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

Carl Nicolai - 10:51am Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4000 of 4002)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Mike Magner - #3999

Good work. Please advance to grade two.

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

Noel Yap - 04:21pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4001 of 4002)

What do you mean by wrongheaded?

We are able to easily chunk in this manner 'cos we lie outside the chunk.

The same goes for ants, bees, and neurons. The group does not predictably dictate the actions of the individuals.

But then that particular human is different from when he was part of society. The same goes for ants and bees separated from their group.

I don't know about "more real." But society is a separate concept from a human being. It has behaviours, actions, and inter-relationships just like any other individual living thing.

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

Noel Yap - 04:21pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4002 of 4002)

We weren't talking about thriving. We were talking about society being a "living being".

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

joshua wolfe - 08:20pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4002 of 4005)

I think that cloning is a bad thing wether you believe in god or not.

First of all if we started to clone people or half-human, half-animal. there will be a chance of a big disease that could wipe out the entire population because they are all the same .

Plus it makes for a very boring world.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:01pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4003 of 4005)

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

Yes, I remember now. But I did not see the point then as I do now. You'll have to forgive me. I am a little slow.

Makes perfect sense.

This is an area with which you and I disagree. But of course, I am thinking of Kennedy-Feinstein which would make (human) cloning illegal for a period of 10 years, after which the law would have to be reviewed and re-passed by congress to remain in effect. I would anticipate that if conditions have changed such that (human) cloning would be expected to be as safe as invitro fertilization, the ban would not be able to pass muster the second time. Furthermore, if it is again passed, despite evidence that the procedure has been made relatively safe, the Supreme Court might give relief on constitutional grounds. I would also expect similar review of laws in most other countries.

However, if, by that time, the procedure is not made safe, I would expect that most people will assume that it probably will never be made safe and a permanent ban would have to be put in place. In either case, I would not expect this to result in a war. It isn't that important.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:04pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4004 of 4005)

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

I do not see this happening, unless it is the parents who perform the procedure. Actually, I don't see it happening anyway, if the child is born healthy, in the USA.

I see your point. It isn't pretty is it? But somehow, I expect that we will be able to avoid most of the ugliness. (I guess it is the middle-of-the-road Eisenhower-type republican in me;)

Smooth response. Beside the point, but smooth.

Carl, you certainly have a sharp tongue. Mike's point wasn't bad, and it certainly didn't deserve that, and we ought to be nice to the non-regulars anyway. Who knows, if we don't run him off, he might become a regular. We could use a couple. Except for you, Noel and me, most of the regulars we used to have have more or less taken a walk. (Maybe we were too tough on them:-)

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

Cliff Beall - 09:06pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4005 of 4005)

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

Noel, you know me. I use standard dictionary definitions. In my Webster's, wrongheaded means, "stubborn in adhering to wrong opinions, ideas, etc.: perverse."

Noel, you are going a bit further than I would. I would not describe society as a "living thing" or a "living being." I would only go so far as to call society an entity that is real, and has power and rights independent of individuals within society. When organized properly, as I believe our national society was, there are certain limits to the power of society, that is: some rights should be reserved to the individual--except where the existence, health and vitality of society, itself, is challenged by such rights. For example, free speech does not extend to yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium. I think the practice of cloning for the purpose of reproduction, given the current danger to the offspring, would also fit into that description.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:49pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4006 of 4006)

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

Joshua, I hate to say this after what I said to Carl about his response to Mike's post, but, in my opinion, your point is not very well taken. First, if you clone a few people from the same person, those clones, being identical genetically, might all be wiped out, supposing they were susceptable to a particular disease, but clones from different individuals would be as different from each other as the individuals from which they were cloned. In any case, I fail to see how this would cause the entire population to be wiped out.

Also, I am not sure I understand how half-human half-animal clones could be considered boring.

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

Carl Nicolai - 10:17pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4007 of 4009)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Noel Yap - #4000 and 4001

I don't know about "more real." But society is a separate concept from a human being. It has behaviours, actions, and inter-relationships just like any other individual living thing.

Sure! It has qualities, but it is still an abstract being not a living thing.

As a human all you need to do is think and you can bring an abstract being into existance. If you and I decide to become friends then we have created a friendship.

We can define that friendship in a number of ways and if it appears to influence our behavior other people, not a part of our friendship, will still acknowledge it.

We could even turn it into a legal person by registering it as a company. Create a board of directors.Give it assets to controll. Get it a line of credit. Have it hire other people. We could tell people it was actually the manifistation of the great Pu-Ba, lord of the universe, the supreme intelligence from which all protections of the mind and soul emminated. What a being! What a society!

Noel:We weren't talking about thriving. We were talking about society being a "living being".

Ahhhaa... That is going to be a hard sell. No matter how many people we attract and convince that they belong to a group that is actually a living being a whole lot of other people are going to say that Pu-Ba is just the product of a demented mind.

A society of clones however all-ready has a history. Because of Si Fi books, shows, and movies many people have all-ready been indoctronated into what to expect.

Outside of twins, the first contact people will have is with clones is with farm animals (or so it seems). lets take a look at what is happening. ---cont---

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

Carl Nicolai - 10:21pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4008 of 4009)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

---Cont--- Not satisfied with breading practices that produce pure bread siblings in massive numbers by inducing muultiple ovulation and invitro fertalization, the bio factories of the near future will contain thousands of cloned bio machines. I say bio machines because that is how they will be treated (all ready are in many cases and ways). No one is going to let a line of extremely valuable drug producing animals run arround a pasture and maybe get sick. They keep them in azenic clean rooms.

Now every QC maniger knows that consistancy is absolutely mandated. Even though the animals are clones, he wants them to look like clones. He and the marketing manager are going to breed out hide pattern differences.

This is the immage people will have of all clones. They will think of them as beings with no individuality. A herd mentality. Not like us.

Selling people on the idea that a society of clones is a "living being" should be a cake walk.

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

Eric L - 11:03pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4009 of 4009)

I hope ignorance and fear do not halt the good from which cloning science promises. Just as the irrational (but well intentioned) reaction after the arrival of the printing press in the West led to mass 'book burnings', the West transenced that period accepting both the 'good' and 'bad' of that technology. The real debate is not about whether cloning itself is good or bad. Is a factory of human organs immoral? If you believe this is so, then we should ban organ transplants from brain dead people as well.

Does a human clone have different rights from the 'original' it came from? NEVER. The important question is about moral rights. I believe humans do have rights which animals do not. Notice that we can't seriously describe a dog a person. No plant or animal we know of earns the status of a person. This is not because a 'person' has anything to do with human life, but a 'person' is known to be sentient. A person, natural or not/human or alien, has rights that non-sentient life does not. Sentient beings can be described as life which percieves time in a unique way; after growing: all sentient life has the ability to remember the past, percieve the present and can imagine possible futures. Animals generally live in the present, where the past may 'program' its memory; but not the same as a persons memory.

Anything short of a person's past/present/future perception excludes many of our inherent moral rights.

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:22pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4010 of 4011)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - #1404

Carl, you certainly have a sharp tongue. Mike's point wasn't bad, and it certainly didn't deserve that, and we ought to be nice to the non-regulars anyway. Who knows, if we don't run him off, he might become a regular. We could use a couple. Except for you, Noel and me, most of the regulars we used to have have more or less taken a walk. (Maybe we were too tough on them:-)

I agree. It has been removed.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:54pm Apr 13, 1998 ET (#4011 of 4011)

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

Carl, I think you are beginning to get the point. Society is real. It has power, rights and authority. I don't think we can say that a corporation is alive. But it certainly is an entity, and it can do all the things you say it can do.

I am not sure why clones would feel a special affinity for each other. Clones from different individuals will be as different as the individuals from which they were cloned. Actually, it would seem more likely to me that people who have had themselves cloned would form an association. They would probably perceive themselves as having something in common.

Eric, I think the reason we have rights and animals do not is that we form societies to guard our rights. If dogs formed a society to guard their rights, they would have rights too. Now if we notice that the dogs are forming a society to guard their right, we might want to try to put a stop to it, but if we failed and the dog society defeated our societies, then dogs would have all the rights and we would have none. BTW, did you ever see "Planet of the Apes"?

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

Cliff Beall - 12:31am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4012 of 4012)

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

Eric, in reviewing Carl's most recent post (#4010), it has occurred to me that I may not have taken your post as seriously as I should have. Please understand, however, that from my point of view, the concept of "natural rights" is irrelevant. The rights we enjoy are the rights our forefathers decided they wanted, natural or not. They fought a war to obtain those rights, and those rights have been maintained to this day by our society. It is not that we have them because we deserve them more than other people, or more than animals. We have them because our society is strong enough to maintain them. At least, that is what I think.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:53am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4013 of 4013)

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

And by saying: "It is not that we have them because we deserve them more than other people," I do not mean to imply that we in the United States are the only society on earth that have freedom of expression, and some of the other important rights we enjoy. The citizens of many countries have rights comparable to ours. Those that do have societies strong enough to maintain their rights also. But, unfortunately, the inhabitants of some countries do not have certain rights that we have. It is not because they are less deserving.

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

Carl Nicolai - 01:39am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4014 of 4014)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Eric L - #4009 Great! post.

Cliff: The problem with your view of society is that it severs the bond of power and responcibility that is necessary to elicit ethical if not moral behavior.

A number of years ago the US experienced a gas shortage. In fact there was no real shortage. What hapened was that individual government officials made statments that spooked the american people so that they went from an average of 1/2 tank to 3/4s of a tank of gas. The instainious demand caused monts of turmoil, gas lines, fist fights, hording, hate, anger, the loss of lives, and general discontent.

A few years later a group of a group of people including several fameous actors testified in a highly publisised case before the congress about the extreme danger of allar (sp?) in Washington apples. Even though all the statements were later proved baseless the apple farmers in Washington state suffered an extimated 145 million dollar of economic damage.

These people in effect did yell fire in a crouded theater. But largly because they were a part of societies they were not held accountable for their actions as individuals.

These cases illistrate the mischief that can insue when you grant societies human rights.

In fact even the peopole involved in using the precevied rights of societies dont beleive in them.

Ronald Regan "disolved" the Air Traffic Conmtrollers Union a while back and it vanished like spit on a hot rock.

It is easy to see how cloning in and of itself conveys new power, and by extention rights, to childless people. I don't see how it does for "society" unless the business of "society" is human procreation.

"To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed..." I think it goes something like that. If procreation, weither by cloning or other means does not speak to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness I'd sure like to know what does.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:58am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4015 of 4016)

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

Yeah, but only because he agrees with you.

I don't think so. Ethical behavior is the responsibility of each individual.

I believe you are referring to the time of the oil embargo. Is that correct?

Was it really baseless?

Of course they could have been held accountable for their actions if their actions were actionable. But for speech to be held actionable, you have to prove something. Freedom of speech is a powerful right, as well it should be. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:01am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4016 of 4016)

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

Members of organizations within our society have the same rights as any other individual, and the same obligation of citizenship as any other citizen. I do not see a point?

It is the role of society to guard the rights of individuals. It is also the role of society to protect individuals from harm where appropriate. Just because a pharmaceutical company wants to market a medicine does not mean it can just start selling it. Our society does not allow it. The medicine must be shown to be both safe and effective, before it can be put on sale. It is exactly the way it should be.

No argument with that. I fully agree. When cloning is safe (or, at least as safe as other methods allowed), it also should be allowed.

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

Mike Magner - 06:10am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4017 of 4025)

Science has one purpose: To serve mankind. It does this by obtaining new information about our universe and applying that information in a manner which will help mankind. Somehow I get the feeling that a lot of people who are for cloning humans are losing site of this.

True, finding ways to produce organ transplants, curing genetic diseases and such activities do serve this purpose. But a lot of the human cloonig research we are talking about here is not meant to serve mankind, it is just meant to serve a few individuals and it in turn dehumanizes the human race.

The main opposition to human cloning that you will find in our society is that people are resistant to being told by the educated few that they are just a bunch of DNA strands for scientists to manipulate or that they are just guinea pigs for a few egotistical scientists.

This point of view is a result of past experience with the reproductive sciences. For instance, scientists starting fertilizing human embryos in vitro before decided what to do with all these embryos. No one stopped to consider that a fertilized embryo is a human being. Our legal system is trying desperately to decide what to do with all these embryos. This is an extremely difficult question to answer in a country which allows late-term abortions.

Many scientists believe that life begins at fertilization. In the case of humans, a very special and unique person (even if that person is a clone) is created at the moment of fertilization. That person is an individual which deserves the same human rights as everyone else. When you deny that person his rights, you deny them to all. This is the obstacle that must be overcome before any body of government will allow clonig to proceed uninhindered.

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

Noel Yap - 07:33am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4018 of 4025)

Carl Nicolai: In any event many of the old views of humans will be changed. With the advent of clone societies humans will evolve in as least as much as thier understand of what it is to be human will evolve.

I agree.

Carl Nicolai: I find it strange that many of the people who argue that society has more rights than individuals, also argue against allowing a potentially more coheisive "society of clones" to exist.

'cos the "new and improved" society of clones is not the original society. The original society will do whatever it can to preserve itself.

Carl Nicolai: What really bothers them is ... the idea that the beliefs, which support the status quo, will have to change.

I agree.

Carl Nicolai: It, the society, or an eco system, or the Internet dosent have an independent existance. It can only be defined by the interactions of its members who are living beings.

The same could be said of a vortex in water, humans and their cells, and brains and neurons.

Carl Nicolai: It has no will of it's own.

It's been argued that humans have no will of their own.

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

Noel Yap - 07:34am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4019 of 4025)

Carl Nicolai: We can totally predict many of the activities of such insect societies and their members by very simple means.

Because we lie outside the system that's being studied.

Carl Nicolai: Humans have a greater ability to surpress their individuality and may choose to imbue a society with the qualities that make it appear to be a single being even more than bees do. This does not make the society a real being.

It is the fact that the society has behaviours of its own that makes it a real being.

Carl Nicolai: It is still just an abstract concept.

Yes, "life" is an abstract concept.

Carl Nicolai: Humans because of their larger choice range can also choose to be more anti-social than wolverines.

This is true, but the fact is enough of us don't that a society exists. It will "never" be the case that "most" people will be anti-social.

Carl Nicolai: Cloning expands these choices. Genetic engineering plus cloning expands them explosively.

Since present-day society stands a chance of dying (and being replaced by another) it will fight against these technologies.

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

Noel Yap - 07:34am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4020 of 4025)

Mike Magner: The main pitfall in genetic engineering, cloning and eugenics is that you cannot predict which genetic traits are really the best or most important.

"Best" depends on the environment the individual is in.

Mike Magner: Let us remeber why nature developed this system of Sexual Reproduction. It was to insure a great genetic variety so that a species could react fairly quickly to whatever disasters fate throws at it.

This isn't really true. How do you explain the adaptability of bacteria? Scientists, being humans, tend to create explanations that show them in the highest light. IOW, they are biased.

Brandi Eikle: The good and the bad..an honest outlook. I guess in a way make sure that messing around with life now is not going to back fire on life in the future.

I agree. This is why research must go on.

Jamin Drexler: No matter what the dangers, humans create technology faster than they can use it with maturity.

I agree.

Jamin Drexler: We'd better get used to the idea of human clones, because it's going to happen.

I agree.

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

Noel Yap - 07:34am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4021 of 4025)

Dawn Willis: most people get their ideas of the way scientists are from the movies and TV.

At least most Americans.

Carl Nicolai: Why is it that I get this creepy feeling that the FDA is going to make a political rather than a rational decision about things like this?

'cos it's still part of a society ;)

Cliff Beall: Nothing wrong with belt and suspenders in my opinion.

It's not financially optimal.

Cliff Beall: I don't think it hurts to have a few Jeremy Rifkins around. It keeps us on our toes.

I agree.

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:37am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4022 of 4025)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Noel Yap - #4018 to #4021

Back with a vengeance I see. And a new terse style. Great.

Since present-day society stands a chance of dying (and being replaced by another) it will fight against these technologies.

I don't think the US is in any danger of dying as the USSR did. It may have to evolve much faster than many of it's members would like though.

Yes, "life" is an abstract concept.

Sure, but except for a fairly small transition zone between very complex chemicals and very simple viruses our ideas about what constitutes a living thing are pretty concrete. We have even a better idea about when a living creature is dead. (or as one PC doctor put it electroencephalographicly challenged)

It is the fact that the society has behaviours of its own that makes it a real being.

I'm going to leave off the argument of the beingness of societies. My salient point was that it would seem that clones have the ability to form a more closely knit group than others. Several people including myself however think there is a very good chance that clones will distance themselves from their brethren and choose to form unions with others because they are tired of being so closely related.

So far I havent met anyone on the board who thinks think that clones will not face a large ammont of negative prejudice towards them. I have a hunch that a lot of parents of clones will hide the fact even from their own children if not from the society at large. Heck a large number of parents don't tell their adopted children that they are not their "birth parents".

The so called "rights of privacy" could get really complex.

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

Kevin Gourand - 11:42am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4023 of 4025)

Mankind finally discovering cloning and genetic manipulation is just Mozart finding a brand new piano. It's like finally buying that Pentium 333 you've been eyeing. All of the sudden you can do so much more.

We are looking at a breakthrough in biology so profound it could reshape society. I'm sorry, but that kind of power cannot be stopped by mere laws. We are quite simply on the verge of a new science. Before you cry about how bad it'll be, remember people cried about the exact same thing when Penicillin was discovered, or when organ transplants were being researched, or any other paradigm-shifting discovery.

Mankind has reached the point of manipulating genetic combinations...big deal. It's just another crazy thing we've got to get used to. Science is a one-way street.

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

Kevin Gourand - 11:46am Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4024 of 4025)

I don't think clones would be persecuted. Heck, there's no way to spot one.

Maybe the first few would be media targets, so would hide out or whatever, but I don't think people hate others as easily if there are no apparent differences.

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

Eliz Beth - 03:50pm Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4025 of 4025)

Cue the Twilight Zone music: dodo dodo dodo dodo........

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

G. Joseph Colucci - 07:56pm Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4026 of 4030)

What's the big deal we(humans) have been cloning and re-making God's work for Thousands of years. Look at what we have done to the cow or the millions of types of plants we re-do and un-do every year. How can we not overlook the chance to improve ourselves. Surely there will be mistakes, but nature has its way of correcting mistakes. If we go to far we'll be corrected or condemed. Either way we soon see cloning of humans happen so we better prepare ourselves for its coming and hope and pra that it's done right. However, I don't put much faith in it happening correctly the first, second or even the thousandth time. So mother nature will take care of our mistakes like see always does. Maybe the cockroaches will get it right????!!!!

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

Cliff Beall - 09:56pm Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4027 of 4030)

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

Mike Magner: Science has one purpose: To serve mankind.

Mike, I think science has two purposes: to discover and to explain. I think you are referring to technology, a sometimes derivative of science. However, technology does not always serve mankind. Sometimes it serves "special interests."

Science is pure. Technology is not. If you are suggesting that technology can be used in ways not in the best interests of mankind, I would have to agree.

I guess I would have to agree with the first part of your argument since I said something very similar when I said, "technology does not always serve mankind." above. However, I do not agree that human cloning research dehumanizes the human race. I suppose it could be argued that half-human half-animal cloning would be most upsetting to most humans, but I do not expect this to occur.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:58pm Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4028 of 4030)

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

Your language seems a bit reactionary for my taste, but in general, I agree you, although I would not say it quite that way. I think people have the sense that things are moving too fast and that they are losing control to the "special interests." Actually, there is no good reason for this. Our institutions are sound, and the people remain in control of society, at least, in this country, and I would suppose it is the same most other countries too. It is my opinion that no one need feel that technology will dictate to them. The people will make the critical choices, as well they should.

Mike, I have to differ with you here. While I dislike abortion, as you apparently do, it is my opinion that a fertilized embryo is not even a potential human being until it attaches to the uterine wall. Until it attaches, it has no source of nourishment. In a human, the nourishment existing in the cell itself lasts only until the 4-8 cell division. If for some reason a fertilized embryo fails to attach before it runs out of nourishment, it dies. This happens often in nature.

In invitro fertilization, until a fertilized embryo is implanted and attaches to the uterine wall, there is no potential for a unique human life. I, therefore, see no ethical question with respect to invitro fertilization, regardless of the number of embryos that are prepared, from which a doctor chooses to implant a subset. Until the embryo is impl

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

Cliff Beall - 09:59pm Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4029 of 4030)

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

The same should hold for cloning research. The process is somewhat different since fertilization is bypassed and the nucleus of a somatic cell replaces the nucleus of the embryonic cell. But the result is the same. If the cloned cells are not implanted, they simply die much as the skin cells from your hands die when they flake off and no longer have a source of nourishment.

I was not aware of that. Do you have a reference to substantiate that statement.

I was referring to the possible enactment of a law against such things as human-pitbull crosses, even though I would doubt that anyone would ever want to do it anyway. That has nothing to do with financial optimization.

I don't think much evolving will be necessary. There is an old adage: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." I believe it.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:02pm Apr 14, 1998 ET (#4030 of 4030)

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

Unless someone has a hundred or so clones made from his cells, which I seriously doubt, clones will be no more closely related to each other than the individuals from which they were cloned. Is there a twin organization, or society, to which thousands of twins belong? If not, I would doubt the existence of a clone society of the type you envision.

Actually, it is as simple as hell. In our nation society, the right to privacy is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. In other nation societies, it is whatever a similar "ruling body" says it is.

Actually, it is more like a Pentium 64356. You can't do anything with it because it isn't ready.

If you are talking about animal cloning for medicinal purposes, few will want to stop it. If you are talking about human cloning before it is safe, society has the ability to put a stop to that just as it has the ability to stop the production of unsafe medicines.

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

Noel Yap - 07:36am Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4031 of 4050)

Cliff Beall: I trust most scientists and most biotech industries to apply the technology in an ethical manner.

Blind faith can be dangerous.

Cliff Beall: it still needs to be monitored, and when necessary, regulated.

I agree.

Cliff Beall: And I would again point out banning of a particular aspect of the technology is a type of regulation.

I agree with this, too.

d sagerian: cloning could produce a species of human/animal capable of performing manual labor jobs that do not require advanced intellects, at little or no cost.

Talk about a Brave New World scenario.

Cliff Beall: [d sagerian] started talking about manual labor jobs.

AFAIK, manual labor jobs will be with us for a long, long time.

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

Noel Yap - 07:36am Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4032 of 4050)

Cliff Beall: robots will probably be able to handle many of those manual labor jobs

I don't think so. Robots are great for some things (like building cars) but they're terrible (or too expensive) for things that need more finesse (like sewing material to make clothing.) Also, the AI that was forecasted in the 50's is nowhere visible on the horizon. Garbage men and other union workers are still needed.

OTOH, what'll we do with the existing blue-collar work force? Replacing them with slave labor will just destroy the economy. If we follow this thread, we would "eliminate" them by creating more intellectual humans.

Carl Nicolai: Society, or indeed any group or collective of hummans, is only as real as the beleivers imbue it.

The same goes for gods.

Carl Nicolai: It can be said to have power in that individuals give it their power.

It doesn't matter how it gets its power. In an authoritarian society, it is not the individuals who give it power, but the power exists nonetheless.

Carl Nicolai: By having humans act as though it is real it takes on an appearence of existance.

At this point, there is no difference between actual existence and believed existence. Do the laws of physics actually exist? Or do we just believe they exist?

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

Noel Yap - 07:36am Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4033 of 4050)

Carl Nicolai: Remove the beleivers or the beleifs however and "poof!" it is gone.

I can say the same of humans and their cells, or cells and their molecules, or molecules and their atoms. The behaviour of a society emerges out of the complexity of throwing together masses of humans.

Carl Nicolai: [Society] is still only an abstract thing.

So what?

Carl Nicolai: It is not a being.

Yes, it is.

Carl Nicolai: It is a collective of beings.

So is a colony of ants.

Carl Nicolai: It has no rights.

I don't know about rights, but it does have power, whether it was given by the people or not.

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

Noel Yap - 07:36am Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4034 of 4050)

Carl Nicolai: We should be able to predict some of these tendencies by studying the differences between a herd of cloned cattle vrs. "natural" cattle, if there are any differences. Perhaps simians would be better.

This reminds of the experiments in "Project X". The problem is that animals don't know they are being studied. OTOH, the behaviour of a large group of people should be unaffected, though I would still say there would be major differences.

Cliff Beall: To lose it's identity and power, it usually must be defeated by an opposing nation society.

In the case of Vietnamese, even this isn't enough.

Cliff Beall: It is an entity having great power to impose it's will upon its members.

Yes.

Cliff Beall: Except where constitutional guarantees impose specific limits to its power in this regard,

Even then, there are workarounds.

Cliff Beall: it has the right to grant certain rights of society membership.

This is an excellent example.

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

Noel Yap - 07:37am Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4035 of 4050)

Carl Nicolai: It is the individuals acting under color of office who wield the power.

But these individuals merely act as representatives of the society.

Carl Nicolai: I beleive that the bang per buck in cloning and genetic engineering is going to follow the curve that computing has done.

I don't think so. The growth in computing is driven by money and time to market. Although money will play a major role in GenEng, time to market will be much longer.

Carl Nicolai: Besides some of them have exon compressability factors which indicates they are not truly random and therefore must have or have had a function.

If you perform experiments in genetic programming (or even genetic algorithms), you'll understand better the operations of genetics and how genetic evolution occurs. Or, you can read my Cliff Notes version:

Most mutations preserve information ('cos all they do is move genes around.) These mutations can turn off genes. This means that a lot of garbage gets collected through time. Nature is not a parsimonious programmer.

Carl Nicolai: License is required to engage in activities which are inherently dangerous such as driving a car

Driving a car is a right, not a privilege, in Germany.

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

Noel Yap - 07:37am Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4036 of 4050)

Carl Nicolai: I find it interesting that if your views about society are correct, and if the strength of a society depends upon the cohesion of its members, and if it is easier for humans to form bonds with those most like them, then a "society of clones" should be extremely interesting.

We still don't know whether cloned humans will form a tighter knit society than non-cloned humans.

Carl Nicolai: It all-ready frightens some.

This is true, and, as I've said before, we can't ignore this societal emotion. It must be addressed.

Carl Nicolai: Having a society that contains age differentiated twins will teach us a great deal about what it means to be human.

Maybe.

Carl Nicolai: We should allow it for this reason alone.

Eventually, but not now.

Carl Nicolai: This idea of making something illegal until it is totally safe is nonsence.

Only until it's reasonably safe for society (not necessarily the individual.)

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

Carl Nicolai - 10:16am Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4037 of 4050)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ok boys and girls. It's time for Uncle Karls wierd observations and questions.

Associated Press April 14 reported that researchers have shown promise in treating Parkinson's disease by implanting fetal pig cells in the brains of affeccted patients. No major side effects have appeared. One patient improved so much that he could leave his wheelchair and play golf again.

Questions #1 Now how are you going outlaw human/animal chimeras when they all-ready walk amongst us blessing the technology that helped them. Particulary when it is proved safe as well as effective?

#2 When can I order my new teeth? (tusks? what the heck! I don't care as long as they work well.)

#3 How much will they cost in 1Yr., 2Yrs., 10 Yrs.? I sure hope not as much as thoes titanium implants the dentists are tring to foist off on me now. I'm really not into the Cyborg gig yet.

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

Cliff: Please note that there may extreme risks associated with these transfers due to virus infection. There is a special committee looking into it. This did not stop them from doing it. Comment?

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:54am Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4038 of 4050)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref.Noel Yap - #4035

Carl Nicolai: Besides some of them have exon compressability factors which indicates they are not truly random and therefore must have or have had a function.

Noel:If you perform experiments in genetic programming (or even genetic algorithms),you'll understand better the operations of genetics and how genetic evolution occurs. Or, you can read my Cliff Notes version:

Cliff Notes? Hmmm... I never read em because I find too much is left out. Becides I'm not cramming for a cource in genetics. What I am doing is taking the way humans have represented the genetic code and finding out weither the techniques of cryptology, data compression, and information theory can yeald anything of intrest to genetic engineers. Or to my associates.

My friends, who are genetic engineers, have told me about a lot of correlation studies, but know of none based on data compressibility and none done by cryptologists.

Since I've got spare work stations, servers and penteum PC's that are loafing most of the time, I thought I'd have some fun with them.

Noel:Most mutations preserve information ('cos all they do is move genes around.) These mutations can turn off genes. This means that a lot of garbage gets collected through time. Nature is not a parsimonious programmer.

Ya. I figure that the introns get pretty difuse after a few thousands of generations of not being selected for though, but maybe I can do a hamming distance check against known protien producers and see what has been selected out. It would be a trip to find out the human genes that turn the apendex back into a functioning rumen (sp?)organ. Ah yes, reverse genetic engineering. The Ice Man livith. ;)

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

Carl Nicolai - 12:34pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4039 of 4050)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Noel Yap - #4035

Carl Nicolai: I beleive that the bang per buck in cloning and genetic engineering is going to follow the curve that computing has done.

Noel:I don't think so. The growth in computing is driven by money and time to market. Although money will play a major role in GenEng, time to market will be much longer.

Oh! Yes! I totally agree. How stupid of me! I wasent thinking about the US where there are thousands of civel servents monerting all genetic engineering companies and woried about their society being threatened. I wasent thinking about a 50 year history of scientists being portrayed as unthinking, uncaring frankenstien creators.

I was thinking about the US that beleived in free enterprise and comparing it to a field in which they didnt tamper with the progress, because they somehow saw emense benefits in it, like computers.

Point well taken.

My Law professor, James Bell, use to teach us that in any situation there are always three things you can do. Stand, Fight, or Run.

I wonder what the GenEngs, will do.

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

Carl Nicolai - 01:39pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4040 of 4050)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Noel Yap - #4032 of 4039

Carl Nicolai: Society, or indeed any group or collective of hummans, is only as real as the beleivers imbue it.

Noel:The same goes for gods.

You got it.

Carl Nicolai: It can be said to have power in that individuals give it their power.

Noel:It doesn't matter how it gets its power. In an authoritarian society, it is not the individuals who give it power, but the power exists nonetheless.

Sure as long as individuals continue to beleive in "It" and give it power over themselves. The wielding of this kind of abstract power has even been well codified by Nicola Makevelli(sp?)

Now very few contributers to this group have argued that clones are not individuals. (Argumentum ad populum)

And if you really beleive that humans, cloned or no, have only the self awareness of single bees, ants, or atoms, then I agree that the only maximally effective way to evaluate their society is to view it as as real as the things that comprise it, or maybe more real since it involves the "union" of the compopnent elements. (falicy of composition not withstanding)

If however you beleive that each human (clone or no) is a unique creation (God(s) or no), and contains a unique sprit(real or no) then you have a big problem convenceing me that the collective has more power than a single human(argumentum ad baculum not withstanding) Sheesh,,! Single humans have been known to rule them. Sometimes without force.

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

Noel Yap - 03:56pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4041 of 4050)

Carl Nicolai: Thus the group qua group appears to be a being even though it is not.

I think the real Argument is with the definition of being and entity.

Carl Nicolai: [Occam's Razor] is the first idea that allowed people to seperate science from religion.

What can be simpler than "God did it all"?

Carl Nicolai: Neglecting the moral aspects, the only rational thing worth fighting over is oil and maybe land.

All wars (including religious) are over limited resources.

Carl Nicolai: Making something illegal doesent just "regulate it" it casts a moral pall over everyone cocerned. Think about a child born of an illegal procedure saying to his classmates "My parents were put into jail for having me".

This is a good point. But not all laws become moral judgements against the law breakers. Are all drivers doing 70-90 on the Long Island Expressway looked down upon? I think it's the ones doing 55 that are.

Carl Nicolai: Sure! It has qualities, but it is still an abstract being not a living thing.

It would all depend on your definition of life. I like to define it a a self-organising process as per Hiler(?) .

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

Noel Yap - 03:56pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4042 of 4050)

But there is a difference between and abstract being and a living entity. Since the living entity is a self-organising process, it is real; "more real" than God.

Noel Yap: We weren't talking about thriving. We were talking about society being a "living being".

Carl Nicolai: That is going to be a hard sell.

I'm not trying to sell anything. Defining "life" as a process is something that was started by some a few decades ago. An analogy would be a vortex in a tub of water. It is created by the interaction of gravity, the cohesion of the water molecules, the water itself, etc. If any of these were removed from the system, the vortex wouldn't exist. But it does exist -- it is real. It exists 'cos it is a self-organising process much as life is.

Of course, you could go on to say that the vortex is a form of life. In my mind, it doesn't matter, the only life we need concern ourselves with is ourselves. Plugging the drain and killing the vortex affects my life very little. OTOH, huge masses with the Frankenstein syndrome affects my life very much.

Carl Nicolai: No matter how many people we attract and convince that they belong to a group that is actually a living being a whole lot of other people are going to say that Pu-Ba is just the product of a demented mind.

It doesn't matter what people say or believe. The reality is that they are part of a much larger being. If this weren't true, demographics would be impossible.

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

Noel Yap - 03:57pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4043 of 4050)

Carl Nicolai: A herd mentality. Not like us.

I wasn't arguing that we have a herd mentality, only that our society acts and behaves as an independent being.

Carl Nicolai: Selling people on the idea that a society of clones is a "living being" should be a cake walk.

I think the clone's environment will affect them enough that they won't have a herd mentality.

Eric L: I hope ignorance and fear do not halt the good from which cloning science promises.

This will occur only if we ignore the ignorant rants that will come about. We have to deal with the masses. I lean towards a gradual, iterative introduction of the knowledge and technologies that come about.

Eric L: This is not because a 'person' has anything to do with human life, but a 'person' is known to be sentient.

I disagree. The person is a person becuase he is one of us. If he weren't, he isn't a person. If you disagree, then you could never kill an enemy in times of war.

Eric L: all sentient life has the ability to remember the past, percieve the present and can imagine possible futures.

This is a bias that humans have. How do we know that dogs can't do this? What about the Earth (living and inanimate objects alike) itself? The fact is we don't know 'cos we can't communicate with these entities in a manner we understand.

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

Noel Yap - 03:57pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4044 of 4050)

Eric L: Animals generally live in the present, where the past may 'program' its memory; but not the same as a persons memory.

Again, this is a bias. I can easily say that the past "programs" the memory of each species in a different manner than in other species.

Cliff Beall: Society is real. It has power, rights and authority. I don't think we can say that a corporation is alive. But it certainly is an entity, and it can do all the things you say it can do.

I'm not going to try to argue that a corporation is alive (I lean towards the positive). It's beside the point, like you say, it is an entity in itself.

Carl Nicolai: The problem with your view of society is that it severs the bond of power and responcibility that is necessary to elicit ethical if not moral behavior.

Isn't this what a corporation is?

Carl Nicolai: These cases illistrate the mischief that can insue when you grant societies human rights.

I never argued that societies have human rights, only that they have rights. One could term these rights as societal rights.

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

Noel Yap - 03:58pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4045 of 4050)

Carl Nicolai: Ronald Regan "disolved" the Air Traffic Conmtrollers Union a while back and it vanished like spit on a hot rock.

Societies live and die just as any other life form.

Carl Nicolai: I don't see how [cloning conveys new power] for "society" unless the business of "society" is human procreation.

The goal of society is self-preservation, just like any other life form.

Cliff Beall: It is the role of society to guard the rights of individuals. It is also the role of society to protect individuals from harm where appropriate.

Not all societies' roles are such. This is, however, how the US is. And in acting as such, it preserves its own existence.

Cliff Beall: Just because a pharmaceutical company wants to market a medicine does not mean it can just start selling it. Our society does not allow it. The medicine must be shown to be both safe and effective, before it can be put on sale. It is exactly the way it should be.

It wasn't always like this. It used to be that one would have to prove a "medicine" to be harmful for it to be pulled off the market -- kind of a Tom Anderson philosophy. It changed whan Radathol (radium laced water) was shown to have caused the death of an influential individual.

Mike Magner: Our legal system is trying desperately to decide what to do with all these embryos. This is an extremely difficult question to answer in a country which allows late-term abortions.

I would think it would be easier in such a society. IOW, in a society that allows late-term abortions, disposing of embryos is just an extra-uteral abortion.

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

Noel Yap - 03:58pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4046 of 4050)

Carl Nicolai: Back with a vengeance I see. And a new terse style. Great.

Lack of time tends to change my style in this manner.

Carl Nicolai: Sure, but except for a fairly small transition zone between very complex chemicals and very simple viruses our ideas about what constitutes a living thing are pretty concrete.

Not really. What constitutes life? Without using the word "life" or any of its derivatives, describe what is different between me now, and me when I'm dead. Does your answer apply to all other living beings?

Carl Nicolai: We have even a better idea about when a living creature is dead. (or as one PC doctor put it electroencephalographicly challenged)

What about for beings (such as plants and bacteria) without brains?

Carl Nicolai: So far I havent met anyone on the board who thinks think that clones will not face a large ammont of negative prejudice towards them.

Prejudism against the new and unknown will always be around. As humans clones become more prevalent in society, the prejudism will wane to the level of other prejudisms.

Carl Nicolai: Heck a large number of parents don't tell their adopted children that they are not their "birth parents".

Right, and, aside from elementary school kids, I don't think there is any prejudism against matured adopted children.

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

Noel Yap - 03:59pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4047 of 4050)

Kevin Gourand: Mankind has reached the point of manipulating genetic combinations...big deal. It's just another crazy thing we've got to get used to.

I agree.

Kevin Gourand: Science is a one-way street.

If it is, it's a very windy one-way street.

Kevin Gourand: Maybe the first few would be media targets, so would hide out or whatever, but I don't think people hate others as easily if there are no apparent differences.

I think the best example of this phenomenon is what homosexuals have been going through. We're still not at a point where someone can openly discuss their preferences during a casual conversation (ie during lunch at work) without some prejudicial feelings arising, but we're getting there.

Cliff Beall: Science is pure. Technology is not. If you are suggesting that technology can be used in ways not in the best interests of mankind, I would have to agree.

This is a good assessment.

Mike Magner: Many scientists believe that life begins at fertilization.

Cliff Beall: I was not aware of that. Do you have a reference to substantiate that statement.

I think with the number of scientists around, there's bound to be "many" who believe life begins at fertilization.

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

Noel Yap - 04:00pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4048 of 4050)

Cliff Beall: I was referring to the possible enactment of a law against such things as human-pitbull crosses, even though I would doubt that anyone would ever want to do it anyway. That has nothing to do with financial optimization.

I was joking, sorry I forgot the smiley.

Cliff Beall: Is there a twin organization, or society, to which thousands of twins belong?

I think there is. At the very least, I wouldn't doubt its existence.

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

Dawn Willis - 07:04pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4049 of 4050)

Cliff: There is a biotech company called Oncor-Med that has patented the sequence to the BRCA1 breast cancer susceptibility gene (the normal version). This is so that if it is ever used for gene therapy, they will hold the patent. And yes, there is a twin society, a triplet society, and probably an association for all higher multiples. I can envision a Society for the Advancement of Clones.

Does life only begin at conception or implantation? The egg and the sperm are each alive, too. Your blood cells live for about 4 months. If cloning becomes reality, every cell in your body could be looked upon as a "potential human being." To me, the quality of "sentience" is what matters. I don't know just when in fetal life that occurs, but probably not in the first trimester. Spontaneous abortions happen frequently during that time, even after implantation. By sentience I don't mean what Eric L. did--I don't think of it as the ability to think in terms of past, present and future--babies don't do that. And higher apes surely do! Being sentient is more a matter of neural connections being established.

Noel Yap: Surely you don't really believe that non-living objects are sentient?

Mike Manger: I would not say that science exists to serve mankind. Scientists rarely see themselves as servants of mankind. Mainly, they want to discover new knowledge--if it happens to benefit mankind, fine. But that isn't the goal.

As for "natural rights"--it wasn't "self-evident" to the founding papas that these rights extended to slaves, or even to women. Rights are conferred by society, but they are more readily accepted if you can invoke a higher authority.

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

Carl Nicolai - 09:04pm Apr 15, 1998 ET (#4050 of 4050)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Dawn Willis - #4049

As for "natural rights"--it wasn't "self-evident" to the founding papas that these rights extended to slaves, or even to women.

The United States Of America was a union of sovereign states. Some of the states entered the union as free and some as slave. The free states did extend these rights. The the slave states did not and had their sovereigncy removed as regards to the owning of slaves as a result of the civil war.

I think the clearest way to look at it is that rights are asserted by a person or group and then either recognised or not by others.

Dawn:Rights are conferred by society, but they are more readily accepted if you can invoke a higher authority.

I think the clearest way to look at it is that rights are asserted by a person or group and then either recognised or not by others.

Society at its higest level of recognition conferres remedies including recognition of the right of people to use armed force, or the use of government controlled armed forces to protect these rights or punish the violators.

Once it became clear that women were prepared to use a considerable ammount of force to achieve their rights they were recognised also.

There are all kinds of rights recognised by the "constitution" of Mainland China. The people just dont have zip worth of remedies if many of their rights are trampeled on by the officials or sometimes other citizens. One of the reasons there is only state controlled religion in the PRC is they do not like people talking about a "higher authority" let alone invoking it.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:24am Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4051 of 4053)

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

Noel Yap: I don't think so. Robots are great for some things (like building cars) but they're terrible (or too expensive) for things that need more finesse (like sewing material to make clothing.) Also, the AI that was forecasted in the 50's is nowhere visible on the horizon.

Actually, I agree with you.

Noel Yap: Driving a car is a right, not a privilege, in Germany.

Where did that come from? Have I missed something?

Carl Nicolai: Cliff: Please note that there may extreme risks associated with these transfers due to virus infection. There is a special committee looking into it. This did not stop them from doing it. Comment?

Carl, few things this world is perfectly safe. Sometimes you have to take a few risks for the better good. I do not know why the implantation of fetal pig cells might be an effective treatment for Parkinson's disease, but I assume the doctors who did the implantation had a theory. I have no problem with a special committee looking into the procedure for potential problems, but I would say that the apparent benefits obtained already are sufficient to warrant further study and further experimentation.

Carl Nicolai: I wonder what the GenEngs, will do.

I would guess that when they think they have a winning case, they will go to court, like everyone else in this country.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:27am Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4052 of 4053)

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

Noel Yap: It wasn't always like this. It used to be that one would have to prove a "medicine" to be harmful for it to be pulled off the market -- kind of a Tom Anderson philosophy. It changed whan Radathol (radium laced water) was shown to have caused the death of an influential individual.

Interesting, I did not know that. I suppose that there were people who considered this to be a another example of a general erosion of freedom in this country. But you know what, it does not harm my liberty one iota.

Noel Yap: I think with the number of scientists around, there's bound to be "many" who believe life begins at fertilization.

I don't think Mike intended it in that sense. I was referring to the sense in which I perceived that he intended it. But, of course, you are probably absolutely right in the sense that you mean it.

Dawn Willis: Cliff: There is a biotech company called Oncor-Med that has patented the sequence to the BRCA1 breast cancer susceptibility gene (the normal version). This is so that if it is ever used for gene therapy, they will hold the patent.

Dawn, it is not supposed to be possible to obtain a valid patent on a natural phenomenon. In order to be valid, the patent must present a novel method of using the phenomenon. I would suspect that the patent to which you refer is for gene therapy involving this sequence. If this patent has issued, it ought to be available on the net. I would be interested in reading the claims if you have the patent number available.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:38am Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4053 of 4053)

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

Dawn Willis: Does life only begin at conception or implantation? The egg and the sperm are each alive, too. Your blood cells live for about 4 months. If cloning becomes reality, every cell in your body could be looked upon as a "potential human being." To me, the quality of "sentience" is what matters.

The point that I attempting to make was that there should be no ethical concerns with respect to cloning research involving un-implanted embryos.

With regard to your "sentience" argument, I think it makes some sense. However, as you yourself pointed out, it is not easy to identify the point at which this has occurred. Therefore, the place I would tend to draw the line is when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall. Attachment of the embryo to the uterine wall is a significant event, at which point there is an undeniable fundamental change in the status of the embryo. Also, once that is accomplished, there is not another clearly identifiable event involving a fundamental change in the status of the new life until birth occurs.

I have not made it a secret that I am generally opposed to abortion of healthy fetuses. It seems to me that once the embryo has attached and obtained a source of nourishment, there ought to be a good reason to abort the fetus, such as birth defects or the health of the mother, before it is done.

Dawn Willis: As for "natural rights"--it wasn't "self-evident" to the founding papas that these rights extended to slaves, or even to women.

Dawn, do I detect a slight acid content with the "founding papas" thing? My my. And from a "Director," no less;-)

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

Noel Yap - 07:51am Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4054 of 4060)

Carl Nicolai: Please note that there may extreme risks associated with these transfers due to virus infection. There is a special committee looking into it. This did not stop them from doing it. Comment?

Parkinson's is a very debilitating disease. I can understand people taking risks in order to try to cure it or alleviate its symptoms. This cannot be compared to cloning humans for the sake of reproduction. It can be compared to cloning humans in order to have (for example) a perfect donor for an already diseased individual.

Carl Nicolai: My friends, who are genetic engineers, have told me about a lot of correlation studies, but know of none based on data compressibility and none done by cryptologists.

This would be interesting.

Carl Nicolai: I figure that the introns get pretty difuse after a few thousands of generations of not being selected for though,

But at the same time, nothing selects them out of the population. This fact is actually more important as you'll see if you conduct the experiments.

Carl Nicolai: I was thinking about the US that beleived in free enterprise and comparing it to a field in which they didnt tamper with the progress, because they somehow saw emense benefits in it, like computers.

I wasn't really refering to the Frankenstein syndrome. All I was saying is that it'll take much more time to develop GenEng products than it does to develop computer products.

Also, will we accept the same lack of quality we see in software and hardware?

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

Carl Nicolai - 08:57am Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4055 of 4060)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Noel Yap - (#4054 of 4054)

I wasn't really refering to the Frankenstein syndrome. All I was saying is that it'll take much more time to develop GenEng products than it does to develop computer products. True but actually it takes a long time to develop some hardware, we are just not aware of it. There are so many developments that we just receive a continuous stream of ever more advanced products.

I dont know though, we are getting a lot of new announcemants every week in GenEng.

Also, will we accept the same lack of quality we see in software and hardware?

Excellent point.

And while we are at it will we tollerate a "Bill Gates" of genetics? BTW he has made a known 500 M$ investment in the field. (Maybe more?)

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

Noel Yap - 03:45pm Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4056 of 4060)

Carl Nicolai: The wielding of this kind of abstract power has even been well codified by Nicola Makevelli(sp?)

But Machiavelli didn't know about complex systems and emergent behaviour, we do.

Carl Nicolai: And if you really beleive that humans, cloned or no, have only the self awareness of single bees, ants, or atoms, ...

If however you beleive that each human (clone or no) is a unique creation

I believe each human is unique and that our group dynamics can be studied in such a way as to treat the group as one entity inter-relating with other entities.

Dawn Willis: To me, the quality of "sentience" is what matters.

To me, the quality of "human" is what matters. If sentient aliens visited us, we would have to learn to deal with them as non-human sentient beings.

Dawn Willis: I don't know just when in fetal life that occurs, but probably not in the first trimester.

I guess the definition of "human" is subjective in this sense, too.

Dawn Willis: Spontaneous abortions happen frequently during that time, even after implantation.

Even in a normal pregnancy.

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

Noel Yap - 03:45pm Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4057 of 4060)

Dawn Willis: Surely you don't really believe that non-living objects are sentient?

A more specific question would be: Is the Earth sentient? I don't know. I do know that many people (including myself) believe it to be living.

Dawn Willis: Rights are [...] more readily accepted if you can invoke a higher authority.

Good point.

Noel Yap: Driving a car is a right, not a privilege, in Germany.

Cliff Beall: Where did that come from? Have I missed something?

Carl listed driving as a privilege when he was differentiating between rights and privileges (or something to that effect.) I made the above comment as an example that society is what allows people to have rights.

Cliff Beall: I suppose that there were people who considered this to be a another example of a general erosion of freedom in this country. But you know what, it does not harm my liberty one iota.

Actually, the FDA is becoming more lenient when it comes to experiments regarding fatal diseases (like AIDS.)

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

Noel Yap - 03:45pm Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4058 of 4060)

Cliff Beall: the place I would tend to draw the line is when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.

What about when we develop artificial wombs?

Cliff Beall: there ought to be a good reason to abort the fetus, such as birth defects or the health of the mother, before it is done.

What if the birth defect were detected late in the third trimester?

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

Noel Yap - 03:51pm Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4059 of 4060)

Carl Nicolai: I dont know though, we are getting a lot of new announcemants every week in GenEng.

But is the development time per project comparable to that for software?

Carl Nicolai: will we tollerate a "Bill Gates" of genetics?

I sure hope not. It's clear he's willing to sacrifice quality for time to market. Also, given his history of non-innovation, he'll just slow down research. OTOH, maybe we want slower research ;)

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

Dawn Willis - 07:34pm Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4060 of 4060)

Cliff, I don't know the patent # for the BRCA1 gene, but if you will do a search for "BRCA1" and "patent" you will turn up several articles about it. I'm sorry I sounded flippant about the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson is one of my heros, and I consider all of them as products of the times they were living in. Which is the point I was trying to make, that rights depend on the place and time, not on some transcendant or absolute reality.

This isn't an abortion board, but I suppose there is some relation when one considers creating embryos in vitro. I wish abortions were never necessary, but I have lived long and seen much. Sometimes it is the lesser of two (or more) evils. The Iowa family decided to maintain her pregnancy with all 7 embryos, but the chances of normal full term birth would have been greater if they had aborted four or five of them. They were very lucky, or so it seems so far. If one cloned a bunch of embryos, chances are that several would be implanted to increase the odds of success. If ultrasound showed a defects--what then?

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

Cliff Beall - 11:21pm Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4061 of 4063)

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

Carl Nicolai: And while we are at it will we tollerate a "Bill Gates" of genetics? BTW he has made a known 500 M$ investment in the field. (Maybe more?)

I would tend to doubt this "known" rumor.

Noel Yap: Actually, the FDA is becoming more lenient when it comes to experiments regarding fatal diseases (like AIDS.)

Yes, this is an obvious exception. When one has a terminal illness, it doesn't make much sense to wait for clinical trials of a promising therapy. If one is going to die anyway...

Noel Yap: What about when we develop artificial wombs?

The embryo will have to attach to something whether natural or artificial. I see no significant difference.

Noel Yap: What if the birth defect were detected late in the third trimester?

What is the difference? If a birth defect is detected, the parents should have the right to abort. What I oppose is the abortion of heathy fetuses without reasonable cause. I consider a birth defect reasonable cause. At least, that is my opinion of how it ought to be.

Noel Yap: I sure hope not. It's clear he's willing to sacrifice quality for time to market. Also, given his history of non-innovation, he'll just slow down research. OTOH, maybe we want slower research ;)

If this were true, Microsoft would have gone the way of Ashton-Tate long ago.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:25pm Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4062 of 4063)

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

Dawn Willis: Cliff, I don't know the patent # for the BRCA1 gene, but if you will do a search for "BRCA1" and "patent" you will turn up several articles about it.

Yes, I have the number. It is 5,654,155. The application was filed February 12, 1996 and it issued August 5, 1997. It seems to be exactly what you say it is: a patent on a DNA sequence of the human BRCA1 gene. The abstract reads as follows:

"A consensus DNA sequence has been determined for the BRCA1 gene. As has been seven polymorphic sites and their rates of occurrence in normal BRCA1 genes. The consensus gene BRCA1(^(omi)) and the seven polymorphic sites will provide greater accuracy and reliability for genetic testing. One skilled in the art will be better able to avoid misinterpretations of changes in the gene, determine the presence of a normal gene, and of mutations, and to classify tumors."

Personally, I fail to see the invention. It looks like a discovery to me. I would still like to see the claims, but unless I have missed a point, it sounds to me as if they have patented the equivalent of gravity. It seems to go against everything I thought I knew about what is patentable. If somebody understands, and can tell me, why a natural occurring DNA sequence should be patentable, I would like to hear the reasoning.

Unfortunately, I was unable to read the claims tonight since The US Patent and Trademark Office provides only the front page of patents on line. I'll probably order a copy when I get around to it since it is only $3.00.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:28pm Apr 16, 1998 ET (#4063 of 4063)

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

Dawn Willis: Thomas Jefferson is one of my heros, and I consider all of them as products of the times they were living in. Which is the point I was trying to make, that rights depend on the place and time, not on some transcendant or absolute reality.

Now that sounds more like a Director. And by the way, I agree.

Dawn Willis: If one cloned a bunch of embryos, chances are that several would be implanted to increase the odds of success. If ultrasound showed a defects--what then?

Under the conditions you describe, I would recommend an abortion. Like you said, "Sometimes it is the lesser of two (or more) evils." But that doesn't mean I like it. My preference would be that scientists involved in the cloning process perfect the technique so that abortions will typically not be necessary.

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

Carl Nicolai - 02:40am Apr 17, 1998 ET (#4064 of 4067)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff Beall - (#4062 of 4063)

The consensus gene BRCA1(^(omi)) and the seven polymorphic sites will provide greater accuracy and reliability for genetic testing.

One skilled in the art will be better able to avoid misinterpretations of changes in the gene, determine the presence of a normal gene, and of mutations, and to classify tumors."

I would guess that this is a process patent. In other words the use of theis gene in a particular testing device or testing sequence is what the patent is about.

I could not patent a spoon, but if I could use one in a unique way to do surgery that use might be patentable.

I beleive the restriction on human gene patents was on the use of a gene to construct a human being. Sort of a born free concept. A patent on a gene used to construct an animal is valid.

I sure wish I knew more about this? I'll bet there is going to be some real fine hair splitting over this issue.

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

Mike Magner - 05:10am Apr 17, 1998 ET (#4065 of 4067)

Hello. I apologize for the long delays in my resonses. I am in Germany so I am not on at the same time you guys are. Right now it is 11:00 a.m. where I am at but I am sure there is no one in the States up right now.

My earlier remarks were not my entire opinion but I wanted to give you guys something to think on. I think my "Reactionary" remarks were the same kinds of reactions that proponents of human cloning should expect from the population at large.

The argument of abortion came up because it raises the question of when does life begin. I stated that many scientists believe that life begins at fertilization. In truth there are SOME scientists that believe that. (Including me - I have a BS in biology, that makes me a least partially a scientist). There is a great debate among scientists, theologians and philosophers who all have very different answers to this question. Indeed this is the most crucial question to answer before we even start to talk about cloning techniques.

I can't remember who it was but someone made the argument that they would accept abortion in the case of genetic defects. Remember that Steven Hawking was born with tremendous genetic defects. Look at the contributions he has made to astrophysics! This proves my earlier argument that you cannot just arbitrarily decide which genetic traits are important or decide which human lives have value and which ones do not.

There are a great many people who are afraid of the evils of human cloning. Imagine a world where rich people can clone themselves indefinitely. Imagine a world full of Bill Gates'!!!!!

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

Mike Magner - 05:17am Apr 17, 1998 ET (#4066 of 4067)

That was my gloom and doom message. Now for a few positive remarks about cloning: New techniques in cloning T cells may lead to a cure for some cancers or even AIDS. Animal and Plant cloning may lead to better harvests and more efficient use of our agricultural resources. DNA hybridization ( a cloning technique) is used to solve crimes (also known as DNA fingerprinting). Many genetic defects such as obesity, and mental retardation may one day be cured by genetic engineering. I have no problem with any of these types of research.

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

Dawn Willis - 05:11pm Apr 17, 1998 ET (#4067 of 4067)

RE: patenting of the BRCA1 gene. What I inferred from my conversation with a representative of Oncormed was that they indeed had a patent on the normal sequence, and if anyone wants to use that sequence as the control in commercial genetic testing (which Oncormed and others do) they have to buy the rights. And the same would apply if someone wanted to use that sequence for gene therapy. Oncormed doesn't have a patent for a gene therapy technique using BRCA1, but no one can use the sequence without their permission.

Mike: Cloning T-cells or any kind of cell isn't questioned by anyone as far as I know. It's cloning higher multicellular organisms, mainly humans, that appears to be upsetting some people.

Cliff, the problems associated with fertility drugs and with in vitro fertilization that often lead to recommendations to abort one or more of the fetuses weren't worked out before the techniques were used. Why do you think cloning will be any different?

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

Cliff Beall - 11:21pm Apr 17, 1998 ET (#4068 of 4071)

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

Apparently, this is not the case. I have not yet read the claims, but based on the contents of the abstract and information Dawn has subsequently supplied, the patent is for a DNA sequence for the BRCA1 gene, for use as a control in commercial genetic testing. Apparently, the patent office has decided to allow the patenting of discoveries as well as inventions.

When the spoon was a new invention, it was patentable by the old policy. When it was invented, a spoon was clearly an invention. The only reason you can not patent a spoon is that it was invented many years ago, and you can not patent somebody else's invention. But that is not what we are talking about here.

It is becoming abundantly clear to me that there never was a restriction on human gene patents. It was just a rumor that proved not to be accurate. The issuance of the patent on the BRCA1 indicates, to the contrary, that the patent office is now expanding patent coverage to discoveries as well as to inventions, and that allowable discoveries include human genes.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:23pm Apr 17, 1998 ET (#4069 of 4071) (I deleted this)

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

It proves nothing except that you have a point of view. In the example you cite, my response is that an exception should not make a rule.

I am growing very weary of these silly references to Bill Gates. They are totally irrelevant. It may have been cute in the beginning to make such remarks, but after the hundredth or so such reference, enough is enough already.

Well said.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:25pm Apr 17, 1998 ET (#4070 of 4071)

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

Thanks for the update. It surprised the heck out of me, but it is now abundantly clear that you were right. I have had a day to think about it, however, and I think I can see some justification for this apparent change in policy by the Patent Office.

In one of the sites I visited last night, I saw a quote by Nancy Evans, described as a vice president of Breast Cancer Action, a coalition formed to oppose the patent. Ms. Evans said: "We want to promote as much research as possible...if someone patents this gene, they'll control the research. And they may not always want to encourage competition for products they're developing. That's not in the public interest, and it worries us."

However, Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotech Industry Organization said, "If people think new drugs and new cures come out of basic research funded by the Government, that's a misperception...they don't, they won't. All the important new gene therapies are based on genes that had patent protection. Without that protection, investors won't put up the millions of dollars for research."

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

Cliff Beall - 11:27pm Apr 17, 1998 ET (#4071 of 4071)

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

Of the two, I think Mr. Feldbaum may have the better of the argument. When a company goes to great expense to make a discovery, it reasonable to me that competitors ought to share the expense of the discovery. I think that if I were a competitor, my reaction to the patent would depend largely on the behavior of Oncormed.

If the royalty fees they intend to charge are reasonable, I might tend to pay the royalties on this sequence and redouble my efforts to discover and patent other sequences so that I might be able to charge royalties for those sequences. On the other hand, if the royalty fees are not reasonable, and I desired to be involved with genetic testing in this area, I might opt for an independent discovery of the sequence. The particular sequence to which Oncomed holds a patent is referred to as a "consensus" sequence since sequences from different individuals are somewhat different. An independent discovery would undoubtedly find a slightly different sequence that would not be patented.

Does this seem reasonable to you?

It is not so much that I think it will be different. But I think it should be different, for the same reason I think fertility drugs and in vitro firtilization should have been different. Of course, not all problems associated with a new procedure can be completely worked out, but to the extent that it is possible, it should be done. Just my opinion.

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

Carl Nicolai - 04:27am Apr 18, 1998 ET (#4072 of 4073)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - (#4070 of 4071)Ref.Dawn Willis - (#4067 of 4071)

Cliff:Thanks for the update. It surprised the heck out of me, but it is now abundantly clear that you were right. I have had a day to think about it, however, and I think I can see some justification for this apparent change in policy by the Patent Office.

You can't really blame them. The advances made since the first bacteria patent some 12 years or so ago have made it impossable to form a consistant policy.

While trying to document my origional understanding of the innability to patent a human gene as a production element in an actual hnuman, I ran across. an incredable number of interesting refrences to the problems of patents in the bio tech field.

Try a web search on "human and patent" and you will see what I mean.

From the patent office web site. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what_can_be_patented.html

"Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter."

It appears that your orgional beleifs on this matter are substantially correct Cliff.

The problem that I have is that Bio.Eng. is creating many more questions and problems with the law than can be answered. Things are going from bad to worse in the legal sence, or even understanding the implications of certain work.

In spite of your problems with my extentions, I have one which may illustrate part of the problem.

Lets say I "invent" a genetic sequence that conferes immunity to a desease shared by both humans and animals and a safe retro virus to insert it into the structure of a zygote.

With the animals things seem pretty easy. You have to pay a roality to the inventor to breed an animal with this sequence in it.---Cont.---

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

Carl Nicolai - 04:32am Apr 18, 1998 ET (#4073 of 4073)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

---Cont.--- If this is inserted into a human there is no law that would force that human or his child to pay if it were passed on to them by normal reproduction.

But lets say that you sold your sperm or egg that contained the patented gene. Have you lost the rights to freely market your sperm because your parents wanted to protect you by inserting a gene, or modified one you all-ready had?

Cliff, this by itself in no problem because as you have said "patents run out".

However there is a massive push to extend patent protection to a length of time that is more than one generation. They have greatly increased copyright protection to life of the author plus 50 years. Now they want to add another 25 years to that. (They have in some countries.)

There are some very powerfull reasons to do this. One is that it may take 15 years or so after a patent has been proved effective until it is proved safe. If you grant it the clock starts ticking and if you delay granting it then all simmilar patents would be put in limbo until it was decided which clames would be allowed. This hapens now but the time frame is maybe one year not 15.

In general the problems that any one nations patent office has pale by comparison to the international patient protecton problems.

I suggest that the universities turn out some seriously well educated philosophers real soon now. A huge intellectual vacum exists arround these issues.

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

Cliff Beall - 06:07pm Apr 18, 1998 ET (#4074 of 4076)

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

I think I have a right to expect government agencies to execute the law in an evenhanded, fair and consistent manner.

That has been the stated policy of the patent office for years. I have had patent attorneys tell me that one can not patent a mathematical equation, for example, and it certainly appears to me that the patent for the DNA sequence for the BRCA1 gene is the equivalent of a patent on a mathematical equation.

Perhaps I can see the reasoning why such a patent might be justified, given the cost of making the discovery. It does not seem fair that a company which invests the necessary resources to trace the sequence (make the discovery) to have to share the benefits of that discovery with competitors free of charge. But I would have expected the patent office to change their stated policy before granting the patent.

However, I know there has been some fairly recent changes to patent law. For example, I know that the life of a patent used to be 17 years from the date the patent was issued. Now it is 20 years from the dated of the application. I was told that the reason for this was to bring US law in line with patent laws in foreign country, and also to prevent undue delays caused by applicants to gain additional protection unfairly.

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

Cliff Beall - 06:08pm Apr 18, 1998 ET (#4075 of 4076)

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

I wonder it this issue of the patenting of discoveries was one of the things addressed by the recent law changes. It is hard for me to believe the patent office would grant a patent in defiance of the law, as well as their own stated policy.

BTW, the policy that the subject of the patent be "useful" is itself useless except to exclude perpetual motion patents. I have seen lots of patents for things that do not work in practice.

The doctor or scientist inserting the "invented gene" would be responsible for paying the royalty charged at the time the gene is inserted. It is the doctor or scientist who is involved in the commercial application of the technology, not the patient. If the gene is subsequently passed on by normal reproduction by the patient, there is no commercial exchange, and therefore no royalty is due.

If you sold your sperm or egg containing the patented gene, and the patent was still in force, it appear to me that you would owe the royalty.

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

Cliff Beall - 06:10pm Apr 19, 1998 ET (#4075 of 4076)

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

Personally, I see no reason why copyright protection should ever run out. Patents are different. Patents confer an exclusive monopoly of technology. The patent holder can license the technology if he wishes, but he is under no compulsion to do so. Furthermore, he has the right to license the technology to some without licensing it to others, or he may license it at one rate for some and a different rate for others. This kind of monopoly right is too powerful to be allowed to continue too long. I think 20 years from date of application is probably about right.

Under current law, delaying the issuance of the patent does one no good anyway because the clock now starts ticking from the time of the application. At the same time, It does one no good to have a patent on a medicine that one is not allowed to sell. If what you suggest becomes a reality, something is going to have to give. I would suggest a "safety provision" which would allow the legal patent monopoly to continue for twenty years from the date the product is allowed to be sold.

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

Cliff Beall - 06:20pm Apr 19, 1998 ET (#4076 of 4076)

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

To Mike Magner: a couple of days ago, I posted a response to a statement of yours, which in retrospect I have decided I do not like. Therefore, I have decided to delete it and try again.

Mike, I assume you were referring to me. If so, two points. First, I believe I was referring to birth defects, not genetic defects. Steven Hawkins was not born with birth defects. At the age of 21, he was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease). While it is true that ALS results from a genetic disorder, it should be clear that this is not what I was referring to.

Second, it was not my intent to insist that a fetus having severe birth defects should be aborted, but merely that I think the parents should have that option. It is the abortion of healthy fetuses that I mainly oppose.

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

Noel Yap - 08:01am Apr 20, 1998 ET (#4077 of 4080)

Dawn Willis: rights depend on the place and time, not on some transcendant or absolute reality.

I agree.

Noel Yap: I sure hope not. It's clear he's willing to sacrifice quality for time to market. Also, given his history of non-innovation, he'll just slow down research. OTOH, maybe we want slower research ;)

Cliff Beall: If this were true, Microsoft would have gone the way of Ashton-Tate long ago.

Ashton-Tate went bye-bye 'cos they didn't innovate and didn't buy out companies that innovate. Everything Microsoft has ever put out has been made up of stolen/bought ideas.

Mike Magner: I apologize for the long delays in my resonses. I am in Germany so I am not on at the same time you guys are.

Time is relative on a message board. For example, I don't normally respond during the weekends or when I'm on vaca.

Mike Magner: I think my "Reactionary" remarks were the same kinds of reactions that proponents of human cloning should expect from the population at large.

I agree.

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

Noel Yap - 08:01am Apr 20, 1998 ET (#4078 of 4080)

Mike Magner: The argument of abortion came up because it raises the question of when does life begin.

Or, more generally: What is life? Or, more specifically: When does human life begin?

Mike Magner: Remember that Steven Hawking was born with tremendous genetic defects. Look at the contributions he has made to astrophysics!

He is undoubtedly an exception. I think it's worth the risk (of losing the possible contributions) in some situations.

Mike Magner: This proves my earlier argument that you cannot just arbitrarily decide which genetic traits are important or decide which human lives have value and which ones do not.

Then we should find more objective means for deciding.

Mike Magner: I have no problem with any of these types of research.

But, most likely, these types of research go hand-in-hand with research that's a little more "immoral" (for lack of a better word.)

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

Christian Janus - 02:05pm Apr 20, 1998 ET (#4079 of 4080)

themenu.net/clones is a great example of what this man is trying to stop from happening.

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

Carl Nicolai - 04:24pm Apr 20, 1998 ET (#4080 of 4080)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Christian Janus - (#4079 of 4079)

Not bad, in fact very funny. A good site for someone like me who takes themselves far to seriously.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:48pm Apr 20, 1998 ET (#4081 of 4081)

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

Not true, Noel. Ashton-Tate did not go bye-bye because of a lack of innovation. For it's time, dBase IV was very innovative. There was just one problem: dBase IV was buggy as hell. When it became clear that dBase IV was not going to fly, Ashton-Tate tried to gain some time by issuing dBase III plus, but they were never able to eliminate the bugs in dBase IV. Plus they promised a compiler for dBase programs, and couldn't deliver. In short, Aston-Tate failed due to a quality problem.

To be fair, I must admit that Microsoft products are not always totally wonderful. For example, I remember when Borland took over the C/C++ compiler market with a superior product. But Microsoft got it back by doing three things. First, they improved the interface of their "integrated environment" to match that of the Borland product. Second, they created the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC) to compete with the Borland classes. And third--and most important-- they implemented a liberal licensing policy of MFC such that practically every C/C++ compiler on the market--except the Borland compiler--implemented MFC. (Why should Symantec develop their own classes when MFC was so reasonable?) In essence, because everybody, except Borland, implemented MFC, it became the standard. Borland lost because they tried to maintain a monopoly.

BTW, this should be a lesson to Oncormed. If they want their sequence of the BRCA1 gene to be the standard sequence, they had best implement a liberal licensing policy of their sequence. Otherwise, there will soon be competing sequences. And, if Oncormed is not careful, one of those competing sequences may very well become the standard. And where will that leave Oncormed?

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

Noel Yap - 07:31am Apr 21, 1998 ET (#4082 of 4082)

Cliff Beall: you can not patent somebody else's invention.

Are you sure about this. For example, VisiCalc was the first computer spreadsheet application, but noone ever patented it. Couldn't Microsoft then have come along and patented Excel?

Cliff Beall: Of the two, I think Mr. Feldbaum may have the better of the argument.

I agree.

Cliff Beall: Does this seem reasonable to you?

If Oncormed charged extremely high royalties, noone would pay them. This would, in one respect, not be to their benefit 'cos they wouldn't be able to recover the cost of R&D as quickly. Companies will tend to charge reasonable royalties to optimize their ROI.

Cliff Beall: I think 20 years from date of application is probably about right.

I think it depends on the technology. For example, I think 20y is way too long for patents regarding computer technologies.

Cliff Beall: I would suggest a "safety provision" which would allow the legal patent monopoly to continue for twenty years from the date the product is allowed to be sold.

This sounds good to me.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:15pm Apr 21, 1998 ET (#4083 of 4084)

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

Probably. If Excel contained patentable features not contained in VisiCalc, then those features, such as charting, for example, could be patented. Keep two things in mind. First, under current US law, if you do not make application for a patent within one year of releasing a product for commercial use, you lose the right to patent the invention contained in the product. But nobody else has the right to patent it either. Therefore, Microsoft would not be able to patent the electronic spreadsheet, but they could invent and patent any improvements that did not previously exist in commercial products on the market.

Second, a patent does not give you the right to market a product. For example, suppose VisiCalc had patented the electronic spreadsheet. Suppose also, that Microsoft had subsequently designed Excel and added Charting capability, and patented the Charting capability. Under these conditions, VisiCalc could prevent Microsoft from marketing Excel, period, because to market an electric spreadsheet would be an infringement of the VisiCalc patent. On the other hand, VisiCalc would be unable to add charting capability to it's spreadsheet, because to do so would be an infringement of the Microsoft patent. In order for VisiCalc to be able to add charting capability to it's spreadsheet, VisiCalc would have to obtain a license from Microsoft, and that would probably involve some cross licensing. When that happens, the public is served. Otherwise, in this hypothetical case, the public is limited to the VisiCalc spreadsheet--without charting capability.

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

Cliff Beall - 09:23pm Apr 21, 1998 ET (#4084 of 4084)

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

It depends on what Oncormed wants to do with the patent. One thing they could try to do is corner the market: prevent anyone else from using the sequence, which would supposedly give them a competitive advantage. However, I think that if they tried to do that, someone else would likely be able to come up with an alternate sequence that might be just as valid, and not infringe. In that case, Oncormed would find themselves in a less desirable position than if they had licensed the sequence.

I know of no reason why patents regarding computer technologies should be for a shorter period than for other industries. Anyway, software patents are relatively inconsequential. Bill Gates makes sure of that. For example, I assume Active X is patented, but it doesn't matter. For the price of a compliler, I can implement and sell all the Active X controls I want to. Other companies in the industry have been known to sue for patent or copyright infringement, but concern that Microsoft might sue me, or anybody else, for infringement of a Microsoft patent is almost ludicrous. Hell, they want everybody to use their "standards." And Microsoft "standards" are usually as good, or better, than somebody else's "patented technology." At least, that is my opinion.

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

A. Stan - 10:52pm Apr 21, 1998 ET (#4085 of 4085)

I don't know what I think of this latest development and I don't know what is in the power of the FDA per se to do about this but I think that anyone who even attempts to clone humans or human-animal creatures, ought to be punished with life in prison with no possibility of parole.

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:37pm Apr 21, 1998 ET (#4086 of 4086)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Well I've been mulling over the Feinstein bill (s.1602). As usual the Fed. is stretching the interstate commerce law a little farther. This practice is all-ready meeting with judicial opposition. I can all-ready see the states rights activists sharpening their knives.

The only thing I like about it is that it contains a sunset provision.

BTW Cliff; five patents. Not bad. They say each five patents is worth the next higest college degree.

Any way it makes for some great ad-hominums, if not an ad-vercundeum or two. ;)

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

Cliff Beall - 02:11am Apr 22, 1998 ET (#4087 of 4087)

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

Yes, that is one of its most attractive features.

If that is what they say, it is nice since I have no degree of any kind otherwise.

Actually, I thought I had four. Apparently one of them issued that they never told me about: my very first one. I think, perhaps, the reason may have been that by the time it issued, I had transferred to the boondocks (Oklahoma). People in Houston probably knew all about it. Anyway, since I was never told it issued, I assumed it had not. It was nice to find out that it did issued after all. Thanks for letting me know.

By the way, this is incredibly off the subject of cloning:-)

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

dagny taggart - 05:26pm Apr 22, 1998 ET (#4088 of 4090)

I'm waiting for science to cross-breed a banana and a crawfish, so the darn mud bugs will be easier to peel and eat!

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

Cliff Beall - 08:16pm Apr 22, 1998 ET (#4089 of 4090)

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

I am with you on that one, dagny.

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

mugung - 03:51am Apr 23, 1998 ET (#4090 of 4090)

a good man

Cloning is natural.

Cloning is human speciality.

Cloning is universal event.

Cloning is dangerous.

Cloning can give pleasure to human.

If you are brave , go to www.rael.org and www.clonaid.com .

You will learn great meaning of cloning.

LOVE

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

Cliff Beall - 12:18am Apr 24, 1998 ET (#4091 of 4091)

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

Personally, mugung, I prefer the site Christian Janus suggested a while ago. In case anyone missed it click on the address below for another chance to visit this rather sexist site (my cup of tea).

themenu.net/clones

My personal preference is Whole Clone as opposed to Spare Parts, but to each his own.

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

Carl Nicolai - 01:32am Apr 24, 1998 ET (#4092 of 4094)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Well I guess the successful birth of a lamb to Dolly advances the safety issue one notch.

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

Rachelle Erickson - 07:42am Apr 24, 1998 ET (#4093 of 4094)

I can't think of reason why anyone would be against human cloning. I could imagine people being against genetic engineering, although the only way to cure genetic diseases would be gene line therapy, in other words, genetic engineering of humans. However, cloning is so trivial, it's not even worthy of mention. Human cloning would not be fundamentally different than what we have now. Two people being genetically identical is nothing unusual since we've always had identical twins. Single parents would be nothing unusual since we've always had single parents. The only difference is that that would be literally true. Artificial means of reproduction would be nothing new since we've had artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization for decades. There is nothing unusual about this. Why would someone get excited about something so dull? We've already cloned human embryos. Actually, you could say that we first cloned humans a hundred years. Cloning is artificially induced asexual reproduction. One time of asexual reproduction is budding. This is like when a planarian, or flatworm, divides in half. Therefore if you take a planarian, and slice it in half with a knife, that's cloning. Slicing a planarian in half isn't fundamentally different than separating simese twin. You take an organism, cut it in half, and get two organisms. Therefore the separation of simese twins is technically human cloning. Therefore human cloning first took place around 100 years ago.

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

Django - 06:12pm Apr 24, 1998 ET (#4094 of 4094)

One example of a "good" human-animal hybrid would be a sheep or pig that is knockout for its own MHC molecules but expresses human transplantation antigens. That way, we could harvest livestock animals for organs once our own wore out, without fear of host-vs-graft disease.

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

Terri Lynn Johnson - 07:26pm Apr 25, 1998 ET (#4095 of 4095)

If we do animal-human cloning, how much "human" would it take before it was human. How much to make it an animal? These are very serious times to be asking these questions. We are finally realizing that people are all the same inside, and now we want to create a 'race' of animal-humans. How would you explain to a ani-man that its ok to eat meat of a sheep even though he is part of one? Also, how would you ask him/her to give up their life for the life of a human? Could you just take it? Do they belong to me? Are they their own masters? ISN'T SLAVERY ILLEGAL?

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

Cliff Beall - 12:45am Apr 26, 1998 ET (#4096 of 4097)

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

Carl Nicolai: Well I guess the successful birth of a lamb to Dolly advances the safety issue one notch.

True enough, but the successful cloning of just one more animal from adult somatic cells would advance it a great deal more, particularly if it involved fewer than 277 consecutive failures prior to the single success.

Rachelle Erickson: I can't think of reason why anyone would be against human cloning.

Well some people say they oppose it for religious reasons. Actually, I think that in most cases the real reason has to do with emotions. Genetic engineering has an unfortunate association with the Nazis. Cloning has an association with both genetic engineering and bad science fiction, and thus has a bad press. Me, I have a different reason for opposing it at this time. My reason is that it is not safe. Show me a successful cloning of an animal from adult somatic cells that involved fewer than 277 consecutive failures before the single success, and I will agree that it is becoming less dangerous.

Rachelle Erickson: However, cloning is so trivial, it's not even worthy of mention. Human cloning would not be fundamentally different than what we have now.

I don't think I would go so far as calling cloning trivial. Anything as difficult as nuclear transfer is not trivial.

Rachelle Erickson: Therefore the separation of simese twins is technically human cloning.

I think you may be stretching the analogy a tad here.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:57am Apr 26, 1998 ET (#4097 of 4097)

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

Terri Lynn Johnson: If we do animal-human cloning, how much "human" would it take before it was human. How much to make it an animal?

Good questions. I do not have the answer except to say that, as I understand it, it is not so much the number of genes that are inserted, but which ones, and how those genes are "expressed." For example, if a scientist inserts a human gene into the genome of a female animal such that the animal produces a human protein in it's milk, this does not make the animal part human since the animal does not express the gene in a way that would make the animal part human. In addition, if an animal organ is modified such that the organ is not be rejected when transplanted into a human, this does not make the animal part human, unless the genes are expressed in a way that would make the animal part human. I have been told that 97% of the human genome is shared with the great apes. Thus it is only a very small percentage of genes that make humans human, and apes ape. It would seem to me that we don't need to be messing around with those genes.

That is about the best I can do with your questions, Terri. Those are questions that bother me a great deal also. Perhaps someone else who knows more about the subject than me will address your questions.

Terri Lynn Johnson: We are finally realizing that people are all the same inside, and now we want to create a 'race' of animal-humans.

I do not think anyone wants to do that. At least I hope not. As I understand it, the objective is to insert specific human genes into animals to arrive at a result: for example, the production of a protein that some humans lack in the milk of the animal, or modification of an animal organ such that it will not be rejected when transplanted into a human.

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

Carl Nicolai - 03:21am Apr 26, 1998 ET (#4098 of 4102)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - (#4096 of 4096)

Show me a successful cloning of an animal from adult somatic cells that involved fewer than 277 consecutive failures before the single success, and I will agree that it is becoming less dangerous.

By your eariler standard of rights not occuring before implation it would not seem to matter how many failures occured before implatation. The critical thing in that case is to be able to tell when you have a blastosyst that will develop into a normal human.

Using the present law you have 6 mon. to detect any severe abnornality.

As I understand it there were 2 sheep born with severe abnormalities before Dolly. My question is weither these were, or could have been, detected in the second trimester or eariler?

Terri Lynn Johnson - (#4095 of 4096)

If we do animal-human cloning, how much "human" would it take before it was human. How much to make it an animal?

Well now that's just it. Nobody has a clue. I think we will just have to wait and see what people do with these creations and how they think and feel about them.

If people they act the way they uasually do now, they will probly judge the transgenic beings by how they look and if they can talk.

People have been ignoring human interspeciation for a very long time now. Unless forced, most people will ingore transgenic classification as long as they can.

After a few generations of breeding true and assuming they can not do conventional breeding with other animals or beings that are not related You may have a new species on your hands.

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

Rachelle Erickson - 03:53am Apr 26, 1998 ET (#4099 of 4102)(deleted, presumably by CNN)

God you people are stupid! I didn't realize that total idiots posted on this board! None of people even know what cloning is! Anyone who would the oxymoronic phrase "human-animal cloning" hasn't the foggiest idea what cloning is. The fact that the separation of so-called "conjoined twins" is an example of human cloning is not an analogy you fool! If someone said that one type of cloning was cloning by nuclear transfer, would you say, "I think you may be stretching the analogy a tad here?" What analogy? What the hell are you talking about?

The idea of being against human cloning because of the success rate doesn't make any sense. First of all, let's say hypothetically, 227 human clone embryos would die for every one that lived to term. Considering that there are two million abortions that occur every single year in the United States alone, that's not even worthy of mention. Even the most die hard obsessed pro-life advocate would be more concerned about two million healthy human fetuses being delibrately every single year in the United States alone than they would about 227 human embryos that died naturally due to severe birth defects. Second of all, the low success rate only exists in the very beginning when you are in the process of figuring out how to do it. After, you achieve it, the success rate is much higher. Guess what. You don't need to use humans when you're in the process of figuring out how to do human cloning. Humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical, and therefore obviously be cloned in an indentical way. You can use chimps when you're going through the low success rate period of figuring out how to do it, and then afterwards use humans. That's what I would do if I was in charge of a human cloning research center. Besides, as I said, if 227 human embroys died naturally from severe birth defects, how could anyone care about that when two million healthy human fetuses are delibrately killed every single year in the United States alone. It doesn'