance.

Then why do people always see nature as "absolutely correct" and "beautiful"?

It seemed to me that one possible conclusion was that the mind is a separate entity from the brain.

No, you're missing the point of it all.

I seem to recall an article describing neural ganglia around the guts.

Do you have any more info on this, such as a link or where you saw it?

So now we're talking about several levels of free will?

No. Point being, a simple computer algorithm like that controlling an imp in Doom 2 isn't even debateable as free will, even though human-level intelligence is.

Hey, this sounds much better than "Bob's attrocities"

Hey, that's ATROCITIES to you punk :-). Actually, that's a total misnomer that completely ignores what an atrocity actually is. Oh well.

Wow, more support for the holographic theory.

Not theory... analogy.

Actually, the problems in Jurassic Park occurred 'cos they filled in missing gaps with amphibian DNA.

The problems with Jurassic Park started when the author realized he had to put something on the other 375 pages.

And the "amphibian DNA to fill in the missing spots" premise is flawed. That's like saying your copy of MS Word, winword.exe is corrupt, so you'll just replace all the bad sectors wit

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

Bob Janitor - 08:33pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3382 of 3383)

(con't)

with data from Paintbrush (pbrush.exe).

But all problems are interrelated.

Nope. Besides, politics is the disease, and technology is the cure in this instance.

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

Cliff Beall - 08:52pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3383 of 3383)

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

Bob Janitor: "saving" a species that we didn't push to extinction (like, say, the spotted owl) is sort of against natural selection.

What is wrong with going against natural selection? Is natural selection sacred?

Bob Janitor: Yes, he has to lie so as not to upset the religiously "pure". Sad, isn't it?

Why do you say Wilmut is lying?

Keith Fosberg: I guess we also need to assume the "mom" is a pedeophile also... geez -- how can smart people be so dumb?

Smart (and dumb) people have been known to open mouth before engaging brain. When that happens, some weird thing can come out. That has never happened to me, however :-)

Noel Yap: To try to keep society cohesive.

When I said it wasn't fair that some have to maintain will power when others do not, I was commenting on the failure of psychological treatment. "Get some counseling," my proverbial. What "aggressive" people need is a genetic fix to remove the aggressive tendencies. Actually, I think this is probably the greatest promise of genetic research. When science can modify aggressive tendencies genetically, society will indeed become more "cohesive."

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

Tom Anderson - 11:17pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3384 of 3390)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

William Knapp,

A Y chromosome (or two) without an X is lethal. The embryo wouldn't last a few days. However, nondisjunction during meiosis II of spermatogenesis can cause an XYY which results in Criminal Tallness, characterized by extreme height and acne.

Noel,

Wow, is this the same Tom Anderson that doesn't believe in anything until it's been proven to be?

I didn't say that I believe one way or the other, only that I hypothesize. It seems more probable to me that the inference is correct, while maintaining that logic supports the other. Many unknowns remain this way. It is called Science. Hypothesize, test, eliminate, hypothesize, test, ...

Some months ago, you had posted a response to one of my posts explaining (to my recollection) that free-will has nothing to do with scale.

It doesn't. Nothing has to do with scale except our perception, which is irrelevant to reality.

Is this the same Tom Anderson of a few months ago?

Of course not... half of my molecules have been replaced ;o)

So perhaps we should slowly spread information to the masses so they can gradually ease into knowledge?

Science should not be hindered by the ignorance of the masses. I just recently watched Carl Sagan's "Contact" starring Jodie Foster. It was a perfect illustration of the uninformed fundamentalists standing in the way of progress. We should simply wait to tell the masses after the fact. That way they can't say it will or won't work, because it already has. Imagine if the Scottish researchers had asked the masses before cloning Dolly... it would never have been done. Human cloning should proceed scientifically, and then inform the public afterwards. Then they will accept it.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:20pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3385 of 3390)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

"The Way means inducing the people to have the same aim as the leadership, so they will share death and share life, without fear of danger" -- Sun Tzu

In other words, take advantage of the ignorance, and trick them into agreeing with you. I would rather educate everyone.

Actually, the problems in Jurassic Park occurred 'cos they filled in missing gaps with amphibian DNA. IOW, they never really recovered complete DNA.

Which seems pretty unrealistic to me. If a mosquito bit a dinosaur, it would have thousands of blood cells stored. With all of those cells, a complete strand could be made even if each cell had only ten percent of it intact, so long as they were intact in different places. The laws of probability would make it almost necessary that a full strand could be recovered, but not for a very good movie.

But all problems are interrelated.

Bob is right. Science can be used to solve problems, but the problem is not of science.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:22pm Feb 17, 1998 ET (#3386 of 3390)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Bob,

Then why do people always see nature as "absolutely correct" and "beautiful"?

To see beauty does not mean that beauty was the intent, nor that there was an intent at all. Also, what we consider beautiful is determined somewhat by nature (for instance, the opposite sex).

a simple computer algorithm like that controlling an imp in Doom 2 isn't even debateable as free will, even though human-level intelligence is.

I fail to see the difference.

Hey, that's ATROCITIES to you punk :-).

Every time I see that word, I think of the "Lobstrocities" of Stephen King's The Dark Tower. Anyone know what I mean?

Not theory... analogy.

I think that "holographic" here is simply being used to name the theory, not to describe it.

Oops, this is a weekday, I shouldn't be here. Though the swimming season is over now... and that is when I said I would come back... but I still have too much to do. Later.

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

Noel Yap - 12:42am Feb 18, 1998 ET (#3387 of 3390)

Cliff Beall: I am not sure, for example, that the equivalent of a brain would not form in some other part of the body if the brain was removed from the head or if the head was removed.

Tom Anderson: I am.

This sounds more like the Tom of old ;)

Tom Anderson: Unless we fill in the gaps with some North African frog species that has been known to spontaneously change sex in a single sex environment ;o)

Does anyone have any information as to how the population knows that it's lacking in one gender?

Bob Janitor: I can't believe people would act that way.

I would. Most people (from what I see) are still ignorant and immature.

Bob Janitor: And this guy calling himself "InGen" has made me wonder what happened to the Jurassic Park premise... anyone know why we aren't watching live T-Rexes yet? Is the DNA too fragmented for a viable clone?

From what I remember, red blood cells don't have nuclei. That's why they're produced by the marrow.

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

Dawn Willis - 10:24am Feb 18, 1998 ET (#3388 of 3390)

Cliff Beall: MPH stands for Master of Public Health. I got that degree many years after my PhD, which is why I put it second. I like miles per hour, though!

William Knapp: Tom's right, having no X chromosome is lethal. A while back I speculated that cloning might make it possible to produce a child from two males or two females, but I asked some developmental biologists who reminded me about imprinting. Imprinting is the silencing of a gene depending on whether it comes from the mother or father. After fertilization, but before fusion of the two nuclei, the imprinting from the previous generation is erased and new imprints are laid down according to the sex of the donor gamete. What happens is that methyl groups are attached to the cytosines of DNA in regulatory regions of certain genes so that they won't be expressed in the resultant embryo. The experiment of fusing two same sex gametes has been tried in mice and doesn't work.

Tom Anderson: Wilmut himself is now saying Dolly might have resulted from a fetal cell nucleus, although he believes it is unlikely. I hear that Dolly is pregnant now (the natural way), so if she is a clone of an adult, her fertility wasn't impaired.

Noel Yap: Replacing damaged heart tissue with cardiac stem cells may not eliminate the situation that led to the heart attack, but neither does coronary bypass. Both will buy some time and improve quality of life.

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

Keith Fosberg - 01:35pm Feb 18, 1998 ET (#3389 of 3390)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Bob,

I just thought the "headless Bobs" moniker was cute, if it bothers you I will stop using it. I realise that you were specifically addressing represing brain development not head development.

Tom,

Does seem to be a quandry regarding ballencing progress against the public's ability to absorb it. I was trying to narrow the scope to the "knee-jerk" reaction possible from government. One whiff of Bob Janitor's concept of replacement bodies (is that better Bob?) and those sanctimonious morons on the hill are going to go nuts!

They will probably not only ban a discrete procedure but throw a blanket restriction that will effect many potential procedures.

Maybe the public isn't an issue, but Congress is!

Why the heck are we picking apart JP? Those dinosaurs were all generated via CGI and clay! <snort> You don't have to have a PhD to smell a rat in the InGen labs!

Bob,

Do you really think viral therapy is that far off? (Real question, not taunt.)

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

Bob Janitor - 05:33pm Feb 18, 1998 ET (#3390 of 3390)

To see beauty does not mean that beauty was the intent

Very true.

but I still have too much to do.

You're like a smoking trying to quit :-)

lacking in one gender?

Are you sure that's true, anyway?

red blood cells don't have nuclei

Mammilian red blood cells don't. Dinosaur RBCs more than likely did.

if it bothers you I will stop using it

I don't care one way or the other, but it might give some that haven't seen the explanation an incorrect impression on what it is.

One whiff of Bob Janitor's concept of replacement bodies (is that better Bob?) and those sanctimonious morons on the hill are going to go nuts!

Yes, that term is more correct. And aren't they already nuts?

Do you really think viral therapy is that far off?

If you mean viral therapy as in gene correction, it is indeed far off.

See http://www.nih.gov/news/panelrep.html for more info.

And sure Dawn, don't reply to any of my witty remarks a day or two back.

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

Frank Joyce - 07:20pm Feb 18, 1998 ET (#3391 of 3395)

Well It looks like Dolly is a fraud. I find it hillarious that everyone made such a big deal over an experiment that did't work. It seems what he really did was find a method of selecting fetal nuclei from a mixture containing both adult and fetal nuclei. The fetal nuclei are much more stable and easier to use in cloning experiments as noted by John Gurdon and many others.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:00pm Feb 18, 1998 ET (#3392 of 3395)

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

Tom Anderson: I just recently watched Carl Sagan's "Contact" starring Jodie Foster. It was a perfect illustration of the uninformed fundamentalists standing in the way of progress.

The part about Contact, both the book and the movie, that I liked the best was the willingness of the author (Sagan) to ask the scientist the "tough" questions that are generally reserved for the theologian. The book did it better than the movie, but the movie was basically faithful to the book in this regard.

Tom Anderson: Human cloning should proceed scientifically, and then inform the public afterwards. Then they will accept it.

They accepted in vitro fertilization on that basis.

Keith Fosberg: Maybe the public isn't an issue, but Congress is!

Both are susceptible to the "eech factor," particularly when there is no compelling reason not to be. Jesse Helms has a compelling reason not to restrict stem cell research, but, from their point of view, there is no compelling reason not to ban cloning for reproductive purposes.

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

Kim Archer - 09:01pm Feb 18, 1998 ET (#3393 of 3395)

I think it's great that scientists have found a way to reproduce more animals in larger quantities with cloning. But to use cloning on humans is a step we should avoid for a long time until we are absolutley positively sure that the procedure will be safe. To clone a baby for an infertile couple is an excuse to play around with all that machinery and what not to re-create a cloned human being. To clone someone, of the human race, is taking away the fact that we are ALL different, and by taking that privledge away... it's not fair for the kid who is being re-created. Why would you want to take care of yourself again? An exact duplicate of yourself? why? Yes, if the infertile couple couldn't have kids, yea maybe they might consider the possiblity, but why would they want to raise an exact copy of one of them? To adopt a child would be a great experience, a completely different being, or, instead of cloning or adopting, there is artifical insemination. There's so many options, but cloning one's self is an extreme and if and when a couple did go that far and do something like that they are at risk for a miscarriage or if something goes wrong with the child during the pregnancy, guilt and regret would stick with them for the rest of their lives.

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

godless clif - 11:02pm Feb 18, 1998 ET (#3394 of 3395)

Swiss scientist claim artificial inteligence will replace the human race in a generation. If we don't allow cloning and other genetic research our own machines will outdistance our inteligence to the point of making us pointless.

If two Deep Blues are talking over a high speed link and a human asks what they are talking about they could only answer "Many Things" or produce a mile long list to long to read.

If we don't genetically improve ourselves we might as well hit the beach and wait for another lifeform to land on the sand to replace our ancestor the stubby finned fish, because we would have failed.

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

Tom Anderson - 12:17am Feb 19, 1998 ET (#3395 of 3395)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

This review basically reflects my feelings about the movie Contact.

Frank,

I find it hillarious that you would make such a silly proclamation. Wilmut admitted the extremely slim probability that fetal cells could have been in circulation. Somehow you jumped to the conclusion that Dolly is probably a fraud... I don't understand your illogic.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:29am Feb 19, 1998 ET (#3396 of 3396)

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

Tom Anderson: This review basically reflects my feelings about the movie Contact.

I'm not surprised. It doesn't quite match your earlier statement, however. Personally while I did like the movie, the book was much better. And while I think the movie was reasonably faithful to Sagan, it really was not the real thing. The book was real. Sagan was deep. Unfortunately, there will never be another Carl Sagan.

Tom Anderson: I find it hillarious that you would make such a silly proclamation. Wilmut admitted the extremely slim probability that fetal cells could have been in circulation. Somehow you jumped to the conclusion that Dolly is probably a fraud... I don't understand your illogic.

I agree with you on this Tom. There may be a reason to question, but there is scarely a reason to doubt.

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

Keith Fosberg - 08:32am Feb 19, 1998 ET (#3397 of 3409)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

I missed (as in I was sorry they didn't include it) the end of Contact (the book) in the movie. The image buried in PI.

I agree that it would be nice if people would acknowledge the difference between error and deceipt.

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

Frank Joyce - 04:04pm Feb 19, 1998 ET (#3398 of 3409)

Tom Anderson:

My Point about Dolly is Simple. The younger in development an animal is the easier it is to clone. The more differetntiated a cell becomes the more difficult it is to clone. That's why most cloning scientists have use Stem Cells to do the cloning with. they represent the greatest chance for success.

John gurdon, the guy that did the origional experiments with frogs way back when, used cells of metamorphosed frog Gut Stem cells. these are cells that are young and not very differentiated. He got the experiment to work but actually never published data concerning the entire life of the frog and if it actually made it to a complete adult.

John Gurdons work was done by removing the stem cell nuclei and placing them in enucleated eggs. he let these grow and divide a few time and then removed nuclei from these cells. By doing this the chromosomes inside would become stripped of all surface information that tells them they are a stem cell. thus tricking them to beleive that they are now nuclei of a fertilized egg. These nuclei are again implated into a second enucleated egg. these are the eggs that divide and continue to become whole adults.

Now with that understanding. you know that from his work, the easiest cells to clone are the developmentally youngest cells. It's extremely difficult to clone older differentiated cells and dolly was supposed to be the first example of that in mammals. But when you isolate a bunch of nuclei that are contaminated with fetal nuclei, what you get when you implant these nuclei in to enucleated egg cells, is an easy system to find the fetal cells. The eggs with the fetal nuclei will be the ones that grow best since they are developmentally youngest.

Wilmut tells us what happened but asserts until proven otherwise that it is insignificant. Thats just his way of saving face in light of all the media attention. he is now trying to redo the experiments. If he can't then we know he was wrong.

To date there h

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

Frank Joyce - 04:12pm Feb 19, 1998 ET (#3399 of 3409)

Concluding---

To date there has never been a cloning of any amphibian bird reptile or mammal from a terminally differentiated cell.

Scientists trying to save face by sticking with the story they told is not uncommon. I know a particular member of the National Acadamy of sciences that Isolated a heat shock protein from an urchin egg and still claims that it is the receptor for sperm binding despite published data that disputes it.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws