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

Noel Yap - 07:43pm Mar 11, 1998 ET (#3800 of 3802)

Frank Joyce: Compressing may be efficient but it also makes mutations far more damaging.

Part of compression is error detection and correction. In fact, since there is now less data to mutate, the chances of mutation should be less.

Bob Janitor: Remember Three Mile Island?

Thanks for (pre-)backing me up, Bob.

Bob Janitor: the US *has* had its share of problems with nuclear technology.

And more are forthcoming (ie Where shall we put all the waste? What about incidents like BNL?)

Bob Janitor: But, if you can insure car collisions (which are relatively frequent) and humans not dying, I suppose you can insure nuclear power plants :-).

Since the sample size is much smaller, nuclear power plants are much harder to insure.

Dawn Willis: I'm glad you guys have stopped building models of the growth of cells in culture.

It was fun (and good practice for what I plan to do.) But as Tom pointed out, there is no need for it.

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

Noel Yap - 07:43pm Mar 11, 1998 ET (#3801 of 3802)

Dawn Willis: ... This is a very "fertile" field of research.

As always I enjoyed reading your highly informative post. The pun was fun, too.

Cliff Beall: Carl was looking for something like a mathematical relationship (weigh, measure, rank) with which logical operators could be used to indicate degree of cloning success with respect to specific types of cells, and their degree of differentiation.

My guess is that it'll be more like the scales to rate hurricanes, sound and light intensity, earthquakes, ... IOW, the scale will be exponential.

Cliff Beall: I have taken the position that some things in nature simply are, or they are not, and do not necessarily have a discernable mathematical relationship.

Math is developed to describe Nature.

Cliff Beall: The diagram does not admit to any simple (or complex) mathematical relationship that I know of, and it is my understanding that the iron-carbon diagram had to be constructed strictly from experimental data.

This really goes back to the determinism discussion. There is a relation between carbon doping and the steel's properties; it's just too complex to right down in one equation or a diagram or table is easier to use than the equation.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:42pm Mar 11, 1998 ET (#3802 of 3802)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Two quick points:

Neither TMI nor BNL, as far a I know, exposed anyone to unsafe levels of radiation. Also, the type of accident that would injure many people would be a boiler explosion. Nuclear plants cannot detonate into a thermonuclear explosion; the boiler will simply explode and destroy everything in a ten to twenty mile radius... but this is true of any power plant, not just nuclear generators.

Re DNA compression: DNA can be optimally compressed using cDNA which is created only from the genes which are transcribed. This is how many virii (retrovirii) procreate; they actually store RNA, and then with DNA nucleotides and reverse transcriptase, they can make cDNA. Using a method similar to this, it is possible to make DNA that contains only the genes which are transcribed, using mRNA as the template. This would eliminate all of the unused junk.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:17am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3803 of 3804)

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

Tom, you never seem to address what I say, but instead seem to want to indicate that I said something I did not. I did not say that your FAQ contains "error." I merely indicated that I find disagreement with your idea of ethics that you expressed in your FAQ. This is nothing new. We have argued about it in the past. Surely you are not surprised that I would again express disagreement. And surely you do not need to ask me where the disagreement lies. It seems to me that I have already indicated this to you in abundance.

Also, I hope you are not upset that I would provide links to other FAQ's with which I find more agreement. My attitude it that I have a right to do it if I want to. It is part of my freedom of expression. Incidentally, I have found another FAQ that I find interesting. The Roslin Institute Online site provides a link to this FAQ. To access, click the address below:

<A HREF="http://www2.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk/library/research/cloning/sindyq&a.html"> http://www2.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk/library/research/cloning/sindyq&a.html </A>

I started to answer this in a comprehensive fashion, but after typing half a page, it occurred to me that it is totally off the subject. Therefore, I need to be brief. Suffice it to say that while I am not a metallurgist, I think I can assure you that the iron-carbon equilibrium diagram, as well as the various time-temperature-transformation (TTT) curves for the various steel alloys, are all generated from experimental data. That is what a metallurgist said in one of my metallurgy classes. I belived him then, and I still do. If you have contrary information, tell me where I can find it. I would be interested.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:31am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3804 of 3804)

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

I am beginning to understand what you were driving at. And I am beginning to think you may be right.

I agree.

Dawn, if it is correct that the cells from which Dolly was cloned were collected as part of a collaboration of PPL Therapeutics and the Hannah Research Institute, it would appear to me that Wilmut probably was not involved with the collection of the samples. Instead, they would appear to have been cells that PPL Therapeutics had left over from a prior collaboration with Hannah Research Institute at the University of Glasgow.

If this is true, one can hardly blame Wilmut for the lack of record keeping. And it also might explain why it might be difficult to trace back and determine if additional cells of the donor sheep might be available.

I remember somewhere reading where Wilmut said that Dolly was a "bonus." At the time, it didn't make much sense to me, but, if my guess is correct, I think I am beginning to understand now why he might have made such a statement. Left up to himself only, he might never have even made the attempt to clone an adult cell. It really wasn't what he was after. If my hunch is correct, somebody wanted him to try them, and he did, probably just to get along.

But if this is true, I wonder if he still thinks it was a bonus, considering the problems and controversy that has arisen?

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

Cliff Beall - 12:46am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3805 of 3805)

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

Very true. In addition, math is often useful as a predictive tool. And sometimes, it is reasonably accurate in both its description of nature and in it's predictions. Sometimes, it is very accurate.

However, there are some things in nature for which there is no currently available math.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:11am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3806 of 3824)

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

I don't.

Won't be difficult to check. Polly and Molly are the controls. But tell me, what is your guess? You know mine.

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

Bob Janitor - 02:08am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3807 of 3824)

Tom...

June, 1959: partial melt of fuel rods in Santa Susanna, CA.

January, 1961: Steam explosion, Idaho Falls, Idaho - 3 killed.

October, 1966: partial core melt at Fermi reactor near Detroit.

November, 1971: more than 52,000 gal. of radioactive water from a waste storage tank in Monticello, Minnesota flowed into the Mississippi River.

March 28, 1979: Core melt at TMI; release of 10-12 million curies to environment. (Chernobyl=50)

August, 1979: discharge of highly enriched uranium from a nuclear fuel plant in Irving, TN gave ~100 people a dose 6 times permissible levels.

February, 1985: uncontrolled nuclear power surge at the Virgil C. Summer reactor in Jenkinsville, SC.

1986: Webbers Falls, OK - One killed, eight injured when a tank containing radioactive gas at this uranium enrichment plant exploded.

Military "accidents" not listed...

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

Benjamin Post - 03:47am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3808 of 3824)

RUOK2?

Come on, guys...

Tecnicalities are only one side of the coin! I tried earlier to provoke a bit, to turn the discussion on to the - I think - more important issue of the morals involved in human cloning. A few of you responded, thanks. Let me make it clear, that I am NOT in favor of any of the ideas I mentioned! These were rhetorical considerations on some of the extremes of the ethics we should consider (Check post #3775 if you missed it). Intentionally introducing birth defects into children in order to use them as spare parts, please! I'm not Frankenstein! But these are some of the ghoulish possibilities that we have now. And just what might be going on below the surface, we do not know, rogue scientists conducting research on their own, un-publicized discoveries (X-Files, anyone?)

What could we do today? What is morally acceptable to do today? What can we do in the future? -And again, what would be ok?

-And to all you Americans when you talk about nuclear plants, and their relative safety. One of you mentioned, that the result of a boiler explosion at a nuclear plant would have the same effect as it would at any other power plant: destruction of everything in a 10-20 mile radius. Wouldn't this also include the reactor core, resulting in nuclear contamination to a widespread area? I'm from Denmark, and though we weren't severely hit, we still had Tchernobyl raining down on us for years! You must realize, that accidents happen (don't argue, they DO), and the result of a nuclear plant mishap, could be devastating.

I find it a bit comical, that you delve so deeply into this side-discussion, when you are still by a WIIIIIDE margin the most environmentally destructive nation ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET! Both overall, and per capita, you consume, waste and polute, almost three times more than any other industrial nation in the world! Think about, just a little. We could all conveniently blame YOU for global warming, depletion of fossil fuel reserves and

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

Benjamin Post - 03:51am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3809 of 3824)

RUOK2?

continued

...the holes in the ozone layer. We won't, but still. Ok, let's just stick with the subject, Sorry!

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

Bob Janitor - 04:24am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3810 of 3824)

Intentionally introducing birth defects into children in order to use them as spare parts, please! I'm not Frankenstein!

Do you support abortion? And it's not introducing them into children, it's introducing them into fetuses who have not yet formed a brain or sentient intelligence. Without the brain we might as well be plants... we are our brains. Additionally, those fetuses would never had been created if it wasn't for cloning-- the egg cells would've DIED.

Killing for survival is nothing new. Stop being hypocritical; all of us do it every day. (unless you're secretly photosynthetic)

X-Files, anyone?

"Scully and Mulder track down the evil cloners in the next episode of the X-Files!"

No, I don't think so.

Wouldn't this also include the reactor core, resulting in nuclear contamination to a widespread area

No. There are two "nuclear towers" in most reactor designs. One contains the core and cooling mechanisms, and another the boiler and turbines.

we still had Tchernobyl raining down on us for years

Chernobyl wasn't an American plant, now was it? It was a poor quality design that used stolen American technology. Even then, it was only destroyed with planned destructive actions. No one "spilled Coke on the keyboard".

environmentally destructive nation

I don't know about that. The US is also probably the most environmentally protective nation on earth.

The south american countries cut rain forest away with little regard for life... Russia dumps nuclear technology in the middle of nowhere. Some countries even continue to hunt the blue whale to extinction. Saddam burns Kuwati oil fields. Most of the nations in the world torture their own citizens.

industrial nation

Oh please. What has Denmark contributed to the technology pool? If it wasn't for America, you wouldn't have the computer to flame us on.

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

Benjamin Post - 04:54am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3811 of 3824)

RUOK2?

Bob Janitor

1. Thanks for putting me straight on the Nuke Reactor explosion business. (A sensible man knows when he is wrong). We do not ourselves allow any kind of nuclear power, or weaponry on Danish soil.

2.Check your facts. Look at some numbers. You ARE one of the least environmentally conscious nations in the world (-Sorry). Have you even been to Europe to compare? I have something to compare on, I lived in the US for a year a few years ago. I know you are working on it, but you have a loooong way to go to reach, shall we say, acceptable standards. (You mention South America; there are no according-to-conventions industrial countries in South America)

3. Industrial nation? Let me correct you: The computer was invented in England! The essentials of computer design were develloped there, and in Germany! Denmark is the current computer science world champions. Danish universities are generally considered the worlds leading authority on computer programming! So there! (-And besides, you are comparing a nation of 280 mill. people to a nation of 5 mill. people)! If it wasn't for Danish research YOU wouldn't have the computer you have today!

4. Most of the Nations in the world torture their own citizens? Quite a few do, yes. Most? No. Besides, the US has consistently been on the Amnesty International list of countries who violate human rights, from day one.(Torture, execution, repressing minorities) How does it go? "The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...Capital punishment? If standards are good, double standards must be twice as good...

Let's get back to the subject.

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

Carl Nicolai - 08:58am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3812 of 3824)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Noel Yap - 07:43pm Mar 11, 1998 ET (#3800 of 3806)

Frank Joyce: Compressing may be efficient but it also makes mutations far more damaging.

Part of compression is error detection and correction. In fact, since there is now less data to mutate, the chances of mutation should be less.

Please forgive the missunderstanding.

The studies I do involve gene data compressability. That is can the same data be represented with less bits.

This purely abstract study attempts to measure how efficent the genetic code is. It is also possable to isolate areas of high redundency. This could relate to error correction.

The first estimates placed the human genome at 10G the latest place it at 3G. One of my questions is how big is it in terms of true information rather than just data.

Also I can build a compressor without error detection or error correction fuctions.

Attacking the genetic code as a cryptologists could yeald some different ideas than biologists now have.

The genetic code is a cypher in that many of it's functions or messages are not known.

Some introns might play a part in the operation of the cDNA or the suppression of exons. If fact exons might be rendered as ineffective as introns because of the "stuff" floating arround in the nuclear cavity contributed by intron RNA.(some of it must make it past the filters) Introns are interesting because they show a wider band of compressability than exons.

This is not research it is more like search. I dont have the slitest idea of what I will find. More like having fun than doing science.

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

Bob Janitor - 11:11am Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3813 of 3824)

Industrial nation? Let me correct you: The computer was invented in England!

Get your facts straight. The electronic computer was invented in 1942 by scientists at the University of Pennsylvania to help target nuclear weapons.

The essentials of computer design were develloped there, and in Germany!

There were some mechanical "computers" made before Eniac by Pascal and Babbage, yes, but I said electronic computers. And yes, those were invented by the US. We also invented magnetic storage for computers, the transistor, the IC, and the VLSI chip, which is why we own computers today. Did I mention RAM? How about the internet?

Danish universities are generally considered the worlds leading authority on computer programming!

Oh please. But what does this have to do with cloning? Doesn't CNN have a "jingoism flame war" board somewhere?

Most? No.

Yes, most nations in the world DO torture their own citizens. The percentage is alarmingly high.

The US? No, the US government doesn't torture its own citizens. That's what AOL is for.

execution

Yes well, if you mass murder 20 people, you should probably be executed. We just don't randomly execute people on the street you know.

repressing minorities

We have laws that help minorities to the point of repressing the majority!

Please send all future posts on this matter to /dev/null.

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

Dawn Willis - 01:38pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3814 of 3824)

Frank Joyce: Killing a ewe close to term does seem heartless, but it happens. You probably know that American scientists use a lot of fetal calf serum in tissue culture because it gives more reproducible results, and is often the only serum source that some cells will tolerate. It comes from abbatoirs and is collected when pregnant cows are slaughtered. I'm not sure that US abbatoirs are the main source of fetal calf serum anymore, though. I believe US slaughterhouses have to do pregnancy tests on cattle now, and the supplier has shifted to Australia. My point is that the ewe mammary cells may have been the by-product of slaughter for meat. And records would definitely not have been kept.

Carl Nicolai: The 3G of the human genome is currently estimated to contain about 100,000 functional genes, with your average coding region about 1500 nucleotides. cDNA usually stands for complementary DNA, that is DNA made in the lab on a messenger RNA copy (and thus only the coding regions). It doesn't exist in mammals, as far as I know, except as a result of retrovirus infection. Introns are rapidly degraded in the nucleus to their constituent nucleotides. There is a lot of redundancy in genes and in the genetic code. It doesn't apear to have been the most efficient design possible, but hey--it works!

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

Frank Joyce - 03:08pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3815 of 3824)

Well I guess that only leaves theg questin of wehre he got the cells from. Was this Sheep intended to be slaughtered for the production of commercial fetal calf serum? I'm not aware of it coming from sheep as opposed to cows. But if the parent was a research animal then it is unlikely. I still find it more likely that it was a research animal. Otherewise the company producing the sheep fetal calf serum would have sold the cells to him commercially as well and again everything wouldd be far more trackable. Most companies that sell such commercial products keep tabs on things in case of contaminants.

Actually he acknowledges C.Wilde for the cells and not a sluaghter house or commercial industry.

The experiment was conducted under the Animals(scientific procedures) Act 1986

And with the approval of the Roslin Institute Animal Welfare and Experiments Committee.

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

Noel Yap - 05:29pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3816 of 3824)

Tom Anderson: Neither TMI nor BNL, as far a I know, exposed anyone to unsafe levels of radiation.

Who defines "unsafe?" How is it defined? How were they able to define it? How do we go about tracing any effects any TMI radiation may have had on the surrounding population? Please don't give me this "I must prove the positive" crap. You dodged it yourself with the determinism question.

Tom Anderson: Nuclear plants cannot detonate into a thermonuclear explosion;

No, but drinking fuel pool water that's leaked into the ground is still unsafe. Now, what is BNL doing about the fuel pool? Pretty much nothing. They can't 'cos they have to empty it out first. They have no place to put the spent fuel rods.

Tom Anderson: the boiler will simply explode and destroy everything in a ten to twenty mile radius... but this is true of any power plant, not just nuclear generators.

Tell that to the people who live near Chernobyl.

Cliff Beall: However, there are some things in nature for which there is no currently available math.

Right. This is where your TTT diagrams, PV=nRT corrections, ... lie. Or, rather, I should say that the math does exist, but is too complicated to be useful for everyday application.

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

Noel Yap - 05:30pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3817 of 3824)

Cliff Beall: Won't be difficult to check. Polly and Molly are the controls. But tell me, what is your guess?

I have no guess at the moment. We'll have to check Polly and Molly.

Bob Janitor: Tom...

Thanks again for more info.

Bob Janitor: March 28, 1979: Core melt at TMI; release of 10-12 million curies to environment. (Chernobyl=50)

I thought Chernobyl was in the megacurie range.

Benjamin Post: I find it a bit comical, that you delve so deeply into this side-discussion, when you are still by a WIIIIIDE margin the most environmentally destructive nation ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET! Both overall, and per capita, you consume, waste and polute, almost three times more than any other industrial nation in the world!

You might like to join some of the discussions on the Earth boards.

Bob Janitor: we are our brains.

Gedankenexperiment here: Let's say I was able to download my mind into a computer (or something else) and destroy my brain. Am I still alive? Am I still me?

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

Noel Yap - 06:36pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3818 of 3824)

Bob Janitor: The electronic computer was invented in 1942 by scientists at the University of Pennsylvania to help target nuclear weapons.

It really depends on what you call a computer. Much of the foundations of computer science was invented in Europe. The modern-day computer (with transistors, ...) was invented in the US.

Bob Janitor: There were some mechanical "computers" made before Eniac by Pascal and Babbage, yes, but I said electronic computers. And yes, those were invented by the US. We also invented magnetic storage for computers, the transistor, the IC, and the VLSI chip, which is why we own computers today. Did I mention RAM? How about the internet?

No argument here.

Bob Janitor: Please send all future posts on this matter to /dev/null.

Or to NUL: for the people stuck on pseudo-OS's |-D

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

Bob Janitor - 08:52pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3819 of 3824)

I thought Chernobyl was in the megacurie range.

You're right, it was 50mc... I said just 50 because I was too lazy to attach a label... I thought it was pretty obvious. Sorry.

Let's say I was able to download my mind into a computer (or something else) and destroy my brain. Am I still alive? Am I still me?

You can't just "download" your mind... despite what Star Trek writers think. Don't ignore the chemical in electrochemical.

It really depends on what you call a computer.

Please note I said electronic computer. Many consider the abacus to be the first computer.

Who defines "unsafe?"

Probably the DOE or NRC... through evidence and human experimentation.

Speaking of which, did you know NBC tests on populized areas are legal provided the government notifies at least one local official?

They have no place to put the spent fuel rods.

Which is too bad, because even though they aren't fissionable they're still radioactive enough to generate electricity via solid state or with a thermopile.

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

Alex Clarke - 10:00pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3820 of 3824)

I think we should get the cloth of Turin, find Jesus' DNA, and start making clones. Then we could corner the Jesus market.

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

Carl Nicolai - 10:02pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3821 of 3824)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Dawn Willis - #3814 Thanks. I was just speculating on the selection mechanism of tRNA and beleived that we may not understand what goes on inside the nuclear cavity as well as what hapens after it arrives in the cytoplasm. In my mind I see these billions of bases joined into various sub groups floating arround looking for something to latch on to. Does the nuclear membrane act as a macro molecular sieve?

The following is an example of a public level 4 data base. Can anyone tell me what the small letters signify?

>88ce11012 Length: 44432 GTCGATCAGGATGATCTGGACgAAGAGCATCAGGgGcTCGCGcCAgCCGA ACTGTTCGCCANGGcTCAAgGCGCGCATGCCCGACGGCgAggaTCTCGTC GTGACcCATggCGATGccTGCTTGCCGAATATCATGGTGGAAAAtGGCCG CTTTtCtGGATTCATCGACTGTGGCCGGCTGGgTGTGCGgACCgcTATCA GGAcATAgcGTTgGCTACCcgTgATATTgCTGAAGAGCTTGGCGgCgAAT gggCTGAccGcTTCCTCGTGCtttACgGTaTCgCCgCtcCCgaTTCGCAG CGcAtCgCctTcTAtCgcCtTCTTGACgAgTTCTTCTGAGCGGGAcTCTG GGgTTcGAaaTGAcCGACcAAGCGaCGCCcAACCTGCCATcACGAGATTT C.........

It doesn't apear to have been the most efficient design possible, but hey--it works!

I think maybe 4 orders of magnitude where as electronic devices are maybe 17 orders of magnitude from the possable. Gene based computers have all ready been demonstrated that, while slow individually, can be parralleled to at least 100 billion units. I dont know of anything else even remotly as efficient as an information storage device. And the genetic engineers are going to improve them until they work even better.

We are not just talking about using cloning for animals but for stand alone bio computers.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:24pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3822 of 3824)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

I did not say that your FAQ contains "error." I merely indicated that I find disagreement with your idea of ethics that you expressed in your FAQ.

I would like the FAQ to represent a consensus, so if you would please provide me with exactly what you find disagreable, perhaps I can find a reconciliation.

That is what a metallurgist said in one of my metallurgy classes. I belived him then, and I still do. If you have contrary information, tell me where I can find it. I would be interested.

Smith, William F. Principles of Materials Science and Engineering, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1996.

Noel Yap: I agree.

Cliff Beall: I don't.

Neither do I. Wait, yes I do. No... Well, I might if I knew what you guys were talking about! Maybe an elaboration of what the (dis)agreement was about?

Bob,

Re nukes: Well, I'm not going to check up on it, so I'll believe you.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:25pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3823 of 3824)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Benjamin,

Intentionally introducing birth defects into children in order to use them as spare parts, please!

What harm is there in growing a set of organs unattached to a brain?

Wouldn't this also include the reactor core, resulting in nuclear contamination to a widespread area?

I don't think anyone would care considering they had all just been incinerated. Also, it would be such a dissipation of the initial concentration that the radiation levels from this would be minimal in any one place. There are many much more radioactive things in our everyday life, like your computer monitor, and your microwave oven, and your stereo, and your car, and the Sun, et cetera.

we still had Tchernobyl raining down on us for years!

Plants in the U.S. are built significantly safer than those in Russia. I don't know all of the facts myself, but my father, who is a nuclear reactor control-room operator, had once explained that such a thing as Chernobyl is impossible to happen in U.S. plants.

Re wrongs of America: I think it would be best to rely on unbiased sources, not propaganda.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:26pm Mar 12, 1998 ET (#3824 of 3824)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

Who defines "unsafe?" How is it defined? How were they able to define it?

The NRC, AFAIK. Determined by previous experience, probably because of the effects of military tests before they knew about radiation dangers.

Tell that to the people who live near Chernobyl.

Again, U.S. plants are designed entirely differently, and much safer.

Let's say I was able to download my mind into a computer (or something else) and destroy my brain. Am I still alive? Am I still me?

Only if your brain dies at the same moment, otherwise there were two of you for a time, and then you died while your mental clone lived on. If you're asking whether the computer and your brain share a single consciousness, I don't see how unless they are physically connected so that thoughts are continuous between the two, which could very well be possible in the not-too-distant future.

Bob Janitor: Please send all future posts on this matter to /dev/null.

Or to NUL: for the people stuck on pseudo-OS's |-D

Or the "Recycle Bin" for most ;o)

Bob,

Speaking of which, did you know NBC tests on populized areas are legal provided the government notifies at least one local official?

You mean those polls to see how many people watch Seinfeld? ;o)

Alex,

I think we should get the cloth of Turin, find Jesus' DNA, and start making clones. Then we could corner the Jesus market.

We already talked about this, a long time ago.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:16am Mar 13, 1998 ET (#3824 of 3825)

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

If you're trying to make me feel bad by being nice to me after all my ranting--it worked. I must admit that I have not been very civil to you lately and I regret that now. As I think about it, I think I can make my arguments and express my point of view without the snide remarks. I think I will try it.

Actually, in view of an earlier post in which you likewise indicated that you desired a consensus, I started to do just as you suggest the first time I read your FAQ. For example, the section entitled: "Could we make a clone as a source of transplantable organs?" contains the sentence: "In this way, a group of organs would be cloned rather than a whole person, and there would be no ethical implication."

I considered suggesting a change such that it would read: In this way, a group of organs would be cloned rather than a whole person, and it could be argued that there would be no ethical implication.

However, after adding the "it could be argued" qualifier several places, I came to a topic and an argument in which the qualifier simply did not work. I thought about it for a while, and noting that you had put your name on the FAQ, and rightfully so, I came to the conclusion I had no right to suggest even the smallest change. You wrote it, it is yours, and it represents your philosophy on the matter. I think you ought to keep it exactly the way you want it. While I tend to be unbelieving, one thing I do believe is that one ought to be true to oneself. I think that is probably the most important thing you can do. Be true to yourself. Change your FAQ only if you want to change it. Don't listen to me.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:20am Mar 13, 1998 ET (#3825 of 3825)

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

Tom, I think this is a book on engineering stress analysis, not metallurgy. That is not the part of Materials Science I was talking about. If you look up "steel" in Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers (in Section 6), you will find detailed description of the various alloys of steel, and tables, charts and diagrams, but you will not find a single equation. (I would not suggest that Mark's does not contain equations. It must contain at least a thousand. But in the section on ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy, it contains not a one.)

Just my idea of a lame joke, Tom. I noticed that Noel had been fairly agreeable in his previous postings, saying, "I agree," a number of times, and I thought it would be fun to give him a gentle dig about it. I thought Noel would respond in kind, but in his next posting, he just ignored it. I think it would have been funny if you had limited your response to: "Neither do I."

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

Bob Janitor - 02:32am Mar 13, 1998 ET (#3826 of 3832)

First of all, Tom, if the boiler blew, the core would not necesarily blow. And long term radiation is far worse than a single explosion. And no, it wouldn't go away that quickly... look at Chernobyl and TMI today.

And no, your car does not give off more radiation that a nuclear meltdown.

like your computer monitor, and your microwave oven, and your stereo, and your car,

Your computer monitor produces such low levels of X-Rays it isn't even worth mentioning... especially the new (since 1992) low radiation models that are MPR II (or 3?) compliant.

Microwaves are actually weaker than normal light, and are not ionizing radiation.

Ionizing electromagnetic radiation consists of UV rays, X-Rays, and gamma rays.

Microwaves, stereos, and cars are not radioactive, nor do they produce ionizing radiation.

You mean those polls to see how many people watch Seinfeld? ;o)

No... NBC meaning nuclear, chemical, biological... not national broadcasting company.

Average exposure to radiation from common sources:

Naturally occuring sources:

Cosmic rays: 27 (mrem/yr)

Terrestrial radiation (rocks, etc): 28

Inside human body: 39

Radon in the air: 200 (radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the US)

Artificial sources:

Medical X-Rays: 39

Nuclear medicine: 14

Consumer products: 10

Nuclear power plants: 0.5 (this is for ones that haven't had a meltdown, Tom)

All others: 1.5

Source: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, NCRP Report No. 93 (1987)

The federal safety standard for allowable occupational exposure is 5000 mrem/yr.

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

Tom Anderson - 12:28pm Mar 13, 1998 ET (#3827 of 3832)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

For example, the section entitled: "Could we make a clone as a source of transplantable organs?" contains the sentence: "In this way, a group of organs would be cloned rather than a whole person, and there would be no ethical implication."

I would gladly make a change if you could argue how an organ that is not attached to a brain has any ethical implications in its use.

you will find detailed description of the various alloys of steel, and tables, charts and diagrams, but you will not find a single equation.

In the book I mentioned, you will find the equations.

I think it would have been funny if you had limited your response to: "Neither do I."

I agree.

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

Tom Anderson - 12:29pm Mar 13, 1998 ET (#3828 of 3832)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Bob,

The power of a boiler explosion (probably equivalent to a small thermonuclear explosion) would scatter the radioactive material so widely (probably all around the planet) that no concentration would be significant in any one place. And I don't think there is any way that the core could withstand the power of that blast.

Common electrical appliances do give off radiation all across the spectrum. This is particularly true of those appliance that involve high energy particles such as the electrons shot through a vacuum and impacted against the monitor screen or the microwaves bouncing around in the oven or the photons bouncing off of a CD. Also, amplified stereo speakers, many components of your car, indoor lighting, electrical heating elements, power lines, etc. all give off radiation across the spectrum. Even if you can measure a majority of one wavelength, if you know anything about physics, you know that the energy of any one particle is asymtotic and thus there is always a probability of higher-energy photons.

No... NBC meaning nuclear, chemical, biological... not national broadcasting company.

It was a joke, Bob. You're supposed to laugh.

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

Bob Janitor - 02:22pm Mar 13, 1998 ET (#3829 of 3832)

The power of a boiler explosion (probably equivalent to a small thermonuclear explosion) would scatter the radioactive material so widely (probably all around the planet) that no concentration would be significant in any one place.

I'm sure you know that even a thermonuclear blast leaves localized radioactive particles called fallout. And all the shielding around a core, supposedly designed to survive an earthquake or plane crash, would absorb a significant amount of the blast.

Common electrical appliances do give off radiation all across the spectrum

Yes, there may exist a probability for all wavelengths to be produced, and the device may also contain radioactive elements or isotopes. But your assertation that a laser diode will produce a level of ionizing radiation greater than the release of 100+ megacuries into the environment is ridiculous. Try holding a laser pointer up to even the most sensitive geiger counter. Tell me that it produces more radiation than the what we recieve every year from Chernobyl.

Even worse, nuclear fission byproducts can accumulate in our body, such as the case with Sr-90, and in the long run far more damage can be done by ingesting radioactive elements or compounds that accumulate in the body than just by background radiation alone.

It was a joke, Bob. You're supposed to laugh.

Sorry.

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

Tom Anderson - 04:36pm Mar 13, 1998 ET (#3830 of 3832)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Bob,

I'm sure you know that even a thermonuclear blast leaves localized radioactive particles called fallout.

Right, but the boiler exploding is not thermonuclear.

And all the shielding around a core, supposedly designed to survive an earthquake or plane crash, would absorb a significant amount of the blast.

Perhaps some, but the amount of energy contained in the boiler is extreme. I don't think that any shielding will significantly protect it.

But your assertation that a laser diode will produce a level of ionizing radiation greater than the release of 100+ megacuries into the environment is ridiculous.

That would be a ridiculous assertion, which is why I never made it. I said that the combination of all of the other producers of radiation is more than the very small amount that would be spread due to a boiler explosion.

BTW, all of this is way, way off topic.

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

Bob Janitor - 05:15pm Mar 13, 1998 ET (#3831 of 3832)

Right, but the boiler exploding is not thermonuclear.

Correct; however, you're missing the point. If the boiler blew and took the core with it, there would be "fallout" spread over a large area.

Perhaps some, but the amount of energy contained in the boiler is extreme. I don't think that any shielding will significantly protect it.

What's the equivalency in kilotons of TNT for an average nuclear reactor boiler explosion?

I said that the combination of all of the other producers of radiation is more than the very small amount that would be spread due to a boiler explosion.

A sufficiently powerful boiler explosion would release large amount of radionucleotides into the environment similar to what happened at Chernobyl. In the area surrounding Chernobyl, 48100km^2 were contaminated by 37-185kBq per square meter. That's hot! 100,000 people were initially evacuated, and many more later.

In all, about 200000km^2 around the world was contaminated with longer-lived radionucleotides kicking off 37000Bq per meter.

In Sweden, more than 500 miles away, radiation levels increased to 15 times normal because of Chenobyl.

So really Tom, nuclear accidents put out less radiation than background radiation and people can move right back in to the area?

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

godless clif - 08:49pm Mar 13, 1998 ET (#3832 of 3832)

Cliff with two effs: think we should get the cloth of Turin, find Jesus' DNA, and start making clones. Then we could corner the Jesus market...

Great suggestion! Some thing Leonardo Da Vinci created the forgery, but it certainly was a clever and talented artist. He would be a far more valuable person to clone than the historical Jesus who has wasted millions of peoples time for twenty centuries in useless prayer.We might get some of the bible thumpers who have more money than brains to foot the cloning bill as well if they think it is Jesus.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:39am Mar 14, 1998 ET (#3833 of 3833)

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

godless, I did not make that statement. This statement was made by Alex Clarke at 10:00pn March 12, 1998 ET.

I had not heard the hypothesis that Leonardo Da Vinci created the image on the cloth. I understand that there appears to be blood on the cloth, but since we do not at present--and may never--have the ability to clone dead DNA, it is unlikely we will ever know the source of the (apparent) blood--assuming it is blood and assuming it is human. Even if the blood is shown to be human, and we, at some point, were able to clone dead DNA, it is not certain that a clone from the DNA from the (apparent) blood on the cloth would reveal the source of the blood. (What do we do? Look for Jewish or Italian characteristics? Someone that "looks" like Leonardo Da Vinci or Jesus?) And consider the ethical questions of doing this experiment in the first place. Even if it was possible to do it with full assurance that the child would be healthy, which, in itself, would be dubious, the ethics of doing the experiment would certainly be most dubious.

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

Ed Nelson - 01:12pm Mar 14, 1998 ET (#3834 of 3834)

Cloning is unethical and un-christian. It is wrong and should be considered illegal

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

Carl Nicolai - 04:04pm Mar 14, 1998 ET (#3835 of 3836)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Ed Nelson -#3834

Oh don't worry cloning will be illegal. Then you and your brehtren will have a field day punishing the cloners. Well at least until you require the technology in order to fulfill your plan. Then of course you will have invented it. Or at least so your history will record.

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

Erik Peterson - 05:25pm Mar 14, 1998 ET (#3836 of 3836)

First of all I think it's sad that a couple would go so far as to clone a baby rather than to adopt a little kid without parents.

Second of all pay no attention to message #3835. This is coming from someone who said we should trap an asteroid in Earth's orbit and use a "solar sail" or a "rocket motor" to power a spaceship to go mine it.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:51pm Mar 14, 1998 ET (#3836 of 3838)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Ed & Erik,

Please view my Cloning FAQ

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

Cliff Beall - 02:22am Mar 15, 1998 ET (#3837 of 3838)

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

Ed, I disagree that cloning, per se, is unethical. Whether or not it should be considered unchristian depends, I suppose, on your point of view. Some people would say that all of modern medicine, particularly surgery, is unchristian. But many Christians avail themselves of this benefit and find it to be acceptable. You will have to make that choice for yourself.

I am of the opinion that animal cloning will have many benefits. First, there is the direct medical benefits that we all know about already. Cloned female animals will contain needed proteins in their milk which will alleviate much suffering by people whose bodies do not manufacture these needed proteins. But in addition, there is the likelihood that vital organs, grown in animals, will, in the near future, be available for transplant into humans, and save lives. I suppose some people may refuse to accept an organ grown in an animal. But others will accept them and benefit. You will need to make that decision for yourself, if and when the time ever comes that you need a transplant. Dr. Wilmut, among others, has plans to clone pigs having human genes added to avoid the problem of rejection. I am including a link to a report in the Edmonton Journal. Click the address below to access the report if you wish.

http://www.southam.com/edmontonjournal/news/alberta/101897ab4.html

You will notice, however, that while Dr Wilmut strongly advocates animal cloning for medical purposes, as reported in the article, he opposes human cloning, also reported in the article. As for why he opposes it, he has basically two objections. First, he is concerned about the hazards to the safety of the child. Second, he is concerned that humans will be cloned for the wrong reason.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:23am Mar 15, 1998 ET (#3838 of 3838)

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

As I pointed out in a previous post, I think it would be very unethical to clone a child as a means of gaining information about the source of the blood on the Shroud of Turin. The reason is that I think it is unethical and morally unacceptable to create a person as a means to an end rather than as an end in himself or herself--for the reasons Dr. Wilmut expressed in the Edmonton Journal interview, and in other interviews he has given.

Nevertheless, once the safety issues are overcome, and I assume this will happen one day, I think there may be cases where human cloning might be ethical.

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

Carl Nicolai - 04:51am Mar 15, 1998 ET (#3839 of 3839)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff Beall - #3838

I think it is unethical and morally unacceptable to create a person as a means to an end rather than as an end in himself or herself--for the reasons Dr. Wilmut expressed in the Edmonton Journal interview, and in other interviews he has given.

Wait a sec. People have been having children for all kinds of reasons since they found they could. Mostly children just hapened to them I would guess.

That dosent mean they dont love them or wont care for them.

One point is that cloning is no different in kind from having children by sexual relations. Recently one couple had a child to try and get a genetic match on an organ for their present child.

Was that unethical? Should it be banned? Controlled and regulated by the FDA? Punished by a fine? A prison term?

If the Law distinguishes cloning from other protected rights of reproduction, is there any way a stigma will not attach itself to the child. Regulating by banning will form an psychic apartheid.

Human cloning is going to happen. Now we can do this the easy way or the painfull way, but it can not be stopped.

Trying to forge laws in advance of an event has virtually always produced bad law. Protecting rights in advance of a high probability of a rights violation seems to work much better.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:26pm Mar 15, 1998 ET (#3840 of 3842)

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

Yes, that is true.

Usually they do, and sometimes they don't.

Some time ago, I happened to see part of a television program that told the story about a couple who decided to have another child because they had a teenaged daughter who had leukemia and needed a morrow transplant. A doctor aided the parents in this objective and a little girl was born, having the appropriate blood type. When the little girl was either two or three (I forget which) and considered old enough for the procedure, morrow from her hip bone was drawn and injected into the blood stream of her sister, and it saved the life of the little girl's older sister.

In listening to each of them talk, it was very clear, at least to me, that the parents and the older sister, whose life had been save, all loved that little girl, and considered her very special for herself, as well as for what her birth had meant to the life of her sister. The doctor, who aided this particular couple in having the child, defended his actions on the basis that he had interviewed this particular couple extensively and had concluded that they were the kind of people

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

Cliff Beall - 03:28pm Mar 15, 1998 ET (#3841 of 3842)

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

for which the procedure would be appropriate, but that he might not have aided them under different conditions. An ethicist from some eastern university also appeared on the program, and he admitted that this appeared to be a story with a happy ending, but he did point out the ethical concerns.

My attitude? I think that sometimes you have say to hell with ethics and do the right thing. In this case, I think the doctor was right. The right thing to do in this case was to aid this couple in having another child.

Probably. No. Possibly. Maybe. No.

However, I think the concerns expressed by the ethicists, and by Dr. Wilmut are valid. The FAQ by Charles Arthur and Jeremy Laurance of The Independent newspaper, and reprinted by the Roslin Institute with permission of the publisher, addresses these ethical concerns in what I consider to be an even handed manner. To access this FAQ, click the address below:

<A HREF="http://www2.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk/library/research/cloning/sindyq&a.html"> http://www2.ri.bbsrc.ac.uk/library/research/cloning/sindyq&a.html </A>

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

Cliff Beall - 04:37pm Mar 15, 1998 ET (#3842 of 3842)

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

Carl, there is no easy way. Cloning is a very difficult procedure. At present success rates, as Dr. Wilmut pointed out in the Edmonton Journal interview, hundreds of donor eggs would likely be needed for a single successful pregnancy. Furthermore, as Dr. Wilmut has also pointed out, this is a very gristly business. In the 277 prior attempts to clone Dolly, about 60 percent of the fetuses died before birth, and a significant portion died, after being born, of severe abnormalities. Dr. Wilmut has pointed out that, " It's distressing enough with farm animals, but to contemplate it in humans is quite appalling." I greatly admire Dr. Wilmut for his scientific work, and I also admire his stand against human cloning. The link below is to a report in the Seattle Times that details some of the difficulties that Dr Wilmut experienced cloning Dolly:

<A HREF="http://www.seattletimes.com/news/health-science/html98/clon_011598.html"> http://www.seattletimes.com/news/health-science/html98/clon_011598.html </A>

In preparing this post, I have come to the opinion that it is entirely appropriate to ban procedures for humans that are shown to be as unsafe as cloning from adult cells is for animals. As a consequence, I now wholeheartedly support Kennedy-Feinstein. If and when the technology has been improved to the point that it appears to be relatively safe, there may be reasons to reconsider. But even after the procedure has been made safe for the child, the ethical concerns will remain, and they are real. Should we ignore them simply because they are difficult or inconvenient. I don't think so.

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

Carl Nicolai - 09:59pm Mar 15, 1998 ET (#3845 of 3847)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - #3842

Carl, there is no easy way. Cloning is a very difficult procedure.

The "easy" way, compared to using force against people who will reproduce how ever they can ,is to protect rights by law while instilling a sence of responcibility. This is best done by holding people accountable for their actions. Wrongful birth suits are an attempt at this.

Particulary in a complex highly productive society people have to be largly self governed. Many systems can work if power is coupled with responcibility, but few complex ones have lasted long by the threat of force if it is applied to the vital conserns of people.

This is especially true if it is done preemptivly. They just start breaking the law and quickly loose respect for all law.

If Wilmut was so concerned about malformed children he should publish pictures and the complete data of the failures. That is a moral and ethical thing to do. To support a law "banning" human cloning threatens the rights of us all. To beg off and declare that he is not the person to make these decisions is an abrogation of his responcibility as a human. I can not respect this.

Plesase remember that the heart transplant was done in the (at the time) "banned for trading" country of South Africa. The success of that, even after several failures, rapidly accellerated the development of much safer procedures and as a result saved many additional lives.

Now every "right thinking person" knows that the ethics that should be applied to a person who is certain to die quickly if left alone, is different than to one who is not in immediate danger. However forcing medical advancements to occur in outlaw countries is at the least cowardice and at the worst causes your population either to accept irrational government action or violate the law.

Pause!

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

Carl Nicolai - 10:02pm Mar 15, 1998 ET (#3846 of 3847)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Continnue!.

My position is that a human cloning "ban" is not only constitutionaly llegal, and not only puts us at a technical dissavantage, it also is a phenomenally stupid thing to do.

BTW: You have been a long time participent in this board and have delt with many of the issues debated here. I would like you to rethink your position relative to commenting on the FAQ. I think you have a lot to offer. This is true in many ways because you are relativly moderate and I think your views represent a large segment of the population. I'm sure many people here would value your input. Particurally on the religious and ethical aspects of cloning. I'm sure Tom would like to have some help. It is a very difficult thing to write a FAQ on this issue for non technical readers.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:27am Mar 16, 1998 ET (#3847 of 3847)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

You still have not justified your "ethical concerns".

In what sense are you speaking, Tom?

I have argued that there are no ethical implications of cloning. You state that there are; however you do not describe them, argue them, nor argue against my statements to the contrary. I would like to know what you consider to be an ethical concern which would justify a ban on cloning.

Carl,

Many systems can work if power is coupled with responcibility, but few complex ones have lasted long by the threat of force if it is applied to the vital conserns of people.

I find it amusing that you misplaced the "c" and "s" twice in the same sentence, in opposite ways. Just an observation. (responsibility, concern)

My position is that a human cloning "ban" is not only constitutionaly [illegal], and not only puts us at a technical dissavantage, it also is a phenomenally stupid thing to do.

Bravo!

BTW: You have been a long time participent in this board and have delt with many of the issues debated here. I would like you to rethink your position relative to commenting on the FAQ. I think you have a lot to offer. This is true in many ways because you are relativly moderate and I think your views represent a large segment of the population. I'm sure many people here would value your input. Particurally on the religious and ethical aspects of cloning. I'm sure Tom would like to have some help. It is a very difficult thing to write a FAQ on this issue for non technical readers.

I agree.

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

Frank Joyce - 05:05pm Mar 16, 1998 ET (#3848 of 3848)

Carl:

I'm Not sure if someone has answered your question about the sequence yet. If they haven't, the lower case letters appear because the sequence was done on an automated sequencer. If the signal is not very strong it puts down the base that stands out most over the background. At most gene banks your not supposed to leave it in lower case when entereing data. People just get in the habit of cutting and pasting the readout they get from the computer when the sequencer is finished.

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

Carl Nicolai - 07:41pm Mar 16, 1998 ET (#3849 of 3853)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Frank Joyce - #3848

Thank you. Do you know how much it costs to run an automated sequencer? I understand the chemicals it requires are quite expensive. Has there been much of a price change over the last several years?

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

Cliff Beall - 09:55pm Mar 16, 1998 ET (#3850 of 3853)

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

A law against an unsafe procedure is another.

I agree with that, but I think we need the law. Regulation of cloning by the FDA in the absence of a specific law might be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, I think we need Kennedy-Feinstein.

I don't think he needs to do that. If he were to do what you suggest, he might well be accused of sensationalism. I think he is doing it right.

The law which outlaws cloning can protect the unwary against an unsafe procedure.

Actually, I think the remark to which you refer was a figure of speech, referring to the all individuals in the scientific community, not just to himself. It was his way of saying Dr. Seed, and his kind, can not be trusted to use good sense, and need to be regulated by law.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:58pm Mar 16, 1998 ET (#3851 of 3853)

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

It does not bother me that the first transplant attempt was performed in a country other than the United States. It also would not bother me if the first attempt at human cloning was performed in a country other than the United State. It is not us and them as far as I am concerned. It is just us, the human race.

I agree with Senator Dianne Feinstein who has said: "The cloning of a human being today remains scientifically dangerous, morally unacceptable, and ethically flawed. It may never be acceptable from a moral standpoint, but we do not know enough today to permit the cloning of a human being, or to make a permanent determination about the dangers or potential use of this technology."

She has also said: "The life-saving possibilities for cloning technology are enormous. Scientists at NIH indicate that cloning technology could revolutionize treatment for diabetes, cancer and severe burns, as well as lead to major breakthroughs in treating neurodegenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and repairing spinal cord injuries."

I agree with that too.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:18pm Mar 16, 1998 ET (#3852 of 3853)

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

Thanks for the kind words. But my position is: why reinvent the wheel? I find myself in full agreement with the FAQ written by Charles Arthur and Jeremy Laurance of "The Independent," and reprinted by the Roslin Institute with permission of the publisher. I recommend it highly for anyone who desire good information from a reliable source. (Also, I do not hold myself as a reliable source with respect to the subject matter of this board. I just like to argue, and I think I have learned a few things about biology. That is good enough for me.)

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

Cliff Beall - 10:21pm Mar 16, 1998 ET (#3853 of 3853)

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

I believe I have explained some of my concerns this past weekend. "Justify" is a subjective term. I may never be able to "justify" my concerns to you.

I do have a question of fact for you, however. In your FAQ, you state: "As far as human reproduction, cloning can serve many useful purposes. For one, parents who are highly likely to produce offspring with defects can have the embryo cloned and subject one of the clones to genetic testing -- if there is no defect, one of the other cloned embryos can be implanted and grown to term without danger of genetic defect."

In view of the heart, lung or genito-urinary-tract abnormalities that Dr. Wilmut observed in the cloned lambs that were born prior to Dolly, how do you justify the "without danger of genetic defect" part of the above statement? Heck, how do you "explain" it? (Surely you are not suggesting that Dr. Wilmut failed to do appropriate genetic testing of his sheep clone embryos.)

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

Tracy Eggleton - 12:18am Mar 17, 1998 ET (#3854 of 3854)

Cloning and genetic altering is a pandoras box! Just like when they invented the atom bomb! They invent something without taking into account the ramifications of their new invention. Is there anyone playing devils advocate in the science field? This is not being anti science either. What next, we will have more weird diseases or deformities from genetically engineered food and people.

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

Carl Nicolai - 12:28am Mar 17, 1998 ET (#3855 of 3864)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - #3850.

The law which outlaws cloning can protect the unwary against an unsafe procedure.

That law is going to do exactly the opposite. When abortion was illegal hundreds of people died because of the procedure being done by untrained people and in filthly conditions.

Actually, I think the remark to which you refer was a figure of speech, referring to the all individuals in the scientific community, not just to himself. It was his way of saying Dr. Seed, and his kind, can not be trusted to use good sense, and need to be regulated by law.

I would much rather have someone in the open doing it rather than an underground lab.

It does not bother me that the first transplant attempt was performed in a country other than the United States. It also would not bother me if the first attempt at human cloning was performed in a country other than the United State. It is not us and them as far as I am concerned. It is just us, the human race.

Ahhh... Now that is the problem. This law will absolutely force an "us or them" mentality. The cloners will be declared anathema. Then the police or the army will try to destroy them.

Hmmm... Let's see now, one group bombing abortion clinics and another bombing cloning clinics. What a picture.

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

Tom Anderson - 09:24am Mar 17, 1998 ET (#3856 of 3864)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

I believe I have explained some of my concerns this past weekend.

Nope.

"Justify" is a subjective term.

No, its not. I want you to make an argument as to why cloning could possibly be considered unethical. You must defend your statements.

I may never be able to "justify" my concerns to you.

Then your concerns are unjustified.

I do have a question of fact for you, however. In your FAQ, you state: "As far as human reproduction, cloning can serve many useful purposes. For one, parents who are highly likely to produce offspring with defects can have the embryo cloned and subject one of the clones to genetic testing -- if there is no defect, one of the other cloned embryos can be implanted and grown to term without danger of genetic defect."

In view of the heart, lung or genito-urinary-tract abnormalities that Dr. Wilmut observed in the cloned lambs that were born prior to Dolly, how do you justify the "without danger of genetic defect" part of the above statement? Heck, how do you "explain" it? (Surely you are not suggesting that Dr. Wilmut failed to do appropriate genetic testing of his sheep clone embryos.)

You still seem to be talking about nuclear transfer; however it is clear that, in that statement, I am not. Dr. Wilmut did not observe any problems in embryo cloning. That is exactly how twins are made.

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

Frank Joyce - 12:00pm Mar 17, 1998 ET (#3857 of 3864)

Carl:

There is an automated sequencer on one of the campuses I do research at. I'm not sure how much they charge but I'm sure its not extremely expensive. the chemicals they use are flourescent labeled dies making it a much cheaper reaction to do than using isotopes.

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

Noel Yap - 04:14pm Mar 17, 1998 ET (#3858 of 3864)

Bob Janitor: You can't just "download" your mind... despite what Star Trek writers think. Don't ignore the chemical in electrochemical.

Assuming that your mind is just information. It shouldn't matter what medium it's stored in.

Noel Yap: I agree.

Cliff Beall: I don't.

Tom Anderson: Neither do I. Wait, yes I do. No... Well, I might if I knew what you guys were talking about! Maybe an elaboration of what the (dis)agreement was about?

I don't know; I forgot.

Tom Anderson: If you're asking whether the computer and your brain share a single consciousness,

I was more suggesting that humanity is defined more than having a brain.

Cliff Beall: Change your FAQ only if you want to change it. Don't listen to me.

I tend to agree. Although it is noble of Tom to try to be unbiased, someone searching for the FAQs (sorry, couldn't help it ;) should look at more than just one web site.

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

Noel Yap - 04:15pm Mar 17, 1998 ET (#3859 of 3864)

Bob Janitor: Radon in the air: 200 (radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the US)

How do they go about find out what caused the cancer?

Tom Anderson: I would gladly make a change if you could argue how an organ that is not attached to a brain has any ethical implications in its use.

I think the problems here arise when people think of taking a human and removing its brain rather than growing a brainless bunch of organs. Although I can convince myself that this practice is OK, I do understand how people could see this as immoral.

Tom Anderson: I agree.

Me, too.

Ed Nelson: Cloning is unethical and un-christian. It is wrong and should be considered illegal </blockqutoe>

What makes Christian morals more apt to be legal than other religions'?

Tracy Eggleton: Cloning and genetic altering is a pandoras box! Just like when they invented the atom bomb! They invent something without taking into account the ramifications of their new invention.

This is a reason to "pace" research, not to stop it altogether.

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

Hedeer El-Showk - 05:57pm Mar 17, 1998 ET (#3860 of 3864)

CNN asks...what steps do you think the FDA should take to control cloning? Well...in my belief no steps are really necessary. What is wrong with cloning? If someone wants to have a copy of themselves then whats the harm? I am honestly quite perplexed and I still have not been exposed to any good reason why cloning shouldn't occur other then plain dogma/religious superstition.

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

Hedeer El-Showk - 06:01pm Mar 17, 1998 ET (#3861 of 3864)

The possibilites for scientific inquiry are also infinite. What about a cloned Einstein? People will of course refute this point by asking, what about a cloned Hitler? What would be wrong wtih a cloned Hitler? What people have to realize is that a clone is a clone is nothing more then a genetic reconstruction, if you're religious(which I am not) then I respect that but you must also accept that cloning does not duplicate the "spirit" it just duplicates the body and the internal organs. If you aren't religious then you have to take into account that very little of a persons personality develops as a result of his genes, a lot more of it is actually due to the environment the child is nurtured in.

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

Erik Peterson - 06:49pm Mar 17, 1998 ET (#3862 of 3864)

"As an intern to the honorable Dr. Seed, I look forward to the process of human cloning which should take place within a year or so."

There seems to be a new belief that you can predict exactly how much progress we will make in certain fields of science. There's absolutely no reason to believe it will take place in a year. How many failed tries has it been taking lately to clone animals?

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

Cliff Beall - 07:50pm Mar 20, 1998 ET (#3863 of 3864)

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

I have found a copy of your book reference and borrowed it. Actually, the copy I was able to locate is an earlier edition, published 1993, but I am not about to.spend a hundred dollars for the new edition for a ten cent argument. Basically, this book confirms what I have already said. Chapter 6, "Engineering Alloys" contains the applicable section of the book with respect to what I addressed: specifically, the iron-carbon (alternately called: iron-iron carbide) equilibrium diagram, which is shown on page 426 of the book. A detailed description of the iron-carbon diagram is contained in section 9.2 starting on page 423.

Note that once you have the information contained in the diagram, you can, in some cases, obtain additional information. For example, if the temperature of a metal is such that the metal is part liquid and part solid, by use the lever rule, you can calculate the weight fraction of the liquid and the weight fraction of the solid. The derivation of the equations for the lever rule are given in Chapter 8, section 8.4, page 380. In other words, if you have the experimental data, you can calculate some things. However, except for calculations involving such things as the weight fraction of ferrite or the weight percent of cementite, and calculations involving the lever rule, there are no other equations in this chapter whatever. There is a good reason for this. They don't exist. There are, of course, detailed descriptions, tables, charts and diagrams, similar to the section in Mark's that I previously mentioned. But there are no general equations that, for example, yield the upper and lower transformation temperatures for a carbon steel having a given chemistry (per cent of carbon). The phase diagrams for the various metals are all derived from experimental data.

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

Cliff Beall - 07:51pm Mar 20, 1998 ET (#3864 of 3864)

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

What is the point of all this? Originally, it was simply an observation of mine that some things in nature do not readily admit to mathematical derivation. This was an example that I attempted to use, so that I could argue that the same might apply in biology. I did not expect any controversy. It was just something I knew. But for some reason, perhaps because you were confused, you challenged me and insisting that I was wrong. As I think about it, however, I can think of an excellent example from biology. Actually, it is even better, and I wish I had thought of it earlier. Consider the Human Gnome Project. Presently, we are spending big bucks to map, by experiment, the human gnome. The question arises, why don't we just calculate it? The reason we don't just calculate it is that, like the iron-carbon equilibrium diagram, equations that accurately describe the human gnome do not exist. I doubt such equations will ever exist.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:26am Mar 21, 1998 ET (#3865 of 3867)

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

Tracy, you have a right to your opinion, and, of course, you have a right to express it. But I must note that the statement about "not being anti science" seems inconsistent with the rest of your post. Are you sure you are not anti science?

And since abortion has been made legal, hundreds of thousands of "potential" people have died. Sometimes there is no clear indication of the best or the right course to take. I am not totally comfortable with the idea of a law against human cloning for the purpose of reproduction in the sense that I fear it may overstay its welcome.

I think perhaps you overestimate the potential for underground human cloning. I would think the prospect of profit would be severely limited at this time. The big bucks is in the cloning of animals for the purpose of developing a means of mass producing medicines. I suspect that is where the people who know what they are doing will be, at least for a while.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:30am Mar 21, 1998 ET (#3866 of 3867)

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

Well, if cloning is illegal, it might seem unlikely that the groups that might desire to bomb a cloning clinic would know the location of same. I suppose that would be one benefit of outlawing it :-)

I disagree...I disagree...I disagree.

Incidentally, Tom, have you yet read the "Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission." In case you haven't and are interested click the address below:

<A HREF="http://bioethics.gov/bioethics/pubs.html">

http://bioethics.gov/bioethics/pubs.html </A>

You used the word " cloned," and indicated this was a benefit of cloning. If you are not talking about nuclear transfer, what are you talking about, invitro fertilization? According to Dawn, it is possible to "detect genetic defects in in vitro fertilized embryos and choose not to implant them." No cloning necessary. Is that what you meant?

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

Cliff Beall - 03:32am Mar 21, 1998 ET (#3867 of 3867)

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

Do you know this to be a fact? And if you do, how do you know? Give me a reference.

There is almost always more than one side to an argument. I think the purpose of this board should be to explore the argument from all sides. That is why I have provided links to articles and FAQs that I find interesting, and that tend to support my point of view. I have no objection to others doing the same.

At the present time, it is not safe. I think that is a pretty good reason to wait until it is.

Erik, you appear to be quoting someone. Who are you quoting, and from what source? If it was on this board, I must have missed it.

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:43am Mar 21, 1998 ET (#3868 of 3868)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Thanks for the URL Cliff. It was most interestsing.

A fair ammount of lip servace was given to the rights of people to reproduce or procreate but most of the cautionary tone concerned itself with the possability of limiting reasearch for comercial purposes.

The discussion was centered on ways to get arround indivigual rights. After reading the legal section I found myself thinking like Tom or Noel in that I could not find one piece of reasoning on why human cloning was not ethical per se.

Basicly their legal section was worthless.

I enjoyed the science part more. BTW I now have a problem of how to distinguish transgenic from creating a chrimera on a celular level. The picture of a transgenic sheep happily producing medicine in its milk for human deaseases is one thing. But head like a goat hands like a monkey,body of a lion and a tail with scales is another.

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

Dyson Standford - 12:14pm Mar 21, 1998 ET (#3869 of 3870)

A FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHIC OUTLOOK ON CLONING

Many times I feel we get too bogged down and confused with the details and the minutia of an issue. When we debate cloning, for example, quotes from courts and other offices, legal documents, and scientific details are truly relevant. However, when debating with others who are coming from a completely different philosophic stance, these attempts to impress others with our immense knowledge about the details are quite out of place. What should be debated first are the fundamental philosophic principles involved in cloning and the broader categories of ethics envolved. Until two people at least have a common understanding in this area, debates about specific medical procedures and specific legal documents will fall on deaf ears. I will therefore proceed to state my views in this manner.

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

Dyson Standford - 12:39pm Mar 21, 1998 ET (#3870 of 3870)

THE ETHICS OF CLONING

When we evaluate something in term of ethics, we must relate it to our ethical value system. For example, when we talk about the ethics of cloning human beings, we must first distill the qualities that make humans unique or special, how and when is a being determined to have rights and to what level; as well as what makes cloning unique from invitro fertilization and unique from natural twins on a basic philosophic level.

Now it seems to me that a clone (being a genetic identical) is no different, in its nature, than identical twins. If identical twins are born naturally, no one is saddened because the two will not be "unique and special". What is at issue here is that we artificially induced the twins. Is this any more artificial than when we artificially induce a single child with various infertility treatment? As we progress in our knowledge of biology, I think we will undoubtedly broaden our definition of "reproduction" and the underlying, shared principles of all of its variants.

So if we see cloning as simply another means of reproduction, I would think any amount of cloning would be perfectly ethical as long as the resulting being were treated with the same rights as any other twin (or individual for that matter). Where our sci-fi induced imaginations go wild is when we conceive of cloning-factories where a slave population is produced for spare parts and labor. I can't believe that, if a human clone with a thinking brain were produced, that the police wouldn't arrest anyone keeping that person against his/her will or killing them. As far as the law is concerned, we should consider a clone of an adult to be simply an offspring (in this case having only one parent) who would have all of the same legal rights as any other parent.

Spare parts is a major issue here as well. If we could clone specific parts (a heart, lungs, arm, etc.) then they would simply be meat - no problem. If we cannot do that or if we clone brains

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

Cliff Beall - 04:51am Mar 22, 1998 ET (#3871 of 3872)

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

I think it is a remarkable document.

I did not read it that way, Carl. I think the argument that reproductive choice is a fundamental right was presented about as well as it is possible to present it. The quote from the district court, "It takes no great leap of logic to see that within the cluster of constitutionally protected choices that includes the right to have access to contraceptives, there must be included within that cluster the right to submit to a medical procedure that may bring about, rather than prevent, pregnancy," is a very strong statement in support of individual choice in reproductive matters.

Also, while the possibility of limiting commercial advantage as a means of limiting practice was mentioned, I do not think the commission viewed this as particularly significant. It was not mentioned in their recommendations. It appears to me that the commission was mainly concerned with the issue of safety, and that, as currently implemented, the procedure is clearly dangerous. I found myself agreeing with practically everything the report said.

As currently implemented, it is dangerous. Even "fundamental rights" are not absolute. The right to free speech does not extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium.

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

Cliff Beall - 04:53am Mar 22, 1998 ET (#3872 of 3872)

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

It was the legal section that contained the quote from the district court. This section also made a very strong case that any legislation to ban cloning should contain a sunset provision. As I read the report, the majority of the commission members appear to have taken the position that when the technology has progressed to the point where the procedure is "reasonably" safe for the child, fundamental reproductive rights should not be abridged.

I think it was a reasonable survey of the "state of the art."

Dyson, the problem is that you presuppose the procedure to be safe. It is not. Instead, it is clearly dangerous to potential offspring. As such, it is clearly unethical--until such time as the procedure can be made safe. Once that is done, there are other ethical considerations that should be addressed, but this is the main one.

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

Yogi Rele - 08:18am Mar 22, 1998 ET (#3873 of 3873)

Greensboro, NC

Whatever progress we do in science we are still touching the outer sphere of life and not knowing the inner one, the ultimate soul. If we can focus our energies knowing innerself more then that will bring real goodness for this blue planet.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:10pm Mar 22, 1998 ET (#3874 of 3875)

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

Yogi, that is all well and good. That is a very noble thought. But that does not tell me anything about your attitude about cloning--which it the central point of this board. As the commission reported, religious thought, while seemingly assuming roughly the same premises, can be very wide ranging in its conclusions. My questions are: How do you feel about human cloning in general, and did you agree with the conclusions of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission? In case you have not yet read it, click the address below for a link to the report:

<A HREF="http://bioethics.gov/bioethics/pubs.html">

http://bioethics.gov/bioethics/pubs.html </A>

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

Noel Yap - 03:47pm Mar 23, 1998 ET (#3875 of 3879)

Hedeer El-Showk: I am honestly quite perplexed and I still have not been exposed to any good reason why cloning shouldn't occur other then plain dogma/religious superstition.

If enough of the masses believe in the dogma, it's enough of a reason to move at a pace that the masses can handle.

Hedeer El-Showk: very little of a persons personality develops as a result of his genes, a lot more of it is actually due to the environment the child is nurtured in.

This is questionable. Nature vs nurture cannot be generalised. It depends upon the individual (both genetic and environmental) and the specific traits you are talking about. I have no doubt that, no matter what the upbringing, certain individuals will still be psychotic.

Cliff Beall: This section also made a very strong case that any legislation to ban cloning should contain a sunset provision.

I think most, if not all, laws should have sunset provisions.

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

RobM - 09:41pm Mar 24, 1998 ET (#3876 of 3879)

What is the point in cloning humans? And everyone says it's like playing god, which i kinda disagree.. if god was against cloaning, why would he of made it possible? If he didn't want cloaning, he could've made it impossible for us to clone (btw-im not justifying it either way) ...I think cloning is a bad idea, it's like cheating at a game i guess.. takes all the fun out of everything. If we cloned a bunch of Einstiens, no one else could go into the science field but Einstiens. And once the person is cloned and they find out they are just a copy of someone else, wouldn't that be kinda depressing for them? Those are just my thoughts, I'm not trying to start a message war :)

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

Noel Yap - 03:33pm Mar 25, 1998 ET (#3877 of 3879)

RobM: if god was against cloaning, why would he of made it possible?

If God were against incest, why would he make it possible?

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

Dawn Willis - 05:12pm Mar 26, 1998 ET (#3878 of 3879)

Cliff, it is possible to check an in vitro fertilized embryo for certain genetic defects, but you have to have specific defects in mind. It isn't a general "defect test." The most common genetic defects screened for are Tay-Sachs, Lesch-Nyan, and cystic fibrosis, conditions where the child is either born retarded or has a short and difficult life. It isn't always a safe procedure, either--that is why the success rate of in vitro fertilization is only 20-30%. The rest of the embryos fail to implant, or spontaneously abort (usually quite early). It is easier and cheaper to conceive naturally, check for suspected defects via amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, and abort the damaged fetus. Most couples don't do this unless they have already had one affected child.

There is an interesting article on the genetic basis of morality in the April issue of Atlantic Monthly. Not exactly related to cloning --although maybe we could clone the gene(s) for morality and make sure everyone got a copy!

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

Mohan Madhusudanan - 06:24pm Mar 26, 1998 ET (#3879 of 3879)

Neol, you are right. Cloning should not be ignored because of opposition from religious people. One can never know what cloning has to offer us. May be, cloning and such techniques may lead to intelligent humans who might be able to save the future humanity from the asteroids. However, at the same time, the potential misuse of cloning should not be underestimated

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

Cliff Beall - 10:28pm Mar 26, 1998 ET (#3880 of 3880)

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

Let's not get carried away, Noel. But I think it is appropriate in the case of human cloning where the principal basis for a law prohibiting the practice has to do with safety issues that are likely to be resolved in a few years.

Maybe it is a test. At least that is the answer I used to get from such questions.

Understood. And I appreciate the clarification. As you know, I do like to quote you. I figure that when I can say that Dawn said something, there won't be much argument. Plus, you usually post a clarification, which I can then file away for future quoting. As far as I am concerned, it is a win-win situation.

Well, if we all got too moral, life might not be much fun. Of course, at my age, it probably wouldn't make much difference anyway.

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

Carl Nicolai - 12:32pm Mar 27, 1998 ET (#3881 of 3883)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref Cliff Beall - #3880

Noel Yap: I think most, if not all, laws should have sunset provisions.

Let's not get carried away, Noel. But I think it is appropriate in the case of human cloning where the principal basis for a law prohibiting the practice has to do with safety issues that are likely to be resolved in a few years.

OK! Lets clear the air. None of the carring people want to bring a malformed human into existance.

Any law that is passed, banning any reproductive freedom, will either raise serious questions or ignored.

Laws all-ready exist relating to wongfull human life creation.

If the proposed laws are passed the estimate of the "clone wars" will advance to the early 2010s.

Science will win. If so it will also become corrupted in the same way as the Templar (sp?) Knghts (sp?) became evil in the moselem world (The red cross).

This planet does not require another serious religious war between the monotheists(sp?). (Or maybe it does?)

A slight delay of say 50 years will allow the space colonizers (which everyone knows don't respect earth customs) to work out some solutions.

Then the "garden planet" can figure out what to do. (No violence please)

I won't be alive but I'd like my children to survive.

Sunset laws are the wave of the future.

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

Noel Yap - 04:29pm Mar 27, 1998 ET (#3882 of 3883)

Mohan Madhusudanan: Neol, you are right. Cloning should not be ignored because of opposition from religious people.

I didn't say this. Although I personally think we can gain many benefits from this technology, we cannot ignore the "Frankenstein" response from the religious community. This means we must more forward at a pace that most people can psychologically cope.

Mohan Madhusudanan: May be, cloning and such techniques may lead to intelligent humans who might be able to save the future humanity from the asteroids. However, at the same time, the potential misuse of cloning should not be underestimated

I agree.

Cliff Beall: Well, if we all got too moral, life might not be much fun.

Remember, genetics accounts for only a part of what an individual will become. Perhaps society'll create campaigns that say, "Have will power, ignore your moral tendencies, just do it!" ;)

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

charles emerson - 04:58pm Mar 27, 1998 ET (#3883 of 3883)

I am not afraid of cloning, really dont understand all the opposition, have tried to get some to define it more specifically for me and they cannot....they just say, "I dont know, I just dont like it" or something to that effect. what i really would like to see is an attempt to clone dead historical figures such as napolean, G. kahn, alexander the great, maybe even some prehistoric people if possible. wouldnt that be cool to be able to clone neaderthal men? that would certainly settle some debates! I watched a show the other day where they exhumed jesse james and tried to extract DNA, well they could not get any from the bones but did get some from the teeth. bingo, jesse rides again!.....as technology becomes more advanced we may one day be able to reproduce a particular DNA sequence not from the dna itself but from an artifact that reveals its sequence.. and for all of you opposed to cloning.get over it because WE WILL CLONE HUMANS... god save the queen!

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

Cliff Beall - 10:06pm Mar 27, 1998 ET (#3884 of 3885)

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

Okay. But what about uncaring people, or even about caring people who do not recognize--or refuse to recognize--the current risks? I think we need a law that will stand up in court.

The problem with laws that already exist is that they miss the mark. The FDA decision which supposedly gives the FDA the authority to regulate human cloning had to do with provisions in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. To arrive at their conclusion, they had to interpret human cloning as a cellular or genetic therapy. But it is a real stretch to say this applies to cloning. Cloning is a replication method; it is not a therapy. In a court case, I doubt that the FDA would be able to prevail in that interpretation. The solution is a law specifically directed to the procedure.

I see no such danger. The procedure is simply too difficult and too costly to have widespread usage. Yesterday, Dawn pointed out that a relatively non-intrusive procedure such as invitro fertilization still has only a 20-30 percent success rate. Cloning is much more difficult and dangerous. It is not something that every kid down the street is likely to indulge themselves.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:08pm Mar 27, 1998 ET (#3885 of 3885)

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

Science is pure. Science will never be corrupted. Individual scientist may become corrupted, and society will have to deal with that corruption if it occurs just as it deals with corruption from any other source, but science, itself, will always be pure.

I don't know why. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

I don't believe in will power. It often fails. I have much more confidence in genetics. That is what comes natural, and can be trusted. I suspect that genetics accounts for at least 80 to 90 percent of what a person is.

Well, I will give you my reason for opposing human cloning. It is not safe for the child. Until it is demonstrated to be safe for animals, I will oppose human cloning.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:10pm Mar 27, 1998 ET (#3886 of 3886)

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

It is not possible with current technology to clone the dead. Heck, it has not yet been demonstrated that cloning alive adult cells is possible more than once. (Here I am assuming that Dolly was cloned from an adult cell. But even that has not actually been confirmed.)

Yes, that was a good show. Most of the good upstanding folks in my neck of the woods--particularly those of the older generation--admired Jesse. To many of them, Jesse was something of a figure of romance. I think that most of them want to believe that Jesse went to Heaven. I would suspect that few of them would be interested in cloning Napoleon, Kahn or Alexander, but the mere mention of Jesse as a clone possibility would cause their eyes to light up like jewels in the sky, before they remember that they are opposed to cloning.

Well, okay. BTW, is the queen in favor of cloning?

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:45pm Mar 27, 1998 ET (#3887 of 3887)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - #3885

Carl Nicolai: Science will win. If so it will also become corrupted...

Science is pure. Science will never be corrupted. Individual scientist may become corrupted, and society will have to deal with that corruption if it occurs just as it deals with corruption from any other source, but science, itself, will always be pure.

Sure, OK, the scientists will become corrupted.

Carl Nicolai: Sunset laws are the wave of the future.

Cliff: I don't know why. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

The growth of tecknology based on recent advancements in science is proceeding at such a fast pace that the problems it introduces can not be anticipated. The major religions also can not cope. In that atmosphere it is very easy for a foolish law to be passed. Once passed the problem may become less severe but often such laws are left on the books.

For instance in the State of Washington there was an 1860s (or so) law that prohibited people of the opposite sex who were not blood relatives from living together. The law had a fine and jail time associated with it. It was used by small towns to get rid of people they didnt like. (Those dirty hippies) so the police liked it. It was one more legal tool they could use to harrass people.

It took until the late 1970s before that law and a large batch of others were eliminated.

Sunset provisions force legislators to reconsider such stupid laws after they have been tried.

The alternative is to pass a new law that does away with some of the provisions of the old law.

Then you have a hodge podge of laws that contradict each other and the entire system gets so complex that no one knows just what is legal.

There is no question that laws will be passed concerening genetic engineering and cloning. With such a rapidly advancing field some of the "good idea" laws will not work.

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

gerard dove - 10:23pm Mar 29, 1998 ET (#3888 of 3890)

I believe in nature and natural law. If a couple is infertile, this is nature's design for the couple. There are countless children in need of adoption. Why do people always want to fix something that is not broken. If you are infertile, deal with it! Adopt! This whole issue of cloning is a refinement in the arrogance of mankind/womankind. We are not Gods.

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

Carl Nicolai - 01:40pm Mar 30, 1998 ET (#3889 of 3890)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. gerard dove - #3888

I believe in nature and natural law. If a couple is infertile, this is nature's design for the couple. There are countless children in need of adoption. Why do people always want to fix something that is not broken.

When you can not reproduce "naturally" something is broken.

If you are infertile, deal with it! Adopt! This whole issue of cloning is a refinement in the arrogance of mankind/womankind. We are not Gods.

Cloning is a way of dealing with it.

Nature is the design not the designer. But maybe you are saying that "Nature" is the "God".

We are a part of nature and have a right to be here and reproduce. If we can do it by cloning that is perhaps because of our nature.

I'm glad you think cloning is a refinement of arrogance. I'd hate to think that all the people in favor of cloning were crudely arrogant. ;)

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

John F. Stevens - 02:02pm Mar 31, 1998 ET (#3890 of 3892)

I think That cloning will be great for Mankind because we will have all the vital organs we need for Transplant operations. When you need that new Liver,Pancrease, Eye, Heart,Lung, think of that and who knows we may end up living forever.

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

Ken Yuen - 02:57am Apr 1, 1998 ET (#3891 of 3892)

John F. Stevens - 02:02pm Mar 31, 1998 ET (#3890 of 3890)

And what happens to the clone ??? This clone that you want to harvest organs from will be a normal walking talking human like me and you. The cloned egg will still have to spend 9 months in mommy before it is born. We still have to spend huge amounts of time and money to raise this child to adulthood. And then we are going to kill it because someone needs spare parts ??? By the time all this is accomplished, the person needing the parts would be long dead. Or do we start growing the clone before parts are needed ??? What do we do about the clone being an induvidual with its own free thinking mind ??? Do we prevent it from ever gaining conscienceness ??? Do we make it a "vegetable" just so that its a life support system for parts ???

This is a tough topic to deal with. Im sure the reality of cloning will be only for non-humans in the future; Unless we can grow the spare parts in an artificial womb or other "incubators."

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

Carl Nicolai - 10:04am Apr 1, 1998 ET (#3892 of 3892)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Oh good! We finally get some output from the heavies. to whit (From the CNN report):

Dr. Jerome Kassirer and consultant Nadia Rosenthal wrote in the editorial.

"I'm willing to hold off completely on any kind of plan to clone a human, but I'm not willing to hold off on research that could yield enormous therapeutic benefit," Kassirer said.

Translation:

You can pass any kind of a law you want that limits individual freedom to procreate but don't mess with my freedom as a scientist.

Note: Argumentum ad vercundum, and ad hominum. (both invalid)

The journal also urged scientists to engage in an honest debate with the general public on the use of human cloning.

"We need to think about what, if any, circumstances might warrant cloning, as well as the circumstances under which it should never be allowed," the editorial said.

Translation:

"Look it's not that we wont talk to the unwashed masses it's just that we have a preconceved idea about what is an exceptable(sp?) field of discussion.

Rant over.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:00pm Apr 1, 1998 ET (#3893 of 3902)

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

John F. Stevens:

I think you can forget spare parts for transplant from human clones. It is simply not going to happen. There are too many people who would oppose it, including me. However, you can expect spare parts for transplant from animals, specially bred with human genes to prevent rejection, perhaps within three or four years, perhaps sooner. This is going to happen, and soon.

Ken Yuen:

For most of your post, you hit the nail right on the head. However, I disagree with your last two sentences. Human cloning for normal reproductive purposes is likely at some point. Perhaps not soon, but at some point. There will be no spare parts from an artificial womb, however. That is not going to happen. The technology to do such a thing is too advanced, the cost is too great, the ethics are too difficult--plus a cheap alternative will soon be available.

Carl Nicolai:

I understand where you are coming from. But I think you rant is misplaced. Dr. Kassirer was simply engaging in hyperbole. It was just an expression of relative importance, and the possibilities, given the current facts and state of the technology. I have no doubt but that as soon as animal cloning from adult cells is demonstrated to be safe for the offspring, the scientific community, including Dr. Kassirer, will support human cloning trials to determine if human cloning is safe. When it is safe, it will be done.

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

Carl Nicolai - 12:30am Apr 2, 1998 ET (#3894 of 3902)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff. Strait human cloning or even making a mosaic human clone is not going to get too many people upset once it is safe.

It's the transgenic work that is going to really bother some people.

When a bull, whose progeny gave milk that had a human protene base, was announced in europe, many people called for its distruction on the basis that it offended and downgraded human females.

This did not happen when a pig that produced human growth factor was developed.

The advanges of using animals to grow human replacement parts are so immense that it is effectively a done deal.

In the next year or so I will have several thousand dollers worth of dental work done. Would I pay twice as much to be able to grow new teeth from say buds supplied from an animal fetus if they were cloned from my own genes? In a heartbeat.

So it is predictable that animals that can support the growth of human replacement parts will be produced.

Now how many human genes will it take, starting with "pure" animal and progressing to say a beast that has a body temp of 98.6F (pigs have 101F) and further until it has say 46 chromosomes and whatever else is required?

The genetic distance between some animals and humans is just 5%. Lets say we reduce it to just 2%?

But wait how about 1%. Maybe this animal does a better job.

Now remember that we are engineering and cloning animals not humans.

---Cont---

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

Carl Nicolai - 12:36am Apr 2, 1998 ET (#3895 of 3902)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

---Cont---

No amount of regular "animinal rights" activists are going to stop this kind of money making potential. (Not to mention the lives it will save and extend.)

Problems? Sure:

"Ok so someone screwed up and some of them can talk. We all make mistakes. At least it still looks like an animal. See beatiful pelt and no hands.

What do mean some Tek is teaching one of them to read and recite the Lords Prayer. Fire that idiot now.

I dont care if we have 150,000,000 $ invested in this line. You had better put down all the vocalisers.

We can't use them anyhow after the sentient rights activists get a hold of this."

Now a lot of people have been giving the Christans a bad time on this group. We havent even heard from the militant Buddhests yet. Those folks wont sue you, or threaten you, they will just torch themselves in front of your lab. (Remember Viet Nam)

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

Dawn Willis - 03:55pm Apr 2, 1998 ET (#3896 of 3902)

gerard dove: Infertility doesn't usually result from genetic defects. More than likely it is from infections, or perhaps the woman is too old. Almost everyone would prefer having their own genetic offspring to adopting, because--it's in our genes!

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

Dan Balzarini - 03:02pm Apr 3, 1998 ET (#3897 of 3900)

There was this Thessalian king named Ixion who went nuts over a goddess named Hera who happened to be the sister and wife of Zeus. Well to make a long story short poor Ixion ended up in Hades bound to a turning wheel. One other thing old Ixion is famous for is that he was father to the Centaurs (half man-half horse). He ended up in a bad way and anyone who wants to do any human-animal cloning should consider this.

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

Noel Yap - 03:21pm Apr 3, 1998 ET (#3898 of 3900)

charles emerson: really dont understand all the opposition,

Natural fear of the unknown.

Cliff Beall: Science is pure. Science will never be corrupted. Individual scientist may become corrupted, and society will have to deal with that corruption if it occurs just as it deals with corruption from any other source, but science, itself, will always be pure.

Did you realise you could substitute "religion" in place of "science" in the above? Obviously, you'd also have to substititute "religious leader" in place of "scientist", too.

Cliff Beall: I suspect that genetics accounts for at least 80 to 90 percent of what a person is.

I think it would depend on what trait you're testing and the individual himself.

Carl Nicolai: The growth of tecknology based on recent advancements in science is proceeding at such a fast pace that the problems it introduces can not be anticipated.

I agree. This is why I believe in pacing advancements.

Carl Nicolai: The major religions also can not cope.

The major religions were created at a time when advancements were either non-existent or extremely slow. They dealt with problems much different than what we're dealing with today. They're not made to cope with fast-paced changes. They need time to change or die out.

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

Noel Yap - 03:21pm Apr 3, 1998 ET (#3899 of 3900)

Carl Nicolai: In that atmosphere it is very easy for a foolish law to be passed. Once passed the problem may become less severe but often such laws are left on the books.

This is true.

Carl Nicolai: It took until the late 1970s before that law and a large batch of others were eliminated.

I think it was TN or MA that just went through a cleaning of the books. Among the laws that were eliminated was one that said a man with a lantern and whistle was supposed to walk ten feet ahead of a vehicle driven by a woman so as to warn others. There are many such laws.

Carl Nicolai: Sunset provisions force legislators to reconsider such stupid laws after they have been tried.

I agree.

gerard dove: I believe in nature and natural law.

Nature has examples regarding everything. For example, cannibalism is natural. Would you say this is an OK practice 'cos it's natural? AIDS is natural, too, therefore we shouldn't try to get rid of it?

gerard dove: There are countless children in need of adoption.

Didn't nature intend them to be parentless?