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

Dawn Willis - 05:49pm May 22, 1998 ET (#4200 of 4201)

s. schmidt: Thanks for confirming that E. coli still have sex!

It's almost 6 on 5/22, and CNN has said nothing on this board about the cloned transgenic calves reported on in this week's Science. Still using fetal cells rather than adult donor nuclei, however. The difference is that the fetal donor cells were grown in culture for up to 40 days, through several cell divisions, and had a marker gene incorporated. It was for antibiotic resistance, but anything else would do as well. Here's the data: 276 embryos produced from the fusion; 33 developed as far as blastocysts, the implantable stage; six pregnancies; one early, one late abortion and one calf dead shortly after birth. Result: three normal calves out of 276 eggs fused with donor cells. Okay odds for calf cloning, probably not so good for people cloning. And still no adult donor nuclei.

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

Dawn Willis - 05:59pm May 22, 1998 ET (#4201 of 4201)

Cliff: I read a paper recently about specific genotypes that find it more difficult to quit smoking than others. I do think the ability to quit as well as the urge to start may lie in addiction genes. But most smokers don't die of lung cancer, and that is probably genetic as well. One day we will be able to identify who has addictive genes and tobacco resistant genes, and I don't know that the world will be a better place. Then everyone will want to buy the best genes for their offspring. Maybe it will be--"I want a clone of me, but one that is thinner, smarter, and blond!" Genes for sale!

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

Cliff Beall - 03:41am May 23, 1998 ET (#4202 of 4203)

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

Dawn, I found a report on an MSNBC page that indicates to me that this paper must refer to George, Charlie and a third unnamed calf cloned by James Robl and Steven Stice, which was announced in January. This MSNBC report dated May 21, 1998, states: "A REPORT ON joint research by Stice and scientists at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, is being published on Friday in the journal Science."

Apparently different scientists do things differently. Dolly was born on 5 July 1996 but the folks at the Roslin Institute did not announce it until the scientific article was published in Nature on 27 February 1997. However, Robl and Stice of Advanced Cell Technology Inc. announced the birth of their calves within a week of their birth to the popular press. But it now appears that Stice has followed up with an article in a scientific journal.

By the way, I have found that I was in error when I said there was no announcements of cloning success since January. From the same source, I found an article that indicates that PPL has also produces a cloned calf. However, it too was produced from a fetal cell.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:45am May 23, 1998 ET (#4203 of 4203)

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

I thought it was interesting that Stice was quoted in the MSNBC article that: "The reason we use fetal fibroblast cells is that they are much more robust, and we can do more with them. With these cells, we can make the genetic modifications faster and more efficiently." I suspect it means that his attempts to clone from adult cells were unsuccessful

Incidentally, this points out a problem with reports in the popular press. They are not always accurate. For example, one report I read back in February said that Stice's method was more efficient than Wilmut's method: while "Dolly was the result of 277 attempts; each of the three calves -- and a fourth that died within a week after birth -- was the result of about 50 tries."

Where the reporter got that each calf were the result of 50 tries, I do not know. It certainly bears little resemblence to the statistics you recited from the Science article.

Also, in the current MSNBC article there was a sentence that indicates that the "researchers have produced six genetically identical calves in an important step toward building herds of "designer" cattle." Actually, there were six pregnancies. Two abortions, one dead a week after birth and three healthy calves.

Well, Wilmut has said he is working on cloning another sheep from adult cells. We shall see.

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

Carl Nicolai - 06:07am May 23, 1998 ET (#4204 of 4205)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

six pregnancies; one early, one late abortion and one calf dead shortly after birth. Result: three normal calves out of 276 eggs fused with donor cells.

In the U.S. you really dont have to be to concerned about the collections of cells that don't make it to the 3rd trimester. (at least legally)

So lets see. It looks like two deaths to obtain 3 children if this is extraplilatable to humans.

Does anyone know what the comparible unassisted and IVF rates are? I wonder what childless couples who have had several late term or early post partum children die on them would consider acceptable odds?

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

Ian Probert - 09:19am May 23, 1998 ET (#4205 of 4205)

I hope all you evil, wicked sick, sheep-shagging scientists are blown up by your own Atom Bombs. You make me throw up my guts which wouldn't have been possible except for the sick food you make for us I hope you all burn in hell.

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

Bill Bartlett - 02:19pm May 23, 1998 ET (#4206 of 4207)

I got an idea! Let's clone jesus and get it over with!!

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

Cliff Beall - 02:21pm May 23, 1998 ET (#4207 of 4207)

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

Carl, in addition of your interesting interpretation of the statistics, you seem to be forgetting one thing. All of these pregnancies--with the likely exception of Dolly--are either from embryonic or fetal cells. Although cloning from adult cells might be more convenient, and faster, fetal cells will work just fine for what Wilmut and Stice want to do. But they won't work to your satisfaction for human cloning since there is no application for using fetal cells in human cloning for reproductive purposes.

Wilmut has indicated that he is trying to produce another Dolly (cloned sheep from an adult cell), but Dolly will soon be two years old, and he hasn't done it yet. I have trouble believing he hasn't tried at least two or three times by now.

Although it may be a bit premature, my natural skepticism is beginning to manifest itself. It is true that in February, Wilmut said to give him a year, and only three months have gone by. But, back in August of last year, Bishop said "real soon." And, in January, Stice said "well into." I note that Stice is now saying that fetal cells are "much more robust." I suspect he knows what he is talking about.

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

Carl Nicolai - 03:52pm May 23, 1998 ET (#4208 of 4209)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ref. Cliff Beall - (#4207 of 4207)

Well first of all my purposes are vast and I have not limited my ideas to my lifetime or even the lifetime of humans as we know them today.

I have talked to my wife and we have concluded that when we have another child we will definately preserve some of it's fetal cells in cryo storage at the earlist stage they can be safely removed. Actually I dont think this will be required in the near future (5 to 10 years) because there is so much work going on in this field that soon many kinds of extremely highly differented cells will be able to be converted into totipotent cells sutable as a base for cloning.

The new announcement just points out that the known methods of cloning are getting better results while being easier and less expensive.

When we can do the equivelent of an MRI (formally known as NMR) on single cells I think the cell aging problem will vanish. (Perhaps de-differendation is a more usefull idea)

Cliff they may even be able to non-invasively detect problems before your implantation criteria. ----------------------

I note that India, which has a large scientific community, a diverse culture, and a large requirement for food production now has serious self defence capibilities. At the same time the U.S. is thinking about giving them back a whole bunch of their scientists and engineers. Thatill teach em.

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

Cliff Beall - 04:10pm May 23, 1998 ET (#4209 of 4209)

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

Carl, your points are well taken. Actually, they generally are, even when I initially think they are not.

But what is this:

Funny as hell. That is what it is :-)

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

Carl Nicolai - 06:17pm May 23, 1998 ET (#4210 of 4211)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff. Sorry about my leaps in logic.

The point is that a national policy on cloning in India is not possable because of the extremely diverse religious, social, and economic cultures.

Therefore clonning and genetic engineering may be easier to do there than other cultures like Eutope and the U.S. (They will have more effective freedom)

Since they are to be isolated with sanctions and are self sufficent enough not to care, this is where many developments may occur.

I have read that as many as 50,000 Indian scientests and engineers work in the US. If the state department returns them to India (to punish India) it will in fact aid India and hurt us. The US is all-ready hurting for high tech. people.

Any laws against cloning will have a chilling effect on the entire industry even if not specificly directed at something like animal cloning. Same with Gen. Eng. The U.S. is more addicted to passing laws then the people, in the U.S., are to taking drugs. (Grim indeed)

The education level that many Indians have is to be reconed with. Eliminate poverty and corruption, which is not as organised as in mainland China, and you have the potential for great growth. Also the people are becommiong very nationalistic.

These people are going for the good stuff. Noooooo question about it.

Thanks for the reality check.

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

Ashley Thompson - 08:28pm May 23, 1998 ET (#4211 of 4211)

I think if God wanted people to be cloned he would have done it himself. The only cloning I would EVER even THINK about is for organ transplants. Ian: I totally agree with you. 100%.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:57am May 24, 1998 ET (#4211 of 4213)

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

To: CNN:

Being a stickler for details, it bothers me that at the top of this page, you say: "Six genetically identical calves have been produced by researchers who say a new cloning technology may make it possible to create "designer" cattle that can produce human medicines or better meat and milk."

Actually, it is three genetically identical calves. True there were six pregnancies, but there were two abortions, one early, one late and one calf died shortly after birth, leaving three healthy calves, George, Charlie and one unnamed calf.

The AP story is wrong too.

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

Tom Anderson - 02:20am May 24, 1998 ET (#4212 of 4213)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Ashley,

I think that anyone who thinks they can know what their god thinks is not a very respectful person of their god. And since you think he would have done it himself, how do you know that this development in our technology is not a direct result of his own doing. Afterall, if he didn't want people to clone, don't you think he would prevent it?

M.J., Ian,

I think that our national education system should be bolstered as to eliminate utter ignorance amongst its adult population, or at least teach it some ethics and manners. I also think that CNN ought to remove posts which insult and threaten people who are attempting to have a civil, enlightened conversation. While I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, it should be an educated opinion; therefore, please read this FAQ and return when you have something constructive to add to the debate.

Tom

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

Tom Anderson - 02:22am May 24, 1998 ET (#4213 of 4213)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

Before suggesting that all of these stories are wrong, have you considered that maybe you are wrong? Maybe they are speaking of another group of clones than the one you are thinking of.

Tom

Tom, I don't think so and here is why: On 5-22, Dawn posted the following:

Subsequently, in her post, she said:

Shortly after reading this, it occurred to me that this might refer to George, Charlie and a third unnamed calf cloned by James Robl and Steven Stice, born back in January. It has been about five months since those three calves were born, or about the length of time I would estimate for a scientific article, of this type, to pass peer review and be published in a scientific journal. (The "Dolly" article, in Nature, was published seven months after Dolly was born.) I therefore looked up the original stories I had read in February. Unfortunately, I was unable to convincingly connect them, due to an (apparent) error in the original report which I detailed in a previous post.

However, I did a search and found an MSNBC report, dated May 21, 1998, that reported that "researchers have produced six genetically identical calves in an important step toward..." This, of course, did not sound like George, Charlie and the unnamed calf, but the report also stated that "joint research by Stice and scientists at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, is being published on Friday in the journal Science."

But since Dawn had already told me what the Science article contained, it was easy for for me to conclude that the "six" must be in error, since I trust Dawn to faithfully report the details contained in the Science article. And since a coauthor of the article was Stice, I assumed that the paper must refer to the three calves that Stice and his associates had cloned.

Also, it is easy to see how the error could have been made since there were six pregnancies, 2 abortions, 1 death, and three healthy calves, as reported by Dawn.

Did I convince you?

A critical issue in regards to cloning is the question, "what makes a person human?" Cloning animals for agricultural and medicinal purposes is an incredible breakthrough, but cloning humans has obvious, severe ethical consequences. This points towards a truth that humans are in some way different than other animals, not just another result of evolutionary chance. To quote a recent movie, "there is no gene for the human spirit." Though this goes outside the realm of science, it is nonetheless critical at this junction of our history to determine what it is that makes us human, and in what way are we different than other animals besides differences in our genetic makeup.

To put it another way, are we simply the result of our genes and environment, or is there something more?

Any comments or questions are welcome: [email protected]

David C. Lynn - 12:01am May 25, 1998 ET (#4217 of 4217)

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a black (well sort of) friend a number of years ago. His child looked "white" to me, so I ask him "How do you know you are black". He answered "Carl you know you are black when white people say you are black".

The lines are indeed going to become very blured. Seriously geneticly engineered beings will be accorded human status when humans who are recognised say they are human.

Sounds stupid, but that's the way I think it will be.

I would like to state the fact that i am in utter awe at the diverse applications of genetic engineering. Only the future holds what the intended use for cloning will be. As a scientist i believe legislation will do very little to hinder any biochemical/genetic techniques worldwide. Many do not hear of such techniques as cloning until it has become an event of the past. Even those of us in the biochemical industry. Transgenic Animals have been around for decades. A technique such a Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer only has, on avg., a ~10% success rate. Why does this still worry us? Are we afraid of the possibilty that we as people are as easy to clone as industrial livestock? Aren't we afraid? Where does the essence of being human come from? Is it from the complexities of molecular interaction? Is it the 'arrangement' or the number of the expressed genes in the human genome? I would like to point something out to the general population. We heard of Dolly when she reached maturity. Maturity. Scientists published (key word-published) their results after the experiment was considered to be a success. In other words, the experiment had already been tried numerous times almost unannounced. With respect to human cloning, will we hear/read the same twelve to fourteen years from now about that of a cloned human successfully reaching sexual maturiy? I think highly possible. keep in mind there are privately many who would participate in such an endeavor. By that time, the debate will be diluted and the numbers cloned will be high.

all re: [email protected]

Phys Frank Morales - 09:31am May 25, 1998 ET (#4218 of 4218)

So, do you know enough about genetics to be really worried here Frank? Do you really understand that the genie is out of the bottle. That the lid has been completely blown off Pandoras Box. There is no putting a innocent face on this. There will be human cloning. There will be trial and error. There will be those who want to use this technology for nefarious purposes. There will be genocide based on genetic screening. There will be mistakes made, as in every new endeavor.

The question is: Can an error, using this technology, result in the creation of an organism that will prove to be harmful to the entire human species? Will that organism prove to be immediately harmful or will it only manifest itself once it has spread throughout the planetary ecosystem? According to the science, AIDS was always out there, not a new disease, but only manifested itself after it had spread to every corner of the planet (HHHMMMMMM!!).

There is no turning back this biological revolution which will have greater impact upon the destiny of man than any discovery yet in human history. After all, wasn't it the creation of humankind that affirms our belief in GOD? Doesn't our ability to even surpass HIS creativity leave us vulnerable to the whims of every crackpot with enough money and test tubes?

Afraid I haven't got the answer to all this, but then it is equally clear that nobody else has either.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread

Cliff, I believe you are correct in assuming that the three cloned calves from the Science article, on which Stice and Robl are authors, are the same ones that were reported in the press in Jan. The CNN and AP stories are incorrect--there were only three healthy calves born from six detected pregnancies. I should have added that only 28 of the 33 blastocysts were implanted in 11 cows, and no multiple pregancies occurred. I suppose that the authors don't count the 243 unsuccessful egg:fetal cell fusions when determining their success rate. Do you recall how many successful fusions Wilmut had, or was his rate based on implantation of 200+ blastocysts?

For the purpose of inserting foreign genes into livestock, fetal cell cultures are much more preferable than cloning adult cells. Having calves that produce human albumin will make a good cheap source of blood extenders for burn victims, etc.

Carl Nicolai: I'm not certain that technology is up to removing fetal cells from a viable fetus without danger. Perhaps you can get what you need from amniocentesis, but I don't know.

David Lynn: No gene for the human spirit? Probably not a single gene, but likely many different genes. Humans are those who look and act human--that is, like us, whoever "we" may be. Someone who is severely mentally retarded, or completely insane, is human, but probably doesn't have much in the way of a recognizable human spirit. The few sad individuals who have grown up isolated from human contact don't have much "human" spirit, either, so genes aren't the whole story.

RE: Lloyd Cata - 10:51am May 25, 1998 ET (#4219 of 4221)

BPhys Frank Morales - 09:31am May 25, 1998 ET (#4218 of 4218)

So, do you know enough about genetics to be really worried here Frank?

Your question of anybody's background on the subject matter is shallow in itself. We as readers and professionals present opinions here to further expand the thoughts of those (and ourselves) who frequent these message boards. If you feel you are not a adept as some of us on the topic of genetics, then pick up a text. But please, do not maliciously antagonize those of us discussing such sensitive material matter.

Thanks, I feel vindicated--after those skeptical words from Tom :-) (Actually, I don't blame Tom. Reverse the roles, and I would have been as skeptical as he.)

Seriously, however, this is the reason peer reviewed papers are generally considered more reliable than the popular press. Reporters can make mistakes the same way I can make mistakes--and have--on this board. But I do wish CNN would correct the error at the top of this page some time soon.

It appears to me that Stice and Robl may have had a somewhat better success rate with their cloned calves than Wilmut has had with his sheep. Note that success can be measured a number of ways, but by my reckoning the success rate should be counted as the number of live births, resulting in healthy offspring, with respect to the number of implants. Unless an embryo is implanted, there really isn't a chance for a birth. And an implant that does not result in a pregnancy would seem to me to be a failure. Therefore, I would count Stice's and Robl's success rate as 10.7% based on 3 healthy calves out of 28 implants. Wilmut's success rate has typically been somewhat less.

In the Dolly paper that Wilmut published in Nature in February 27, 1997, a chart is given for three cell types: Mammary epithelium, Fetal fibroblast and Embryo derived. Click the following address:

to view the paper.

I believe the 277 fused couplets, 29 blastocysts transferred, 13 pregnancies and 1 healthy lamb refers to Dolly. I consider this to represent a 3.44% success rate (1 of 29) for cloning from adult cells. The 177 fused couplets, 34 blastocysts transferred, ten pregnancies and two healthy lambs from fetal cells in the chart are earlier clones. I do not remember the number of fused couplets in the case of Polly and Molly, but in a post I wrote at the time, I mentioned the following

It should be mentioned that while I think the above numbers are correct, they were undoubtedly obtained from the popular press. It is also possible that I misunderstood or copied them incorrectly. (After my spouting off about other people's errors, I had best be careful of my own. Ha!) In addition, it does not include the birth of three healthy lamb clones that did not contain the target gene. If those three lambs were counted, Wilmut's success rate would be closer to that obtained by Robl and Stice. On the other hand, all three of the Robl-Stice calves had the target gene, although a less desirable one. Therefore, by my reckoning, Robl and Stice appears to have a higher success rate so far.

Cloning research will lead to Biological Fabrications (BioFabs), beings designed and built for specific purposes and environments. BioFabs will be just another milestone in mans progression towards control of his environment. Humans require approximately 18% oxygen at STP for survival, but BioFabs could be designed for the conditions of say Mars, allowing colonization of a world unfit for humans. Why terraform Mars for Man, when it is so much easier to redesign Man for Mars? Other BioFabs could be designed for life in the Oceans, at depths that are unthinkable today for divers. New frontiers on good old mother earth will be opened by BioFabs, from life in sub-zero conditions, to life under the oceans. Living matter is the ultimate engineering material, and I am sure we will build marvels that will dwarf the Golden Gate Bridges and the Hover Dams of the modern world.

Wallace's enthusiam is contagious, and that's why it has to be contained. Genetic Engineering should not be looked at as the be-all, end-all cure-all for all of societies ailments. The hit or miss process reflected by the number of trials it took to get 3 health calves should serve as an indicator. I know of course that this is only the beginning, but foolish zealot could easily get a whole continent's ecosystem destroyed. What would the rest of the planet do with out the food production capacity of North America? Lets all take this one step at a time and think about what is safe, reasonable and predictable before we turn Mr. Carr's Golden Gate into the next Tacoma Narrows.

Ref. Jerry Rifkin - (#4224 of 4224) /....

Ecosystem? What ecosystem? The planet is mostly barren waste compared with what could be done.

For starters you could turn the ocean desert into a serious system by just adding about 1 part /billion of iron to the water. (It would lower the CO2 also)

Since you must be from Washington State to know about the Tacoma narrows bridge, consider that more than 1/2 the irrigation project, that was to occur by diverting a minor part of the Columbia, had to be cancelled because the excess food production would have driven the existing farmers out of business due to low prices.

Even using convential breeding practices, plants that make serious ammounts of hydrocarbons, can tollerate high salt content, and produce huge ammounts of carbohydrates are happening.

Genetic engineering hasen't even started yet. It is about where computers were when vacuum tubes were used.

I think "foolish zealots" in this field are exactly what we require, and lots of them.

Thank you both (Dawn and Carl) for you responses. I thought what Dawn said was interesting:

"Someone who is severely mentally retarded, or completely insane, is human, but probably doesn't have much in the way of a recognizable human spirit. The few sad individuals who have grown up isolated from human contact don't have much "human" spirit, either, so genes aren't the whole story."

My point is exactly that, that genes are not the whole story, but neither is one's environment. I beg to differ at this point: Even an individual who is retarded or insane is still a spiritual being. They are no less "human"; they still have need of both love and salvation. Though they may be looked down upon (as I'm sure the "clonee's" will), they are still part of the human race somehow distinct from other animals. It is at this point that science has of yet to give a clear answer.

Carl, I can't believe you actually said: "I think "foolish zealots" in this field are exactly what we require, and lots of them." Yeah, sure, I know you are fairly strong in your views, but "foolish zealots"? First, that is a religious term, although not one with which many religious people would identify. Basically, it is something that some of them call others that they don't like. Are you sure you want to associate your enthusiasm for this cloning technology with that type of terminology? BTW, I recently visited another board, and discover a terrible controversy about someone referring to another person as a WASP. The perpetrator of this horrid "racial slur" was Chinese, as it happens. For some reason, it tickled the heck out of me. On the other hand, you can't be too careful about that which is "politically incorrect" these days!

David, while it is true that humans are distinct from other animals, most animals are distinct from other animals. Can you tell me that there is a greater distinction between a human and, say, a cat then there is between a lion and a deer? Personally, if pressed, I would have to say that the nature of a human and a cat are probably a great deal closer that the nature of a lion with respect to that of a deer. So what is the point? It is this: we, as people, hold certain concepts of humanity. Some of us speak of human "rights" in religious terms: "God given rights," for example. But actually, rights of humanity are not conferred by any divine entity. Those rights that we hold are simply rights that we want and have the power to maintain. With respect to "spiritual" beings, a cat is a "spiritual" being. So is a lion and so is a deer. What answer would you desire from science? That we are different from a cat in the sense that we have more power than a cat? Somehow I suspect that that is not the answer you desire. But it is the truth. Would you wish for science to give an answer that does not exist?

Well..after reading all this opinions i can say some of the most important things about clonning: First those who are against clonning must understand that their opinion wilol not stop scientist. We must admit that clonning is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands...so that the technology must not be distributed, and somehow clonning must be also under civil control so that no military or eventualy terrorists can obtain this technology. That's my opinio but being more realistic it's not hard to figure out that military already has this technology...so that we civilians must bring to the mind the danger of uncontrolled clonning and use of this tecnology in military purposes. Here are my 2 coins.

Ref. Cliff Beall - (#4227 of 4228)

Well I guess I had better defend my point of view.

Some where in my studies I read something like the following "A reaonable man conformes to his enviroment. An unreasonable men expects his enviroment to conform to him. Therefore all progress is made by the unreasonable." ( Some kind of existentualist I think)( hope I got it right)

If no one takes any risks in cloning, nothing interesting is going to happen. Now I have read the Si Fi books where someone invents a bacteria that wipes out humanity but I dont beleive it.

Every study of the most virulent forms of life known to us shows that the variations in the genetic code in humans is so vast as to preclude such an event.

The Japinese religious freekos only managed to kill a handfull of people with thier nerve gas even though they had total freedom to try and if they knew what to do, may only have wiped out 100,000 of our fellow humans. I remind you that these were the badest and wierdest of the lot.

Do you really beleive that some dumbo can invent something that can seriously cripple us. If so just remember that "Nature" and thousands of its life forms have been competeing with humans for a verrrrrrrry long time.

I know "Pride goeth before a fall" I say let the engineers try. Who knows maybe they will do something really good.

Now that is more like the Carl Nicolai I know. Not really politically correct, but not a "foolish zealot" either. Cheers.

The human spirit? If you're talking about personality, then yes, it is genetic; and it's also environmental. Without genetics you have nothing... it is the template. But onto that template is built something completely from the environment, but still influenced at its core from the template.

Alright Carl! Screw "political correctness"! Screw "the norm"! Screw "conformity"! The world is nothing without its innovators, its inventors, and its leaders! Anyone who wants to "play it safe" doesn't deserve safety; they deserve to be trampled by those who are willing to take risks, to put it all on the line, for the smallest chance of a greater good. I'd rather live for one day than follow the crowd blindly for a hundred years. What kind of world would it be if nobody ever wanted to step into a rocket and go to the moon? What kind of world would it be if noone ever sailed across the ocean to find America? What kind of world would it be if nobody ever stood up to their oppressors? What kind of world would it be if noone ever appreciated discovery? Certainly a dull one, and dead one in all likelyhood. Humanity exists today solely because we think and we explore; it is the only thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. So don't tell me that our intelligence will be the end of us... it is the only reason we're still here! If you cannot understand cloning, or any other field of science, don't fear it, and don't oppose it -- learn it!

Tom Anderson Said:

"The world is nothing without its innovators, its inventors, and its leaders! Anyone who wants to "play it safe" doesn't deserve safety; they deserve to be trampled by those who are willing to take risks,"

Great attitude Tom. Guess you were the guy who trampled down 3 women, and 5 children when the movie theatre caught on fire huh? Brilliant leaders never have the trampler attitude. The most important things here are wisdom, insight, and logical independant thought. We cannot just march forward foolishly (as some put it). I'm not against the cloning, or for it. I want to know that we aren't rushing into somthing foolish.

One day,we will create a or some kind of creature like a dog which can think and have feelings as we do(they maybe can now),and a kind of plant like a thinkable tree which could be angry at being cut down. Human kind are changing the world towards not a good direction but a bad one. Nuclear weapon is another good example. The point is not the technology but the one who use it.

Tom, I have read your cloning FAQ, but I have also read the Science portion of the "Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission." I consider the latter a great deal more authoritative. For anyone who desires information from real scientists who actually know what they are talking about, click the address below:

Once you get to the site, select the "Science and Application of Cloning" topic. You will find a number of examples therein of how cloning can be dangerous.

Tom, I think I know a little about innovation, and it is true that innovation sometimes involve risks. But there is a significant difference between a calculated risk and a foolhardy plunge. I would submit that the people who make a difference are those willing to take a calculated risk. But they are not reckless fools. Ideas are great, but I have found the following to be the case with ideas: some work almost without trying. Some work with moderate difficulty. Some can be made to work only with the greatest of difficulty. And some ideas don't work, can't work, and can't be made to work.

As an outsider to this particular technology, I must say that it appears to me that few things in this technology can be considered easy, or moderately difficult. It all looks very difficult to me. But there is a tremendous difference between things that are not easy, and things that are not possible, and it is not always immediately clear where the boundaries are. Those boundaries should be explored, and the exploration of those boundaries require some risks. At the same time, one should avoid unnecessary risks. My advise would be to test the water when possible and take only those risks that appear warranted. Don't be afraid to take risks, but don't take foolish risks. A fool--for the sake of the foolish--is no hero.

Well said, Jason. I assume your reference to "cloning" was intended to mean "human cloning." On that assumption, I feel that I must note that there are different aspects of cloning. For example, I think most people, once they understand it, are supportive of the animal cloning for pharmaceutical purposes that Wilmut, Robl and Stice are engaged in. The technology is difficult, but those guys are doing some marvelous things. I strongly support that type of cloning. But the risk factor will have to be reduced considerably before I will support full term human cloning of any type.

We need human cloning and we need it now. America's population is way too low compared to the rest of the world, and the "moral" immorality of congress is serving only to discourage reproduction. Cloning would have none of the "dirty" connotations of normal procreational activities, and would lead to new levels of competition at Miss America contests and sports.

Ref. Cliff Beall - (#4236 of 4236)

Cliff. Cliff. Cliff. Don't give me this "outsider" stuff. You may be a non-professional, a student, an armchair philosopher, a critic, or an amatuer, but an outsider you are not.

Just how easy do you think it is for the scientists who are trying to' do it?

Genetic engineering and clonning may well allow us to witness the very apotheosis or converesly the apocalypse of humanity itself.(I vote for the former myself) ;)

The idea of a group of beings controlling their own evolution without destroying their own members is as exciting as anything ever conceived. (and maybe as dangerous)

We are living in the genesis. Immagine what it will be like to have a grandchild ask you "What was it like when all humans were natural".

I feel that I am somehow involved in the practice of science fiction.

Ok! So you are not a scientist, although who knows you might be one day, you are an inventor and must have experienced the thrill of knowing that your creations have advanced the productivity of mankind.

This is an international media and your words could influence the course of mankind.

Actually, that phrase about being an "outsider to this technology" was a holdover to a bunch of stuff I decided not to post. In context, it would have made more sense. Basically, I kept only that and the phrase about ideas that "don't work, can't work, and can't be made to work." Suffice it to say that, in my own puddle, I have had abundant experience with things that "don't work, can't work and can't be made to work."

But I have also known the joy of finding a way to make something work, when it seemed it never would. The point is, I know the method, and it is not foolishness. Sure, there are risks, and one must never be afraid to take risks. But the risks must be calculated for maximum return, based on a depth of knowledge. Foolishness, for the sake of foolishness, never got anybody anywhere.

I am sure they know better than me. Actually, anything is easy if you know how to do it. But beware of "proven technology" that isn't. "Proven technology" can be cruel.

Yes, that is, indeed, a very exciting thought. Furthermore, it appears to me that we have the right people working on the technology. I have the highest regard, admiration and respect for men like Wilmut, Robl and Stice. It appears to me that these are people who have respect for the technology that they are creating.

BRING ON THE GOATMEN! BRING ON THE PIGMEN! BRING ON THE DOGMEN! BRING ON THE SHEEPMEN! YEAH! YEAH BABY! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!

Scientists are evil, wicked men. They will all burn in hell. Matthew 17:20. These sciences will be used to murder you, your children, your family and your friends. Do not trust these men of science trust God. Luke 6:19.

Clone plants and animals for food to sustain human existance? YES.

Clone people? NO. We already have too many to allow us to divide the planet's resources evenly.

And what about when some ambitious dictator starts cloning his own armed forces? Provided he could take care of them all, cloning and genetic manipulation could be used to create superhuman attributes for "defense" purposes.

"It was only the fact of my genetically-engineered intellect that allowed us to survive." -- from The Wrath of Khan

Kenji S - (#4245 of 4245)

Frankenstein Or, The Modern Prometheus ..... this rule were always observed;.... quack quack quak......snip

Your "Rule" is not observed.

In spite to the mental illness that "The Frankenstiin Complex" repesents progress will go on.

Try again please.

It is very difficult for the FDA to enforce any laws controlling cloning. Do we monitor all labs everywhere? And what punishments should be metted out for offenders? And what about SECRET unknown labs, working underground with private funds? Shades of Frankenstein? And how would you know, if a prospective mate or social contact, is not engineered? Will your girlfriend have a tongue like a lahma? Will your husband have atributes of a donkey? Only when these types of crises occur, will the public demand control. But then it will be to late. What do you get if you cross a man with a hamster? A Manster. A 1960 era horror movie.

David Lynn: I doubt if clones will be looked down on, if they are normal, intelligent, and attractive, as they will be if the technique works properly. Why clone anyone abnormal, stupid and ugly?

Tim Cromwell: Some of those wicked, evil scientists are women, although women have not been in the forefront of cloning technology...yet. Seriously, if it weren't for science and scientists we would all still be in the dark ages with a life expectancy of 30.

Tom Anderson: Your youthful idealism is so refreshing. I know you must feel very impatient with all of us "let's-take-it-slowly" old fogies!

Carl Nicolai

What "Rule" were observed? I don't think Frankenstein's rule were observed, Like you insist with your ignorance. How do you explain the existence of atomic bomb. FU

Unless you guys have black belts in verbal abuse, I'd rather not see you argue over a moot point in relation to the Frankenstein issue.

It's safe to say that science will go on eternally as long as there are humans, and there will always be a few scientists willing to take extreme risks -- even with humanity's fate -- if it means making that discovery that will put them in the limelight, get them a nobel prize, or make them an icon for all future geniuses. Some don't even have a choice when they work for the govt. They are drilled with "The Purpose", or the establishment's assigned goal.

Einstein said he would've taken up another trade had he known sooner that the atom would be used for a bomb. Case in point.

The idea of not going ahead with this technology seems ridiculous and naive.....I mean when have "ethical considerations" ever stopped a determined scientist.Scientific progress is amoral,and an saying in physics"anything that is not impossible,is compulsory"applies.... I mean it is naive to think that a technology once discovered and found to be possible will 'never' be tried,by all this crying againt it we are just provoking the inevitable..

Torus - (#4249 of 4250)

I Agree.

Ref. aeyaz kayani - (#4250 of 4250)

Well one of them maybe, but I wouln'd bet on trying to stop all of them given 1000.

Scientific progress is amoral,and an saying in physics"anything that is not impossible ,is compulsory"applies.... I mean it is naive to think that a technology once discovered and found to be possible will 'never' be tried,by all this crying againt it we are just provoking the inevitable..

I agree. We are going to do this in the open farms and clinics or in the secret CIA(or whatever)labs. Maybe both.

Remember that Scientists and Inventors reduce things to "practice". Engineers and Technicans at this point start using the the information for real world problems. and you have a whole bunch of thoes just itching to go.

I must admit though, this latest round of nuke tests has me thinking a lot more like Cliff lately.

To play the devil's advocate: Creationists believe that all humans are seperated from the animal world by something referred to as a soul---or the emotional seat if you will. This soul is individualized, set aside, and dispensed by a greater being known as God. Some believe that after God's 7 days of creation he rested.....and has not created since. This in turn fuels the theory of the "soul bank"; all souls for all people were created in the beginning. NOW........let's assume that this theory is true. Only enough souls created to support Gods plans for humanity until the......end?. If that is the case, will these human clones (let's face it, they WILL clone humans!!) have a soul? Or will they be emotionless zombies, more animal than human, roaming around terrorizing humans. OR assuming that God is all-knowing, did he plan for this and create enough souls to cover our experiments? OR will the clone share the soul of the human whose genes were used to create him? Hmmmm Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?!!

Is it so bad?

Not really. Assuming God does exist and has provided souls to all the people who have been born for, at least, the last 35 or 40 thousand years, my assumption would be that he would have allowed for an adequate amount for clones also. How could you possibly imagine that a God, who could foresee the need for all the souls that would be required for all the billions of people that have been born since people like us have been on this earth, would suddenly be totally ignorant of the equal need that clones would have for souls?

In addition to some people's misunderstanding of cloning, it is also apparent that some people misunderstand nuclear weaponry as well, seeing as it is so often used as an analogy. Actually, this topic has appeared on this board several times, all used in the same false way. The United States created nuclear weapons at the insistance of Albert Einstein in order to balance the power that was predicted to erupt out of similar research in Nazi Germany. Then, in the only physical use of the weapons, they saved millions of American and Japanese lives that would have otherwise been lost in a prolonged battle. In addition, nuclear weapons prevented what would have assuredly been WWIII by showing both wielders that no such war could be won by military force and could only be reconciled diplomatically. Therefore, the development of nuclear weapons is one of the greatest and most worthwhile human accomplishment.

On another note, emotions are caused solely by hormones and neurotransmitters, not a mythical, supernatural entity. In fact, all human processes can be explained physically, without ever invoking supernatural phenomena to explain it. That is precisely why cloning actually works. And, since it works, and since all human processes are physical, any cloned being will be accurately similar to any other such being.

Also, I never advocated foolish behavior; I simply disdain paranoia. If you logically analyze the situation and take account of all general results that could possibly be directly derived from not regulating the research and implementation of cloning technology, it is clear that there would be a net benefit to humanity. Most, if not all, fears and reservations about this are completely unbased in reality. Cloning will not cause overpopulation; it will not result in mutants or monsters; it will not make mindless zombies; it will not produce a plethora of people that look or act the same; it will not reinitiate slave trade; it will not lead to evil superman armies; and it will not destroy the world. That is a statement of fact. However, it just might lead to the development of medicines and cures for most of our current diseases, such as Cancer; it might allow infertile couples to have genetic offspring; and it may eventually allow people to live indefinitely.

Anyone who would rather maintain the status-quo rather than pursue the greater good because of ignorance and fear is a coward. Humanity has never benefitted from such a position. It has always advanced from the endeavors of the explorers, the inventors, and the visionaries. Science embodies all of these qualities, with none of the negative ones. And this current pursuit is no different.

Tom, logic aside, can you substantiate that none of these things can possibly happen? People have feared that we couldn't create an inhibitor great enough to keep machines from taking us over in the next century when we've programmed them to think laterally and for themselves.

I think that and cloning can happen given the right circumstances. The technology only needs to be there. It's the circumstances that can provoke a drastic and dangerous usage (WWII/atom bomb for example) whether people would see it for the greater good or not.

aeyaz kayani's post reminded me of a related point regarding morality vs. science-

it seems that ethics has always advocated caution and overestimating rather than underestimating rights and liberties.

(An example is the question of consciousness in animals- or to stretch the example- abortion. Extreme moral activists advocate abolishing abortions because it is unclear when the cluster of cells develop consciousness. Science by nature, however, subscribes to a null hypothesis- without evidence to prove something, logic dictates that we cannot assume something holds true.)

I personally much prefer judging based on the logical dictates of science- all the negative possibilities of cloning are just that- possibilities.. certainly not enough to hinder the practice of science. With the capability at our finger tips, it seems silly to "forbid ourselves" possible knowledge and growth.

Tom, lighten up please. Cloning really isn't that controversial anymore. As for legislation, it doesn't appear that congress is going to act anytime soon on any of the cloning bills that have been introduced. It is almost getting boring. What do we get here, a couple of messages a day on average? Of course, some of those calves from adult cells may start dropping any day now. If that happens, we may get more action.

Right now, it is beginning to appear that human cloning may not even be possible. To quote Chen, "Science by nature, however, subscribes to a null hypothesis- without evidence to prove something, logic dictates that we cannot assume something holds true." (Thanks, Chen, for the quote. It is outstanding.)

Very true.

Ref.Cliff Beall - (#4253 of 4258)

Ok another soul searching problem.

Lets see:

Given the Union of all known religious and scientific beleifs and starting at a date computed by a reverse exponential of the the present population to one member then if we forward project assuming a modified exponentus function uh mmm Gingus Kahn rage factor aaamm uh zipo light frequency uhhh aaa devided by the Qual Ling evil coificent and normed until the projected end of time, I'd say aproximately 10E178.4729116362447183492611592 souls should do it.

This gives us a maximun of 10E80 active souls and if the pesky genetic engineers can create more human beings than the number of atoms in the known univerce they wont need souls any more.

The soul does seem to be another focal point of this topic. I can see where scientifically-minded people generate the idea that our electrochemical energy is the soul that's brought about when life is conceived, and nothing more; that it ceases to exist when body parts cease to function and the energy can no longer course through our system.

When scientists necessitate several dimensions through math, there's still room for a part of our being that transcends the body, though. Whether a cloned duplicate of ourselves would have a soul would be apparent by its actions and attitudes (inane drones vs. complex, emotional personalities). Sentience -- the supposed soul -- is really only knowing of your own mortality, and we can guess an intelligent clone would house an electrochemical "soul" of his or her own.

Scientists also look toward storing our own memories, transferring our brain patterns to computers, and other studies to help our consciousness transcend the body. That would be manipulating the soul. And since the God usually represented would have to be an extraterrestrial entity, and I don't worship aliens, the "force" that underlies everything since the start of the supposed Big Bang is really God -- the energy that creates matter as all things gravitate from the infinitesimal to the universal. It most likely doens't think or purposely create souls, and only works as a machine, but we can still have souls to go on to "the other side". We can transcend to another consciousness whether people like the idea or not.

There are no "abominations" of God in this case. Everything we do, including technological evolution, is a natural process borne of our need to improve ourselves. Human (scientist) morality dictates the rest.

Torus,

Logic aside?? What?!? What do you mean logic aside? This is exactly the problem I am talking about -- ignorant people bowing to their fears rather than using logic to see the truth. USE LOGIC!!

Didn't you even bother to read what I just said? You are just as ignorant about atom bombs as you are about cloning. Stop using them as though they are analagous.

Chen,

How very refreshing. However, most, if not all, of those negative possibilities are not even possibilities, but only fears of those who have not used logical analysis.

Cliff,

Oh, so you are one of those people who think that problems go away when you don't see it in the news anymore. The fact that people cannot distinguish between science and fiction is very scary to me, and has not suddenly dissappeared just because people have temporarily forgotten about the subject of cloning. What is truly frightening is that I doubt anyone has learned anything in our first volley, and next time cloning gets the front page we'll be right back to where we were the first time.

bewolf, Cliff, Carl,

As I wrote in my FAQ, "It cannot be shown that anyone has a soul, even those people produced sexually, so there is no saying whether or not they even exist, let alone whether a clone will have one. Since people who believe in souls apparently believe that each of a pair of twins has a soul, then it would follow that a 'late' twin, aka clone, would also have one."

Regarding whether clones possess souls: As Tom said,

How do we know that everyone except ourselves are not simply unconscious mindless robots, without souls? If we can live with the assumption that solipsism is a false notion, the assumption should not exclude clones, who are really in all tangible senses- fully human.

With every major scientific development, it seems, comes backlash that the new techniques/discoveries are blasphemy and go against the "nature of things". Well, the "nature of things" has always ended up being expanded to account for new developments. Cloning should not be an exception.

Carl, I am puzzled. First, you calculate 10E178 souls, and then you say there are now a maximum of 10E80 active souls. Did you mean a maximum of 10E180 active souls instead of only 10E80?

I do not believe this necessarily, but, being an agnostic, it is what I suspect to be true.

That may be possible, I suppose, but I do not believe there is any evidence to support that supposition.

Does a cat or dog have a soul? According to certain religions, only humans have a soul. But cats and dogs do not act like "inane drones." I once mentioned on this board that I thought cats and humans have more in common that lions and deer. My best recollection is that nobody contested it.

You didn't answer the question Tom. The question was, "can you substantiate that none of these things can possibly happen." The "logic aside" that Torus mentioned was just a throwaway. It was meaningless except as an indication of respect for you and your point of view. The scientific method demands evidence. The question is: do you have evidence to support your claims?

Torus was merely indicating that both kinds of technology can be used for good or ill. I think Torus is considerably less ignorant than you, but, of course, that is just my opinion.

Learn what: the "gospel according to Tom"? I have no need for your gospel. I am an agnostic. Just show me some evidence to support your claims.

Chen, your perception is remarkable. The first question is, however, precisely what has been discovered? It may not be quite what we thought it was. We need additional evidence before we can say conclusively.

How a major scientific development ever be a "blasphemy"confuses me,I mean are the people claiming that it is blasphmey saying that there is an all pwerful God capable of controlling all the fundamental forces of nature,all the different reference frames,totally independent of time and dimension,not goverened by any laws of nature and having the power to alter them at will,and having the ability to create order out of the probabilities that quantum mechanics with its wave functions makes us believe is all we can know about nature,unable to control us if we "belligerently" decide to start doing something which "is against the nature of things"??? what I mean to say is this:- I am niether an agnostic nor an athiest,infact I am a thiest,I am aware of the agnostic position that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God but I personally believe that altogh it is impossible for current philosophy to completely"prove' the existence of a godhead,there is sufficient evidence to intelligently believe in a theory of god,and the abandonment of the principle of causality seems unwarranted.... that said ,to the topic at hand,I believe that nature as God made it is not very apparent.The methods of science are a far superior method of judging what nature "is" as they are inductive in nature.Science cannot violate the laws of nature,it just allows us to says what they really are,as such something like cloning couldn't be blasphemy.

The topic of souls would not seem to belong on a "Science" group, however I have noticed that the so called "upper campus" types uasually think of Science, Engineering, and Tecknology as inferior to say the Arts or Humanities.

Since they are not going to bring up these topics on their groups until the "Clones Walk Amongst Us" Sci Fi movie turns to reality or comes very near.So maybe it is appropate to discuss it here.

The sentence "Thank God I'm an athiest" sort of illustrates my point of view. Human thought allways seems to contain a beleif structure, (read faith in the unseen)and a logical structure based on testable facts (as in "Look! There! you can see it too"). Another example is we call the most advanced technologies "state of the art".

Most western religions are monotheistic and involve a "creator" and what do we think is Gods best creation? Why us of cource. So if we want to be like our hero God we will have to create life also. We really are children of the living God(s) weither we beleive in God or not or weither there is a God or not.

I really like the line in the movie Network where the god like actor says "And YOU have tampered with the PRIMAL forces. and YOU WILL ATONE. Am i gettin through to your Mr. Beal."

Cliff Beall - (#4262 of 4266)

Active as in residing in living, as opposed to once living beings or beings that will live in the future.

No, I don't have the credentials to build my own atom bomb or clone an organism. This doesn't relieve me of a right to post on this board, though. These boards are supposed to be a diversion for fun more than a thrashing public debate, so I think we can all voice our speculations whether we agree or disagree. If it was left to established fact and lack of imagination, these boards wouldn't be fun anymore.

What has been discovered is not nearly as pertinent as what people perceive we have discovered. The actual discoveries that have been made are not what has generated the semi-widespread uneasiness amongst the general public. It is the potential of what this technology could bode for human beings-- as much as the general population is concerned with the welfare of animals, if the technology was somehow limited to animal practice, the current debate would not exist. This is a society that condones the "manufacturing" of cattle to be slaughtered and eaten, afterall.

Besides, if this technology was not allowed to prosper (highly doubtful), we will never get a chance to view its true implications or make judgement calls one way or the other as to its value/potential for harm.

I would argue that science, when viewed objectively, can seem rather bland- consisting merely of a jumble of data, facts, etc. etc. However, one must take into account the reason for the very existence of such a practice: human nature. It is because of our curiosity that we've always pushed our boundaries, and it is because we've always pushed our boundaries that we've met with conflicts and have been forced to grow- to evolve. Science pushes or boundaries mentally where physically we are more constrained.

Besides, science is not merely a collection of random facts, just as a painting is not merely some oil on a sheet of canvas-- human civilization interprets new findings, n

Agreed. However, the "laws of nature" do permit some things that you and I might find disagreeable: ugly monstrosities, human-animal hybrids, etc. In those cases, I think it is permissible for us to refuse to allow--by societal law--some things permitted by nature merely because we, as a society, decide that we do not want to allow such things. Any disagreement with that?

I see. I now understand that, according to your calculations, 10E80 souls have been required so far, but eventually, a total of about 10E178 souls will be required. Interesting. I note that your calculations assume a destruction of the earth some distance into the future. I take it, therefore, that you do not accept that we are living in the "end time."

I disagree. It is what actually has been discovered--or what will be discovered--that will matter. We can know for certain that successful nuclear transfer of fetal cells is possible. That part has been repeatedly duplicated. The success rate is low, but it has been proven to exist. This will suffice for the cloning of animals for pharmaceutical purposes. To have a widespread application for human cloning, however, it would appear that successful nuclear transfer of adult cells, with reasonable success rates, will have to be demonstrated. Dolly is almost two years old. If the technology was as "mature," as we were originally led to believe, there should be a barnyard full of Dollies by now. For some reason, it has not happened.

Cliff,

I think that anyone who has ever owned a pet or even has played with one can see that they have emotions. Happiness, fear, anticipation, longing, indecision, contentment, playfulness, embarrassment, loneliness, love, hatred, etc. -- they're all evident. But it's not because they have souls, but because they have brains with similar chemical signals as our own.

Absolutely. You can too; just use logic.

Which is not really true, especially in the way in which it was indicated.

That's all that I ever do. Come on Cliff, you know that. If you need a refresher, just ask for it. If you think something that I say is unsubstantiated, tell me. I'm sorry if you feel bad because you lose all of your arguments with me, but it is only because I do have the evidence and the logic on my side. I think out what I say before I say it.

The discovery is that it is possible to clone adult animals. You can debate endlessly whether that discovery has been made or not, but that is the discovery nonetheless.

aeyaz,

Quite right. Science is a method of determining fact, or truth. It discovers information. However, hypocritical and illogical as it might sound, some religions such as Christianity, say that our knowing of information is a bad thing. Remember the Tree? The Tower?

Torus,

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the role that these things play in our society. Your saying that either cloning or the atom bomb are bad things, but without substantiating either of those claims is what offends me. You just seem to assume that it is true.

Of course not; just as it does not relieve me of the right to correct you.

If you're looking for a place to discuss science-fiction, this is not it. Here, it is left to established fact. This is a discussion about the real process of cloning and its implications in society, not about Aldous Huxley.

Cliff,

Evidence? Logic?

Good for the Swiss! I can't believe that there are people who are afraid of eating cloned plants or animals, but if the Swiss continue to thrive, maybe it will become obvious that there is no harm done.

Torus--transferring memories to a computer that will continue after the death of the body seems a little bizarre, even if it is a question of an Einstein or a Hawking. Would the computer being then make decisions based on this accumulated knowledge? Without the hormones and electrical impulses that produces emotions would even the thoughts be the same as they would in a body? Would someone who deleted the memory be guilty of murder?

And still, nobody has contested my suggestion that humans and cats have more in common than lions and deer. (It doesn't mean it is necessarily true, of course. It just means that it has not been contested.)

The problem with logic is that it is based on assumptions. While logic is useful and can be very satisfying (or self-satisfying), physical evidence is much more reliable. I prefer physical evidence. In the absence of solid physical evidence, I tend to be skeptical.

Your faith amazes me, Tom. Sorry, but I do not share your faith. Next month, Dolly will be two years old. The gestation period for sheep is about five and a half months: enough time for four complete experiments, one after the other. If nuclear transfer of adult cells was viable, I would think that there would have been at least one additional Dolly by now. Heck, it seems to me that there ought to have been a whole barnyard full of Dollies.

Perhaps nuclear transfer of adult cells will eventually be shown to be viable, but I am not aware that it has been shown to be so yet. Until then, I remain skeptical. Question for you, Tom: can you explain why, after two years, there still is only one Dolly?

I once read a book that made the case that people have memory of emotions only, that memories of events are actually only a rationalization of the event by the brain, based on the emotion felt by the person with respect to that event. Believe it or not, the arguments the author presented actually convinced old skeptical me. I think the main reason I found it satisfying was because it supplied an explanation as to why I sometimes remember things wrongly and/or things that never actually happened. I am almost embarrassed to admit that I believe this--particularly after insisting on solid physical evidence from Tom about nuclear transfer of adult cells--since I was clearly won over, in that case, without any physical evidence. (Maybe I have some faith after all.) In any case, if this is true--and I guess I think it is--unless a computer capable of feeling emotion is developed, it would seem to me very unlikely that the thought process would be the same.

Tom Anderson, you shouldn't assume your logic is fact because it's only your conviction. WWI was basically escalated because of one guy getting shot -- an historic example of chaos. The universe is as chaotic as it seems defined and mechanical. Science is only someone's vision repeatedly proven, and this subject wouldn't be on the board if a visionary hadn't taken it beyond the realm of fantasy. I'm not really advocating or disdaining experimentation one way or the other. It's more my intention to present a worst-case scenario, and as the people with morals realize the implications, we take steps in the future to work around these problems. You're also contradicting yourself when you demand proof from Cliff and myself, yet never substantiated your own claims as to how logic will dictate and regulate usage of technology in the future.

The apple from the Tree of Knowledge is the metaphor for all sentients becoming impure, or "evil", by that knowledge. Cloning is one of the seeds. Experimentation won't stop at the first breakthrough like Dolly, and I know many agree that this will be one of the sciences -- genetics basically -- that will sap us of our individuality as we evolve, intermingle our cultures more, adapt our physical selves with our machines to make life even easier, or as we pay to have ourselves made genetically perfect. It's not really wrong, though many wouldn't like it, nor am I advocating that we stop it before it goes that far. It's only strong implication and people can think about that as they please. Some people here seem to advocate a supposed innate need for us to experiment like little gods, and I think they should get both sides of the issue.

Dawn Willis: I didn't want to hog the board, but I didn't want to be rude and not respond either. I think electronics and the psyche are going to become interchangeable in one capacity or another. Would people like having robots that contained all our memories and seemed to have a soul of their own? Some would fear them at least. What's the difference between a true clone and a virtual clone? It wouldn't seem much from a philosophical standpoint. It would also seem a form of immortality. Duplicating a real person has yet to be seen either way, so who knows how a cloned person would act compared with the original.

Dawn Willis - (#4273 of 4278)

I agree. It will require however a change in labeling requirements. If a geneticly modified food has an added presertive via Gen. Eng. then I think the public has a right to know what the chemical is. We have lost our innocent days when one could just go down to a "farmers market" and buy fresh produce without having to read something.

I agree that in the end, it is the actual discoveries that will matter. However, currently, without firm evidence for what will be possible in the future (i.e. the experiment has not been duplicated and sceptics can fairly substantiate their own viewpoints), the general population is left to fear/hope for what they like. I believe the public's biggest fear is not concern over "unnatural produce" but humans playing God/Creator through cloning other humans.

Human cloning, while a possibility, is as of yet at least, not an exceedingly close probability. Because it is only a potential reality, the actual implications of this possibility are not the important considerations right now. People are far more afraid of the possibilities in their minds. If the technology was halted where it stands now, there would not be widespread panic. Even if the current technology was somehow put into use. Once again- at the present time, there is no pressing reason to fear what's been discovered- it is the varying possible expansions of this technology that worries people.

Ref: t.v. 6/7/98 last nites files showed Sentor Kenndy of Mass. discussion the issue. Anyone with information as to when the debate in congress took place please respone.

Funny thing is: 1980 has come and gone. And as someone once said, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." I think I may be somewhat more optimistic about the future than you. I do not think we are doomed to accept what ever will be. We, as a society, have a say in what will be.

I think we can stop whatever we want to whenever we want to. Not as individuals, perhaps. But as a society, certainly.

Funny, I have never worried about that. If you continue to post messages as interesting as the ones you have posted in recent days, I shall be content to read them. If I disagree with anything you say, I'll probably say so, but that is all. Don't limit yourself. I can assure you that Tom does not, for example. Actually, Tom takes pride in what he describes as his "patented" twenty part posts. It is fine with me. Tom has an interesting point of view.

Call it faith if you wish, but I have no doubt but that clones will act comparable to other people. There is no evidence to the contrary of which I am aware, and it would appear to me that clones are likely to act quite similar to the donor of the cells from which they are cloned. Genetically, they and the donor will be like identical twins. Why should clones act differently than other people?

I don't think cloning is "playing God." When nuclear transfer of adult cells is shown to be relatively safe for the potential offspring, I will support human cloning for reproductive purposes. In my estimation, cloning is no more playing God than invitro fertilization or contraception. I support invitro fertilization and contraception. I don't like abortion, but it is not because I think performing an abortion is "playing God." I just don't like it.

Torus,

You haven't seen nothing yet!

Cliff,

Here comes one of 'em now. Besides, its not like you can really "hog" the board; there's enough time and room for everyone to post til their heart's content ... CNN can just keep buying more harddrives ;o)

Dawn,

Have you ever said, "I should really feel sad (or angry, or joyous, or whatever) but I don't?" I think that might be how a person in a computer would always be. I wonder though if all source of emotion is chemical in nature, rather than the information itself. For instance, a situation may seem scary to you, but you don't really feel scared until the adrenaline hits and amplifies the initial reaction to your normal sensory information. Hormonal responses might just be the amplifier. Another example is that many people, actually most people (myself included) tend to eat for reasons other than hunger -- they see a food commercial on TV and they think, "Hey, I want that, I must be hungry." They may not actually be hungry, but thinking about eating will probably send out messages that they are, and they'll end up salivating and craving and scavenging up some potato chips or something. If their mind was in a computer, they would probably desire the food, but never be hungry. Same thing with fear; they may be cautious, but never really feel scared. This is just my opinion based on limited experience in this particular area of study.

Cliff,

Well, I had assumed that you had some form of background in logic, but I guess I was wrong. I suggest you read up. Deductive logic is not based on assumptions -- it transforms one form of information into another. For instance, if you know that Fluffy is a cat, and you also know that all cats are mammals, then you can conclude logically that Fluffy is a mammal. There are no assumptions in that. This is the most useful, and my favorite, form of logic. It is also completely reliable. There are other forms, such as induction and hypothesis, which are usually used to find a good direction and then confirmed with physical evidence and deduction. If you do not understand how these work, I suggest picking up a ugrad book on the subject. There are probably good sources on the web as well.

Skepticism is good, but not when there are reliable sources of information. For example, it is like someone telling you that the world is round, but instead of using logic (ships going over the horizon, celestial periods, earth's shadow on moon, curve of horizon from mountaintops, etc.), you wait until someone sails all the way around before you accept it. Or, an even better analogy, someone tells you that a bunch of pieces of paper used to represent a certain picture before being torn up, but instead of assembling the jig-saw puzzle, you go around interviewing people who saw it before it was shredded. The information is all there already, you just have to put it together. That's what logic does.

What are you talking about? I just told you not to bother debating whether the discovery was made or not, so why are you trying to present a case one way or the other? That the discovery is somatic cell nuclear transfer is not debatable. I'm not trying to say that the discovery was made or not, I'm just identifying to you what it is. Think through what you say before you say it.

Were you expecting her to spontaneously dupicate or something? Just kidding. An explanation of why the experiment has not been repeated, or rather whether it has or has not been repeated, would require me speaking for all biologists and knowing inside information about all private labs; I can't and I don't. Sorry. Why don't you ask them?

Dawn,

Have you ever said, "I should really feel sad (or angry, or joyous, or whatever) but I don't?" I think that might be how a person in a computer would always be. I wonder though if all source of emotion is chemical in nature, rather than the information itself. For instance, a situation may seem scary to you, but you don't really feel scared until the adrenaline hits and amplifies the initial reaction to your normal sensory information. Hormonal responses might just be the amplifier.

Another example is that many people, actually most people (myself included) tend to eat for reasons other than hunger -- they see a food commercial on TV and they think, "Hey, I want that, I must be hungry." They may not actually be hungry, but thinking about eating will probably send out messages that they are, and they'll end up salivating and craving and scavenging up some potato chips or something. If their mind was in a computer, they would probably desire the food, but never be hungry. Same thing with fear; they may be cautious, but never really feel scared. This is just my opinion based on limited experience in this particular area of study. This is called hypothesis, Cliff.

Torus,

Again, you should probably learn what logic is before making such statements. Maybe I'll make a logic FAQ for you guys if I ever get some time.

Like I said, what a silly idea. You see, the contradiction in that story is that if Adam and Eve had knowledge that eating from the tree was bad, then they would not have done it. However, they could only get that knowledge from doing it, and then it was too late. Knowledge is never bad, it is neutral until put to a use, but having knowledge is always good because it increases your freedom. If you don't understand the concept of freedom, try a book on ethics. BTW, it was never specified as an apple, you just assumed that.

Using the word "clone" in both of these cases confuses the issue. A clone in Dolly's case does not replicate memories, but the genome. And a clone in a "robot" sense does not duplicate the genome or even the body, but the memories.

Well, that would take using the emmense amount of knowledge we currently have and applying the form of logic known as induction. You can get a really accurate idea of just that.

Carl,

It's not that easy. If the genes are modified in such a way that a protein molecule has a slightly different configuration, which in turn makes the fruit stronger in colder climates, the chemicals are all still exactly the same, and what use is it inventing and circulating the name of a "configuration". Or better still, how do you tell the public about a genetic change which causes the fruit to grow twice as large, while all of the components of the fruit are still the same, only in greater quantity? Does it matter that an orange is not naturally the size of a grapefruit if it still has the same stuff in it? BTW, this conversation may blur the distinction for some people between cloning and genetic engineering. I would like it to remain clear that genetic engineering is not cloning and CLONING IS NOT GENETIC ENGINEERING. However, since the latter is what people tend to fear more than the former, I'm wondering why cloning is being banned everywhere when it is really genetic engineering that they fear, and yet they do not ban genetic engineering. Interesting.

Chen,

Most likely. Talent is learned, not inborn. Just because you didn't learn the talent first hand, if it were given to you, you would have it nonetheless. For instance, Beethoven composed many of his masterpieces after he went deaf. You are never the same person -- you simply pass your memories to a future version of yourself. Your actual matter is exchanged completely with other biological matter and inanimate matter many times over in a rather short period. Your body is a completely different entity than you were when you were five years old, and yet you still identify as that other person because you have those memories.

Cliff,

That almost sounds fascist.

Yes, it does. And in this society, we protect the freedom to do whatever we want so long as it does not interfere with other people's freedom. That is why it is illegal to ban scientific endeavors. We have a freedom of thought, and a freedom from the imposition of others thoughts upon us, no matter what the religious conservatives or radical liberals would like. Just because you don't like doing something doesn't mean you can force others not to.

I think most would call it intuition. But it is neither -- believe it or not, you are subconsciously using a rudimentary, unstructured form of induction -- it's logic, Cliff! Learn to structure it, and you will have compelling arguments.

That's good to hear. There may be some reason in you yet.

Some of you went back and looked just to make sure, didn't you? That's right, I accidentally reprinted some of my shpeal to Dawn. Sorry folks! Won't let it happen again (unless you didn't notice, and you needed the second time around just to remember it ;o)

Well, that's all for tonight. Just remember, the more you disagree with me, the more I'll write! Uh oh, Cliff is going to hold that statement against me :oþ

Dawn Willis: Sorry I didn't answer your question(s) better, but murder is a tough issue on its own. We line cattle up to be murdered for food, as someone had mentioned here before, but cry about our "rights" the minute they get even a bit infringed in our sight. I'm the kind of person that removes insects from his premesis unless it would hurt them more by picking them up (using a jar and cardboard 'slider') and removing them, whereas I get the impression that people like Tom step on the first thing that offends any one of their five senses. I'm all for offing convicted criminals that were proven beyond a doubt, though. I think that can be genetic as well as environmental. Lower animals don't know the better.

Tom: The problem with long posts is that no one but you will want to sit and read such a long and vacuous argument. I would've, but right after you claimed logic as fact, yet again, I was able to put your 'book' down. Logic has hardly ever dictated anything in the way humans act, treat each other, or use their inventions. I get the feeling the only thing you're on the cutting edge of is your own opinion.

Lego my Ego

It's too much to ask of people to follow along with all these arguments within arguments that never get solved. I'll answer anyone other than Tom if I catch it in the maelstrom here, but otherwise I'll end my side of it now.

No one is arguing with you there. However, my point was- if you possessed someone else's memories from birth to recent death along with your own preformed memories/experiences/values, as well as your own innate talents,

(not all talents are learned- some people cannot draw a decent self-portrait if their life depended on it-- others are absolutely tone-deaf; if you disagree that these deficiencies cannot always be cured, you will agree that some people are born naturally more "gifted" than others?)

you will use that someone else's experiences to merely supplement your own judgements, resulting in the kind of masterpiece an obsessive Mozart afficianado would've been able to compose with much experience in his style & exposure to his work, rather than the kind of masterpiece the actual Mozart would've been able to compose. We do not base our judgements/decisions/actions souly on past experience afterall. That would render our civilization too sane and banal.

Cliff,

First off, do you agree that human beings have innate desires? The desire to remain alive through whatever means possible, the desire to reproduce? If these wants do not infringe upon others' wants, can they then not be labeled rights?

I say that the public fears cloning because it is like "playing God" because having the possibility to make unlimited duplicates of a single consciousness seems wrong. Life is supposed to be something special beyond biology. The ability to reproduce unique consciousnesses without limit seems to diminish any one individual's value. Semi-tangent: why are you against abortion? Do we have the right to perform them if we choose? Is it simply morally wrong or an infringement on the rights of another-i.e. the child?

All: why is it that the thought of having my memories preserved without my body is more disturbing than the thought of my body cloned without my memories? Cliff, I agree that emotions color our memories of events. Anyone who has ever served on a jury is aware of how differently 12 people remember the same evidence. Tom, I don't see how an artificially intelligent computer could "desire" anything, even food that previous memories had associated with pleasure. It might think "that is desirable food" but not desire it.

Carl Nicolai, I don't know of any vegetables that have actual chemical preservatives cloned into them. Most non-protein chemicals are usually made through a series of enzymatic reactions and thus not readily clonable. I do know of genes for enzymes that are added to make plants more resistant to bugs, more flavorful, last longer, but those should not have any effect on people. I don't believe there is any scientific evidence that even bovine growth hormone is harmful to people who drink milk or eat beef, although it may not be so much fun for the cows. maybe people do have the right to know that their food has been genetically engineered, but I doubt if many have the background to understand that it doesn't affect them.

Dawn Willis - (#4297 of 4297)

.........

I guess the question revolves on weither the genetic engineering of food will involve the same safeguards as the addition of a new additive does now.

It is also possable that a change in genetic structure could produce the depletion of a nutritive substance.

Since cloning can cause the production of new life forms to enter the market at extreme speed I wonder what controlls, or perhaps insurance, will be required.

Causing a plant or animal to produce a known chemical is one thing. Radically altering a species to an unknown form of life is another.

It seems that having test animals that are even geneticly closer to humans than the ones we now use would help.

hello everybody!