Cloning, like so many other aspects of human activity, does not lend itself to being permitted or not permitted. The only difference between Seed and any number of others with the know-how to clone is that he has openly indicated that he plans to do it. Past experience with human behaviour would indicate that it will be done. Humans will be cloned, there will be experiments with hybred cloning, and there's nothing that anyone can do to control it. A defeatist attitude perhaps, but My feelings would be "Why try?" Truly an exercise in futility.

I agree.

All restrictive laws in the US can do is inhibit our competitive advantage. The Europeans are already producing a lot of genetically altered produce.

Do "inalienable rights" include ownership of one's own body? It must be so. Then surely one owns one's own genetic code. Does it not follow, then, that one should own the "livestock" created from one's own genetic code; i.e., one's own clones? Are these poor creatures then not slaves? Where do we draw the lines here in this brave new world?

On another note, we know that genetic diversity is essential for genetic health; who should bear the responsibility for the inevitable mutations that would fall out from one's cloned descendents? Natural selection has done an admirable job of creating a successful (and fun!) way of engendering genetic health; it will be many years, if ever, before the hand of humankind can do as well.

I invest (albeit in a very small way!) in biotechnology; I believe in the science. But we must not be cavalier as we engender our future; we must not let egoism alone define what it means to be human, for some will be stuck with the consequences, and some with the blame.

I think that's an unnecessarily gloomy opinion! :) most of our genes were "owned" by our parents, but we're not goods or chattels... the "ownership" passes to us with our legal maturity. Identical twins do not "own" each other. Legal rights accrue to a "body" with certain attributes, and not to a set of genes.

Of course, as Carl has pointed out on another dead and inaccessible board, when you start combining cloning with genetic engineering and get progressively further from what we would unhesitatingly call human, then the decision of when to stop granting constitutional & legal rights automatically on legal maturity becomes much trickier. I believe that there is no clean way of drawing the line... how would we treat a chimaera of, say, half-chimp/half-person (assuming such an oddity were possible, which is doubtful)?

Ralph Davis Lynch,
I think the 14th amendment provides adequate protection, and the 13th amendment makes the ownership of a human being illegal.

The capacity to modify the genome sufficiently to make the distinguisment of a human being difficult or problematic is not going to be available any time soon.

To: George Ward - Nice touch, but how appropriate that someone named Ward should set the record straight.

Very good Mr John,

It cheered me up no end that it was you that "baptized" this discussion.

I see nothing wrong in cloning organs in tanks for personal use.After all, if God didn't want us to clone, it would prove impossible.God has given us the entire universe in which to play and learn,he ALSO gave us the brains to self-regulate ourselves,too bad they seem to be lacking in some cases.BUT I have faith in the human-race, we are still young and learning...8^)

.... how would we treat a chimaera of, say, half-chimp/half-person (assuming such an oddity were possible, which is doubtful)?

Does anyone know where I can find a complete list of the number of animal chromosomes?

Also I would like to create a web site of all the old Cloning posts if anyone has them.

.... how would we treat a chimaera of, say, half-chimp/half-person (assuming such an oddity were possible, which is doubtful)?

Does anyone know where I can find a complete list of the number of animal chromosomes?

Also I would like to create a web site of all the old Cloning posts if anyone has them.

Why do you suggest that Seed has the know-how? I have seen no evidence that he has any such know-how to date. Have you?

Presumably, it will be done by people who have the know-how since people who do not have the know-how are unlikely to do it for that very reason.

I would comment on this except while I was trying to get permission from CNN to participate on this board, Leszek did a much better job of it than I could ever do. (The problem occurred because I tried to use the link provided in the e-mail CNN sent me, but only part of the registration URL was contained in the link. It worked when I copied the entire registration URL to the command line.)

Keith, you didn't do a bad job of answering the objection, yourself. By the way, long time no see. Good to see you back.

Mike, did somebody tell you that cloning organs in tanks is possible. If so, who the heck told you that?

Carl, I do not have a complete set of posts, but I think I have most of them. In particular, there was a period when the board went crazy shortly after Dr. Seed made his first anouncement, and for that period, I have only some representative samples. Otherwise, I believe I have most of them, since I have typically copied them to my hard drive to read offline, and never erased them. If you will send me an e-mail at [email protected] which will give me access to your email address, and tell me specifically which ones you already have, I will start sending the ones I have that you do not to you by email.

By the way, Carl, did you notice that Tom has changed his FAQ in that he has included an "Other Sources" section that contains links to other FAQs inside his FAQ. I think that represents some class on Tom's part.

Isn't the question backwards.

Do you think Seed should be allowed to clone himself? Should be

Do you think Seed should be NOT allowed to clone himself? Why not?

Phrased this way we can answer by determining if his cloning will have an adverse effect on anybody and come to a better answer.

The problem is even worse than just chromosomal incompatibility. Different organisms are built differently, which means that their various body parts, even where we are talking about very similar species such as chimps and people, develop & grow at different rates and for different periods of time. But each species evolved so that there is internal harmony between the growth rate of all the parts. Unfortunately, in this case "parts isn't parts" :) I seriously doubt that an organism built using half a recipe from one distinct species with half a recipe from another would be viable (examples such as mules, horses and asses apart).

I rather like the recipe analogy... A chimera of chimp and person, for example, would be like combining recipes for beef stroganoff and and angelfood cake... I suspect the results would be inedible.

While cloning within a species is certainly going to be possible, and will become biotechnologically and medically important, I doubt that genetic engineering will be able to advance beyond minor modifications of an integral genome... we will be able to grow bigger cows, say, or hairier cows if we wanted, but we'll never be able to cross a sheep with one.

I think you are probably right, Reszek, for the most part, but I am not convinced it is always necessarily so. Did you read the link I posted? Would appreciate your comment.

That cracked me up. Good Answer!!!

Would someone please outline the "misuse" of cloning? If some old badguy like Hitler wanted to make a "supreme race", he would need alot of women to implant the "supereggs" into. Then it would be the typical 9 months before they were born, and two or three DECADES before they could be productive. I think many people have watched too much sci-fi.

On the other hand, if the technology was discovered on how to make adult copies in a matter or months or weeks, then legal action may be needed. Even then, it is like guns. You can make it illegal, but will someone who would use cloning for illegal acts care???

Jason

Jason, I think perhaps the greatest potential for "misuse" of human cloning would be if it is attempted too soon, resulting in possible significant harm to the newborn clone.

I think this could set back the potentially useful reproductive use that might arrise from the procedure, perhaps even causing a long term ban. I think it is critical that the first attempt be successful. IOW, I think it is better to be sure of what we are doing--than sorry.

Would someone please outline the "misuse" of cloning? - Jason Tracy

Designer clones!

Let's say, actress Sharon Stone is in dire need of some funds. Comes along Clones R Us, Inc. and offers her a million bucks for a collection of her body cells.

Clones R Us then makes a sufficient number of Stone clones to reap a hefty profit. After all, if the price is right, there should be plenty of Stone fans around who would just die to have a daughter (or wife?) looking like her (20 years later.)

I have read few jokes on the topic. One was: What if Paul King clones himslef and then interviews his clone, wouldn't that make a nuclear war something we would all look forward to? And would it be ok if a 58 years old guy falls in love with the 16 years old clone of his late wife?

I dont mind cloning ( and genetical enineering as well) if it serves the nutrition purposes (ie. better meat, vitamins in milk and whatever you imagine). But when it comes to cloning people, imagine how unhappy would cloned people be if all of the girls looked like Marilyn Monroe (or Sharon Stone) and all the guys would look like Brad Pitt... Apart from good sex, life would be pretty boring as everybody would agree with each other, would have same talents and weaknesses... I think cloning comes from a wish for everlasting life, but hey its still not you living over and over, but your (evil) twin brother. Unless a brain transplant is made possible, well... you just have one lifetime to achieve your goals and then admit it that eventually you have to die and thats it. End of story!

Mitja Ucakar - 07:48am Sep 13, 1998 ET (#22 of 22)

I dont mind cloning ( and genetical enineering as well) if it serves the nutrition purposes.

What could be more nutritious and contain all the vitamins and minerals a body needs than a healthy clone. Science fiction writer Larry Niven wrote a short story on the subject.I think he called it "There's a girl in my soup".Next time ask the waitress for a DNA sample so you can grow and sample her.Not an intelligent being just a mindless clone.

Many advanced technologies have already caused great turmoils in the world, just like the deadly weapon and man-made virus. We cheer for the technology which can bring great benefit to the human being, not the so-called technology which only cause tension or hot news in the world.

Maybe one day all the people in the world are the same, the end of the earth is coming.

To" Cliff Beall - I didn't assume that seed had the know-how and if I gave that impression I'm sorry. In fact, I doubt that he has. The question would be, Who, in this embrionic science, who would be qualified to determine who might have the know-how? Your observation that - attempts might be made too soon - is certainly a valid one, but I'm afraid that that would hardly be a consideration to anyone who desires to be the "first one" to clone a human. And qualified or not I feel that there's a goodly number of pseudo-scientists who would go forward with cloning humans, even if they had to use knitting needles and a rusty old tomato can as their laboratory. I know, I'm something of a cynic. Have a good day.

We already make human clones on a regular basis. They are called "identical twins". Although genetic copies of each other, identical twins growing up together, sharing the same experiences, commonly develop remarkably different personalities (I can tell by observing the 10 year old identical twin daughters of a friend of mine, whom I have known since their birth).

So even if we cloned Hitler, the clone would most likely turn out to be a very different person from the model.

I see no reason why anyone who wishes to have themselves cloned should not be free to do so without the government getting in the way. Would you tolerate a law preventing you from creating offspring in the usual manner?

However, I do think people should have the right to control their own DNA to the extent that no individual should be cloned without giving unambiguous permission to be cloned.

Exactly, that's why I don't understand why some people are perturbed by the idea of creating another copy of a particular human being. I think they've been watching too much SF on TV, with visions of cloned armies dancing in their heads! :) Seriously, I guess there is this "Frankenstein complex" that we all grapple with when new technology changes the way we are used to thinking about things... in this case, the way we think about what makes us individuals and human. We don't like change, and assume it's the devil's work. I can imagine only too well what the first Luddites said about fire or the wheel.

My main concern about cloning today is the uncertainty of success and the problem, not of complete failure, but of partial failure that still results in the birth of a deformed individual. Although that is likely to be exceedingly rare (spontaneous abortion being far more probable), that would be unconscionable, and should be severely sanctioned.

But I have no problems with the general propriety of the idea of cloning mammals including people. It may become a very important medical, agricultural, scientific and technological tool. Or it may be a pig in a poke. Won't find out till we try.

Anyway, here's a moral conundrum to conjure with, which may not be too remote. Suppose it became possible to clone an individual and grow an ancephalic foetus, say by somehow inhibiting the pathway leading to cerebellar growth and development (IOW the foetus would have no brain - such rare births occur today naturally).

Would it then be moral for the wealthy (for this technology would only be available to the wealthy) to clone themselves and raise the ancephalic offspring on organ farms for spare parts? (I'm making a lot of assumptions about the ability to use foetal or newborn organs to replace or augment those of a fully grown adult, but this may be possible in some cases.)

I think Mother Nature and/or God has already given us a taste of what is possible and if it's okay with him/her, then who are we to decide. I'm talking about twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc. This is just a lending hand to expand scientific study. But I must admit, two of everyone would make the Earth cave in.

We already experiment on living things, things that don't even have a say in the matter, so what's the problem with experimenting on a living thing that is willing and able to expand our scientific knowledge? Why does everyone who has a negative attitude about an issue seem dictate what we do or don't do?

Well now that's just it. Twenty years I would not have thought so but then I read about that the Chinese tolerate their wives being hauled off to a hospital and then having a non state approved child, that they want, forcibly aborted and their wife punitively sterilized.

I'm not sure Americans would object to state control in this area. Two states have already passed laws prohibiting cloning. I don't see anyone objecting.

You may be right but how about a line of chimps that have progressivly more human genes inserted until they can read and talk?

With government leadership in many countries as volitile as they are, I dont think such thoughts are quite as far fetched as you seem to think. My main problem with human cloning is not that, although I do believe it could be used by countries wanting to bolster their armies, I mainly object to the fact that the balance of nature will be upset, and we dont know to what degree. Everytime a species of animal becomes extinct, the earth is poorer for it. But I believe the opposite could be true also. Global population is already a problem, who knows how cloning could affect that? I think we need to have more information on the effect of such action before we rashly go forth and try it.

What are the dangers of cloning?

Let's start with things that are not dangers:

...I mainly object to the fact that the balance of nature will be upset, and we dont know to what degree. - Mindy Ballard

Not so. When the cloning of a human being becomes reality, the technique will be available only to the very rich. The people of the world will continue to reproduce in the old-fashioned way. And, as we witness today in developing countries, this "old-fashioned way" of reproduction leads to overpopulation, which is really a major factor that upsets the balance of nature.

I do see a couple of potential problems.

One is the posibility of doing harm by rushing things, as Leszek mentioned.

The second is the potential to "blur" the deffinition of human, making the application of inherant rights unsure.

I do not se much (imeadiate) potential to create designer humans, but duplicating known birth defects may be far easier.

The cloned human body, lacking a crainium does not create a huge moral "sticker bush," but what about the human with an IQ of 35?

Attractive as the idea of having ready-made spare parts may be; I think this is ground best left un-travled, at least for the forseable future.

P.s. The software now warns you about filtered words! I originaly had pr*cker bush, instead of sticker bush (Guess what it found in that!)

Very true Raymond. But have you ever noticed that only licensed doctors perform major surgery? The reason is that although such surgery is legal, it is legal only when performed by a licensed surgeon. Now if you think about it, I think you will agree that nuclear transfer is a type of surgery. Now if it is legal and acceptable for the state to regulate regular surgery on people, does it not seem reasonable for the state to regulate nuclear transfer on embryos. I mean, what is the difference? It is therefore my position that when nuclear transfer is perfected, it should be legal, but only by qualified practitioners.

Tim, I have the impression that the personalities of identical twins growing up together have greater contrast than identical twins growing up separately. Growing up together, identical twins may deliberately attempt to differentiate themselves from their twin. When living apart, they has no such compulsion. Your comment please.

Leszek, I tend not to be in favor of the death penalty, generally. But for this I think I would make an exception. In my opinion, this is about as evil as it gets.

For the most part, I think people will support these laws. They think they see dangers and since they, themselves, have no plans for using the technology anyway, they generally oppose the procedure, and support laws preventing it (Actually, I think most people would be willing to give up their fifth amendment right. Most people do not think they will ever need it.) In any case, no politician is likely to be voted out of office because he supported a law that banned cloning.

I am not sure that simply adding human genes to a chimp's genome would guarantee that a chimp could learn to read and talk. The important aspect, as I understand it is how the gene is expressed. The mere existence of human genes does not say how they are expressed, or even if they are expressed. But I see your point. I think the answer is to prevent this type of thing by law.

On the contrary, Mindy, I strongly suspect that it is people who read SF that are most likely to support cloning. Also, most people who have never read any SF at all will be opposed to it. I think that as SF becomes more popular, cloning will have a better chance for survival.

I disagree, Keith. So help me, I disagree.

Cliff,
I would like to make it clear that I do not approve of "headless Bobs." (Remember that?)

I just wanted to show that this sort of manipulation is the most slippery of slopes. Since the difference between the making of a "headless" human a non-entity and an unintelligent human a non-entity is only a matter of degree, I would say that we must not create the precedent.

One of the reasons I don't think that cloned, genetically engineered chimp/human chimaeras will become a serious ethical issue is that while chimps and humans are very closely related (indeed, some have argued they should be considered subspecies within a single genus, though I don't think I'd go that far), they have both taken very different and separate evolutionary paths from a common ancestor. It's not as though humans evolved from chimps, and all we'd have to do is "retrace" the steps to get an organism halfway between the two.

I suspect (though I've been wrong many times before!) it would be easier to create super-intelligent chimps by a selective breeding program over several hundred generations than by mixing human genes, which are designed to work in a "human environment" with chimp genes. Basically, both sets of genes would then be out of their element, as it were, and neither would necessarily be expected to function correctly. Genes co-evolve in groups, especially those all-important genes that concern us here that control the timing and expression of other genes. Jurassic Park not withstanding, mixing and matching is more likely to throw a wrench in the whole works than produce a viable organism.

On perusing recent postings I have come across (at least once) the term psuedo-scientist - what a curiosity.

What is a psuedo-scientist? Is it someone who only pretends to know/follow the scientific principle? or is it (as I suspect) someone who, though otherwise fully qualified, experienced, and (even) certificated (an FAA word), simply does not accept/follow a particular and (currently) popular variant of what now passes for morality?

(From what I've experienced of this society so far, if it doesn't involve sex it doesn't really involve morality).

(An)other says he sees no impending crisis based on the legal determination of when a human ceases to be considered human - but aren't we even now laboring through a crisis brought on by the legal determination of when a human (foetus) becomes to be considered human?

But I suppose I should not too quickly make issue over such paltry etymological meanderings, considering we all live in a society blandly accustomed to such oxymorons as Christian Scientist.

bob faulkner,
The term "psuedo-scientist" is most commonly used to describe a person who argues a theological or political point using language that sounds scientific, but who's argument is purely opinion.

The CRI is a good place to find these people.

I think the only real argument (for now at least) regarding the danger of making determinations on humanity is whether or not the capacity to modify the genome sufficiently to bring this into question is a near-term reality.

I think all of the current participants agree that "less thans" and "headless Bobs" are not a good idea.

P.s. "Headless Bob" is a term I resurected from a previous cloning board. (Someone named "Bob" was defending the concept, quite vigorously!)

I have no familiarity with the behavioral literature on twins, so I can't comment beyond the observation that I would expect the opposite. I would expect twins growing up apart to be even more different in personality. My own non-scientific experience is that the twins I know developed clearly different personalities as infants, well before the age where one might expect the kind of effort you speak of to become a cognitive reality.

Remember that the dendritic structure in the brain is not determined by genetics, so even the smallest difference in experience can produce a clearly different neuron pattern in the brain, and clearly divergent behavior.

Since clones differ in experience by a much greater degree than twins, I would expect even stronger differences in personality. Indeed, I should not be surprised if a clone produced a personality wildly divergent from the clone-parent.

I (perhaps thankfully) don't know what "the CRI" is; the specific posting referred to was the following, being cited by Cliff Beall:

P.S. I think "headless Keiths" (or any other) would have a more a propos 'ring' to it, don't you? (Of course you don't; but misappropriating another's name (even cognomen) is so convenient -- and 'Bob' is, of course, the populist 'bash-name').

Is everyone crazy ?

To take into ones own hands the cloning of a human is something right out of a science fiction novel. Is mankind so self absorbing, that we will try to duplicate (or think we can ) something that a higher being has done for thousands of years ?

Scientists for years have tried to duplicate even the smallest of human parts and they cannot succeed! A hand, An ear , An eye !!!!!

They cannot even come close to the way that the human body has been maticulously created !

Not to speak of the wacko scientists out there ! They don't care if it takes 10-20 years to see the longlasting effects.

Where is the moral or family ethics going ?

It should be kept in the hands of the original creator and no one else.

Cloning, in a real sense, isn't a matter of duplication of the work of a god, but of replication of the work of nature. It's already been done, in the case of Dolly the Sheep, so obviously it's not *that* hard to do (in terms of present day technology). While some might want to inject theology into the debate, I really don't think it belongs there.

I will agree that the question of cloning people can have ethical implications, but only if it results in:

(1) Damage to the person produced by cloning,

(2) Exploitation of the cloned person for objectives one couldn't use an uncloned person for.

Otherwise, I'm afraid that ideas of immorality in replicating a particular person designed by a postulated creator are not impressive to me. The difference between identical twins, and cloned twins, is not a whole lot.

Apparently I need to clarify my earlier remarks. I do not think that cloning will be used by governments to bolster their armies anytime soon. In fact, it likely will never happen, but who are we to say what it might be used for a hundred years from now? I doubt that most people who lived at the turn of the 20th century would have anticipated what medical science can do now. Would any of them have believed that you could transplant organs from one person into another? Or even use a babboon's heart? Or even have nearly wiped out TB? So who are we to say, it could be used for good, or it could be used for bad. All my point is, is that we need to use caution and try to anticipate the consequences to our actions before we rashly go forth with technology just because we can.

I do not see any purpose of even considering whether such an atrocity is possible or not. I can not conceive of any circumstance whatever under which it could possibly pass ethical muster. I may have gone a bit over the edge in my reference to capital punishment for such an act, but I think I have not gone too far over the edge.

Bob, your earlier reference to a "curious statement" caught my eye with respect to the above. I think a lot of things that do not directly involve sex does involve morality. Examples are lying, cheating, stealing, hypocrisy, oral touching and headless clones.

Not as far as I know, Brian, but I suppose you think you will be the judge of that.

Yes, cloning has been a science fiction subject, along with a number of other things such as space travel. What's the point, Brian?

It seems that they have now "duplicated" sheep, cattle and mice. Furthermore, it appears that the duplication of a complete human is just a matter of time. Actually, I am not sure I understand your point, or even if you have one. It is obviously easier to duplicate an entire being than individual components of that being. So what is the point, Brian?

Brian, it seems to me that your post has gone from science fiction to religious fiction. In my opinion, science fiction has much more value than religious fiction. But that is just my opinion--which should not be a surprise considering that I am an agnostic.

Mindy, I think the main problem I have with your last post is that you go to a great deal of trouble to point out the impossibility of our anticipating future use of technology. "Would any of them believed..." But then you turn around and say that we need to "use caution and try to anticipate..."

Both arguments are valid enough, it seems to me. But it also seems to me that they are mutually exclusive--and you really can't have it both ways.

I think we should probably do what we have always done: use reasonable caution when it seems appropriate, but keep on trucking until we notice that we have gone too far, at which time we should try to backtrack. Make sense?

Is everyone crazy ?

Well maybe you are correct. It's too late now however. Humans have a propensity to be like their gods. If their god is a creator then they want to be creators.

If they can not create life as you suggest then what are you worried about.

If they can then sooner or later they will.

If you believe in the bible then you are made in the image of god.

I guess we are going to find out just how powerful that image is.

Oddly enough, I think that some scientists are obsessed with the idea of 'Whether if they could' but they rarely question about 'Whether if they should.' To post challenges for one-self, scientist can set goals such as 'make artificial synthetic organs' or 'solve the problem of HLA compatibility.' WHY do some scientists always try to clone human-beings to impress others???

...use reasonable caution when it seems appropriate, but keep on trucking until we notice that we have gone too far, at which time we should try to backtrack. - Cliff Beall

Obviously, that didn't work with the atomic community in the 30s. Once you have unleashed a "scientific monster," it's hard to backtrack. However, clones are no nukes and the primary obstacles to human cloning are moral and ethical objections.

Mindy - you're absolutely right about proceeding with caution, but Cliff Beall is right too... we can't always anticipate the consequences of scientific discoveries. Does that mean we should never make any? I know that isn't what you meant either, so I guess the question is what is the difference between cloning people and having identical twins in your mind? The only thing I can think of is that you could make several clones. Not armies, but several. And here I begin to agree with you, I don't see the point (actually, at present, I don't see the point of even one, as it does seem to me to be a profoundly selfish act however one looks at it.)

Still, we cannot presently anticipate possible advantages, so I would support research into animal cloning. It would be better to spend more years thinking about it before proceeding to people, and we should then be clear in our minds why we should take the steps to do so.

However, it may be possible through cloning technology to grow new organs, perhaps even in situ in the patient. So I think the idea of "headless clones" will remain science fictionish, because better and more efficient ways to accomplish the same thing (assuming it is possible to accomplish at all) would become available.

I think some folks could use a gander at Tom's FAQ. Cloning is not the "creation" of life. Cloning is mearly mechanical interference in natural reproduction so that the chromosonal "set" to be expressed in the new being can be selected.

My primary concern about Dr. Seed's project is that I do not feel "we" can gaurentee that the chromosones being transferred will be undamaged by the process. Having "sweated out" two pregnancies (that went well, by the way) with my wife; I can attest that chromosones can, and do, get damaged even when there is no mechanical aspect to the process.

You demonstrate a remarkable inability to comprehend sarcasm or irony. Perhaps it's because you're so rapt in/with your own perspective and bias you have no idea what others are saying.

No offense taken -- I'm merely playing this silly 'high tea' game as I perceive its merits. Incidently, had you so intended, you would then be implying; I would then (perhaps) have inferred what you (perhaps) meant to imply.

It seems to be the common 'signature' of every age to assume they are the dernier cri of humanity -- that all subsequent ages will harken to their perceptions and pronouncements as though time itself had somehow been stunned into a state of catatonia on appreciating such brilliance. I recall reading that the first political hack appointed to the U.S. Patent Office submitted a recommendation that the office be abolished, since (paraphrased) 'everything of any significance had already been invented' -- and this even before the brothers Wright!

We are already the dinosaurs of the age(s) to come; our biases and accomplishments will be the quaint study of historians (with a due, polite, 'tip of the hat' for contributions well appreciated). The students of anatomy today do not rely on the protection of an emperor (Charles V), as did Wm Harvey, to perform dissection of the human corpse; but already the software to enable 'virtual dissection' is under development.

To suggest what will, or will not, be possible or permitted in future societies is the pettiest of pretense -- but, of course, a proper subject for such as these boards.

As Mr. Faulkner has aptly noted, the world is changing, and the pace of change is rapidly accelerating.

We are being hurled along at an amazing pace, and what seems unthinkable today is an encyclopedia footnote tomorrow.

Cloning will happen as will bioengineering, and it will occur soon. The presentation of the issue in a moral light will only slow it slightly.

Since I have never been in this chatroom before, I don't know how many of you are scientists. I am an ecologist though I dabbled in molecular biology (gene cloning, DNA amplification etc.) I personally do not think we will ever be able to get human clones from adult humans because as organisms age, we lose pieces of our chromosomes. To use adult chromosomes in cloning introduces unknown factors which will have unforseeable results in the final product. If I had to put my money on what will develop, it will be developing clones of babies while they are embryos. These could be stored and then be implanted in mothers at differernt times, but you have no idea what you will be getting until the 1st clone has lived its life to adulthood.

I personally do not think we will ever be able to get human clones from adult humans because as organisms age, we lose pieces of our chromosomes. - melody chen

I'm not sure this is correct. After all, Dolly's mother is an old sheep.

Perhaps at an advanced age, loss of, and damage to chromosomes become evident.

Yes, the progressive loss of the telomeres, repetitive DNA segments at the end of our chromosomes that are progressively whittled down as people age. Of course, with appropriate techniques, "telomerase therapy", it may be possible to rebuild these, and rejuvenate undifferentiated cells.

But a very interesting point :) cloning people will undoubtedly prove to be much more complicated than we assume in our academic debate here on the legality of the issue!

Several of you have been quite right to point out that my arguement was flawed. We have no idea what technology will be used in the future. Yet the need is there to try to look ahead as to the consequences of our actions. Hard to do. I think it was a good point that was made- specifically- what is the point of cloning? What use would we make of cloned individuals? I agree that most would find it ethically wrong to use clones as organ harvests, so what would they be used for? By the way, I remember hearing about a couple who's daughter needed a transplant of some sort (I believe it was a kidney) that they couldn't find a match for because of the rare type she was, coupled with her small size, so they had another baby so they could use the baby's other kidney for the transplant. Now they have two girls, each with one kidney, and both alive and doing well. Wasn't this a form of organ harvesting? Was it morally and ethically wrong? So is cloning for organs so very far away?

I think you've put your finger on the quintessential question... what is cloning *for*? If we can't answer it convincingly, we have no business doing it. I think, however, that the question and answer will vary from species to species. I find it hard to think of what purpose human cloning would have other than organ harvestation... and then, as Cliff and Keith have pointed out, we have major ethical problems.

Nice bit of humor Carl. However, I must insist that I am absolutely certain that I am an agnostic. It is one of the few things of which I am certain. I am certain that I can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of God. While I suspect the concept of God originated with man, I am absolutely certain that I can not prove either possibility. Furthermore, it is my opinion that anyone who insists on the truth of either the existence, or the non-existence, of God, has a burden of proof. This is a burden of proof that I do not desire for myself. I am an agnostic.

Alex, I sense your disapproval of the scientific community, but I do not share it. It is not surprising to me that scientists desire to impress their peers, nor do I find anything wrong with that. I think most everybody desires the respect and admiration of their peers. I am not a scientist, but I certainly desire the respect of my peers.

Actually, the point I tried to make in response to Mindy's post was that Mindy made both points and made both of them well. I mention this because I feel somewhat uncomfortable being given credit for an argument that I did not make either. Mindy made both of the arguments. It just seemed to me, as I read her post that those two points were mutually exclusive, and probably should not be combined. That's all.

Bob, why would my answer to your "curious statement" indicate to you that I am not capable of comprehending your "sarcasm or irony"? I can assure you I understood it. I thought it was beautiful. That is why I attempted to continued the joke. In my response, I referred to "lying" about things other than sex, "cheating" other than on one's wife, "stealing" other than a forbidden kiss or other such like, and hypocrisy other than the kind we are currently witnessing by the republicans (and some democrats) in congress with respect to (you know what).

In an effort to make sure my response would be understood in this fashion, I ever so delicately included the term "oral touching." How could you possibly miss that? The "headless clones" term was simply a weak stab at staying on topic.

Okay? Now back on topic:

And it is also the stuff of SF. Perhaps that is the fascination that this board holds for me. I suppose the main thing we have to guard against is taking ourselves too seriously, but if we guard against that, I think we can have some fun.

Cloning has possible value for reproductive purposes, similar to invitro fertilization.

The story I remember was a young woman who needed a morrow transplant. Was it ethical. There was a professional ethicist on the show from some eastern university who expressed that concern, and his arguments were valid, from an ethical point of view.

Yes.

Theoretically, it is ethically wrong to bring a child into this world for a purpose other than that of the child, but sometimes you have to say to hell with ethics and do the right thing. The love by that family for that little girl was obvious. So what if there was another purpose in her being? Ethical or not, it was the right thing to do.

Is bank robbery far away? Of course not. Bank robbery is another crime with which we have to contend. Does anybody suggest bank robbery should be legalized just because "it will be done anyway"?

I am not sure how cloning for body parts works.If a cloned person is born the same way we are,you would have to wait untill the cloned person grew up.I have worked on dairy farms.I have seen the heartbreak of children seeing their favorite pig or cow go to slaughter.I am not sure we are prepared to do that to humans.I am sure that I could not.It was my understanding that cloning would be for creating stronger people able to stand against more sicknesses or perhaps be smarter so we don't do things that make us sick.I have learned alot by reading this page.Thanks folks

Seed would only be cloning his body, not himself. Is his body so magnificent a specimen that it deserves to be cloned? Anyone who thinks themself a prime candidate to be cloned has other (psychological) problems.

Anyway, half the genetic material will be 'old', and there is a limit to it's stability.

Still it goes to show that even a Harvard professor with three degrees can be an idiot.

bob faulkner,
Yes, it appears that I implied that I am illiterate! Nice of you not to infer such.

Cloning humans, when the capability is sufficiently advanced, may well have a procreational utility for certain circumstances. Other than that...?

Cloning, in general, will have a monumental impact on the pharmecuetical(garsh I speel badd) and medical industries. Cloning will also be an incalcuable boon in research.

Since nuclear transfer does not convey the ability to rapidly age tissue, a person born by the nuclear transfer method would, of course, be born the same as we are. However, in some cases, you might not have to wait so long. For example, there is the case of the Canadian man I once read about who had kidney failure and was on dialysis, and not doing well. His wife (and presumably, a doctor) had a solution. She proposed that she get pregnant and the kidney from the aborted fetus could be transplanted into his body. This was done. The fetus was aborted in the 28th week, a kidney from the aborted fetus was transplanted into his body, and it worked. Contrary to your assertion, you wouldn't have to wait until the cloned person grew up. A five or ten year old child could be butchered to provide organs for an eighty year old man. Nature has no conscience.

Interesting. I had taken you to be a big city guy, Bob. Forgive me. In my own case, I don't remember much of that. It was just something I grew up with. When I was small, we raised a pig every summer, and every year, in the fall, my father butchered it for us to eat that winter. One year, in particular, I remember coming home from school to discover the hog I had slopped the night before had been butchered. I remember feeling sad about the loss of my friend, but I remember eating the pork. I wonder: does that make me as immoral as people who would do the same--or essentially the same--with human clones?

You did not imply that you are illiterate; only presented example that you do not properly differentiate between imply and infer. It has nothing to do with spelling. Nothing personal really; just playing the 'high tea' game as I observe it played.

I think I've posted this idea before; but, since phased repetition seems to be the hallmark of this verbal merry-go-round, I'll take my turn and do it again, as follows --

The significance and value of cloning humans are not that it be repeated continually 'for fun and profit'; but that it serve to expose to human intelligence and legibility another page in Nature's master opus. And, since each deciphered page leads to a more ready understanding of those that follow, the result must contribute to full understanding of the whole. To paraphrase Thomas Paine:

Well that explains that. After posting that message, I noticed that I had quoted "Bill Faulkner," not "bob faulkner." I said to myself, "Ohmygosh, how did that happen and what have I done? I had better fix that before Bob sees it." I therefore deleted the message and re-posted it after correction. Sorry about the errant correction, Bill and Bob.

Anything that gets a good laugh is always welcome! (And nothing works quite so nicely as a good self-effacing (possibly too dire a term) boomerang.)

Incidentally, it's interesting to read that you deleted the message and reposted it with correction -- the original version is still being retreived from my connection. If fact, I deleted my original (one paragraph) response to post this one containing this paragraph. (Time to 'brush up' on those posting techniques.)

I had said "My own non-scientific experience is that the twins I know developed clearly different personalities as infants, well before the age where one might expect the kind of effort you speak of to become a cognitive reality."

And Cliff Beal responds "That sounds like a pretty strong argument to me. If it can be established that this is true and correct, it will certainly trash the argument I attempted. Do you think it is possible to establish this on a scientific basis?"

Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good. Cloning is good.

Bob, you misunderstood what I said.

What I meant in my response to your post was that I had earlier "corrected" it from what I then thought was an error, "Bill" (but actually was not) into what I thought was a correction, "bob" (but actually was not). In short, I wrongly "corrected" it from Bill to bob.

I did not make any attempt to correct the posting after you pointed out my error. Actually, I can not correct it, and maintain it's original position, anyway. I can only delete. If it's remaining bothers you, tell me, and I will delete it. I will not re-post out of position.

I would prefer not to delete the post because I think it is a very good joke on me, and without the post, the joke will be lost. But I will do as you say. It was my error.

This is way off topic, but can somebody please tell me what is so difficult about the spelling of my last name? It is simply "Beall" with "two els and no ees" What could be simpler? Please understand that I am not upset. But as near as I can tell, this does not often happen to other people.

The following are some examples to illustrate:

By the way, Tim, aside from the smile you gave me with the spelling of my name, I really enjoyed your post. I also appreciated the links. I think you are right.

As to the spelling of your name: have you not noticed how some (mis)spell even simple words? And that's to say nothing as regards the near ubiquitous 'typo'. Or of mistaking 'weather' for 'whether', 'there' for 'their' (or vice versa), 'your' for 'you're', etc., almost to the point of producing an (accidently) encoded document. But, if you're near-genius, and just know the whole wide world is aching to read the latest results of your intense ratiocinations, it's just too frustrating (I guess) to restrain the rampant ardor of creation sufficiently to check for such triviality as spelling (or, even, proper attribution (shame on me)).

It is absurd to think that our society will ever reach a point at which we will slaughter cloned children for organs. It is much more reasonable to allow that the scientific community will develop methods to clone individual organs specific to blood type and factors needed. However, if the opportunity to work with cloning techniques on human tissue is banned before it can begin then we will be left with one embarrassing question. Would cloned human organs have replenished the existing inadequate donor banks?

Incidentally, it seems that CNN is (overly(?)) impressed that Richard Seed (the supposed part-subject of this board (how droll)) has three (count 'em) three Harvard degrees. I wonder if four or, even, five Harvard degrees would make his intent more (morally) acceptable -- surely six (an even half-dozen ) should give him carte blanche, don't you think?

I think the laws should be defined, when talking about inalienable rights, to include all sentient beings, rather than just human beings.

That would solve many of the problems that will occur in the future, as well as problems that I see happening now with the way humankind treats 'animals' that may be as intelligent as we are. (Whales and the like) Of course, humans are so human-centric, believing they're the greatest thing in creation, that that will probably never happen. It's unfortunate that our egos are likely to cause our own downfall.

Krista

Hi Everyone,

My own mother is a twin, and I don't think there's anything inheritly wrong with cloning. But what do you think it will reveal about the nature vs. nurture thing? Are clones going to be eerily identical to their originals in temperment and personality? Do we really have any freedon in determineing who we are and what we can become?

In many ways the current trend in thinking is that people are victims of circumstance. People drink too much because they have chemical predespositions, they are violent because their parents were violent...etc. The role of human will seems to have been dimished. No one whats to be responsible for their own behavior anymore.

Personally, I rather like the idea that I can control my own destiny. Isn't that what really distinguishes us humans from other animals? I'm afraid that new scientific evidence may soon force me to rethink that philosophy.

Does anybody else out there find this disturbing?

Thanks. I appreciate the good humor.

That is funny! Bob. And, yes, you are correct. It most certainly should be "shame" on you. As it turns out, I catch a spelling error in your prose from time to time. For example, in the above quote, you misspelled "accidentally" as "accidently."

(Should I start mentioning these errors of yours on a regular basis when I find them so as to help you with your "self-improvement" project?)

Kerry, I think in situ regeneration of vital organs will occur long before the technology to clone a vital organ in a tank is available. Also, in situ regeneration is obviously far superior. IOW, the cloning of individual organs is likely to be superceded by a superior technology long before it has a chance to exist.

Krista, I am not going to even touch your post. That--shudder, shudder--is a landmine. (But I will not say you are wrong.)

Sachie, I would not consider it disturbing, but I most certainly find it interesting.

I do not see what all the cloning fuss is about. In particular, I do not see the fundamental difference between conceiving children 'naturally ' versus conceiving them in a test tube. Does it really matter if a child's complete DNA package is derived from a combination of an egg and a random sperm, or copied verbatim from a non-reproductive cell?

No matter the method of conception, a child is still a child and a human being is still a human being. It's preposterous to suggest that we dismember children for organs, regardless of where these children came from. In fact, such suggestions send a chill down my spine.

As for claims of immortality -- cloning is certainly not even in the category. By cloning, you create a child -- a new human being. They may have the same genetic makeup and may even end up looking the same as whoever they were cloned from, but they will be a completely different, separate individual.

For an example, look no further than maternal twins -- in essense Nature's own clones. They occur when a developing embryo is shattered into two or more pieces very early in life -- so you have children with exact copies of each other's genome. This is all and everything that cloning is -- only through a different mechanism.

There are no moral quandaries here, no fundamental challenges to humanity. Cloning is simply another method for artificial conception -- and as such should be no more controversial than artificial insemination is. In fact, cloning may enable some people with a dysfunctional reproductive system to have children they would never have through any other method. I think cloning is a cool new technology in that respect.

Incidentally, this use of cloning might enable women in a new and interesting way: they would no longer have to depend entirely on men for children -- they could always choose to fertilize an egg with their own DNA, and nurture a daughter who is as close to them as any child ever is to a

(Information condensed from a Sep 16th release.)

PPL Therapeutics has imported into New Zealand sperm from genetically sheep in Britain. They will use New Zealand ewes to maintain a heard of 1,000 to 1,500 sheep that use human genes to alter the protein in their milk.

The sheep will be kept in quarantined conditions. The Roslin Institure in Scotland, which produced the clone Dolly, did the transgenic alteration from which the sperm were produced.

The production flock is planed to have about 4,000 sheep and will require approval form the Environmental Risk Management Authority of New Zealand.

The chemical of interest is human alpha-1 antitrypsin. It is used to treat cystic fibrosis, atopic dermatitis and emphysema.

Apparently New Zealand was chosen because it has no history of BSE or scrapie. (mad cow decease)

I think things are moving very fast and the legislators in the US are incapable of managing the rights and responsibilities of these fast track developments without putting the US at a disadvantage. Maybe they should spend more time doing their jobs than in trying to figure out who is having sex with whom.

Carl, I believe you. However, I did a search and came up empty handed. If it is on the web, could you post a link or address. BTW, this is exciting stuff.

Interesting. Perhaps someone will care to explain why they would need to worry about that.

Carl, we can't be reproaching congress for doing their "constitutional duty," now can we? Anyway, if they were to do something, it would probably be to ban human cloning, not improve the climate for animal cloning, which is, of course, far much more important, both economically and medically.

Mr. Shpungin, the difference is profound. Inheriting genes from mother and father "refreshes" the gene pool; if there is a problem (mutation or damaged gene) from one side, the other side hopefully saves the offspring by supplying good genes. This is the basic purpose of sex. If not for this feature, the genetic damage all animals suffer by simply being alive (cosmic radiation and such) would, in a few generations, render most species extinct from being horribly mutated.

Anyone more loquacious in the lingo of genetics, please help out here. Thanks.

Bernhard,

Sorry its taken so long but this chatroom is SLOW compared to the Starr report one.

Anyways - there is controversy over whether or not Dolly was actually cloned. Her mother had died and the scientists had no samples of her DNA (since they didn't know if cloning was going to be successful or not). Basically - they have no physical proof except for maybe some journal entries. I am not accusing them of falsifying or fabricating data, but the fact that no one else has been able to repeat their experiment is disappointing.

http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=25602728&CAT=NatGen&PG=mice/mice3.html

Ralph -

You are describing Mueller's ratchet. That is: sex is a method whereby deleterious mutations can be removed. Theoretically, without sex, the number of mutation will constantly increase in a population. I wouldn't say a species would go extinct in a few generations though.

One problem with this argument; however, is that there are plenty of species which use asexual reproduction exclusively and they are doing fine (remember those one celled critter you looked at in Bio class?).

The evolution of sex is an interesting topic that is being debated even today.

melody, If the genetic material of the creature is _good_ then making a clone of it should be okay... I'm not sure how it works, but if the recessives don't show up in the doner they won't in the new creature...

Using single cell organisms, or other small organism like that to counter the idea that mutations won't have significant affects on the species doesn't quite work though for the simple fact that bacteria, for example, mutate all the time becoming resistant to drugs, even becoming a new disease. Creatures like that are more likely to react to environmental changes and because they practice asexual reproduction their mutation or change gets immediately passed on to their offspring, whereas in creatures that practice sex that wouldn't happen unless it was a dominant gene.

Krista

I don't think human cloning is something we should be messing around with. There's very little practical benefit. If a woman can carry a fetus made from cloning proceedures then she can carry one made from a sperm and an egg. I think in the rare cases where there isn't sperm available from the husband, then Perhaps this procedure could be used to help them, but it shouldn't happen often. I mean, who's being helped in that case, the parents or the child? Would you want to grow up looking exactly like your mother and being compared to her all the time? :}

Many nations might not think that a clone has as many rights as a natually conceived human being. It'll happen... there are enough cultures around the world that would think that something made that way isn't as 'good' as something made the regular way.

Organ cloning is a great idea. The biggest problem is that scientists aren't stopping with just the cloning but once they can do that they're trying to 'improve' by their standards, the animals they're cloning... in some that means making their body produce more things for Us without consideration for the long range consequences. If human cloning is allowed that will happen for humans too.. people will try to 'improve' the species. I don't think I trust anyone to do that. I do think fighting genetic diseases is a good thing to do, but we just don't know enough to start making 'improvements'.

Krista

I believe that cloning has its benefits but like all other technology, someone will abuse it. I agree that if you clone a human you can geneticly engineer it be a universial host for organs but what happens when something goes wrong. "Oops, I just produced a new strain of virus which will wipe out the world."

Other than that there will be somebody that will think, "Lets build us the ultimate fighting machine. One that needs no sleep, has no conscience, and will fight to the death."

I think that cloning tests need to stop even though there are great benefits.

Ya! Sorry. I used the search engines for more than an hour to find a link without success.

The story (much longer) was in a local Taiwan English language paper which had been translated from a French reporter.

Couldn't quote it because of copyright violations. (And CNN rules) So I did the best I could.

I mentioned it because it involved a transgenic, Gen. Eng. and Cloning in Scotland and a shipping of sperm from the "children" to another country, that didn't have the BSE (etc.) risk of an "English origin".

Also the companies seemmed very sensitive to the issue of both transgenic cloning and the possibility of infection by animals to humans.

No one wants a Mistake to happen, even in the name of a medical cure.

I really think the commercial scientific community is more rational than many of the politicians.

(I sure hope that you can convince me that I am wrong.)

Ralph, that makes a lot of sense except for one thing: the mice in the University of Hawaii experiment do not appear to exhibit such mutation damage. The three generations of mice appear healthy in the following report/link:

<A HREF=" http://www.noonanrusso.com/news/hawaii/98news/Media/Text/welcome.html"> http://www.noonanrusso.com/news/hawaii/98news/Media/Text/welcome.html

</A>

This is not a chat room, Melody. It is a message board. Surely you know the difference.

Wrong, Melody. Dolly's parentage is firmly established and she is a clone from an adult cell. I suggest you click the following link and read the three articles under "Dolly Confirmed."

<A HREF="http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=25602728&CAT=NatGen&PG=mice/clone-home.html"> http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=25602728&CAT=NatGen&PG=mice/clone-home.html </A>

Note: Unfortunately, apparently due to the size of the CNN edit box and the characters contained in the address, the above link does not include the entire address. Thus you will have to copy and paste to enter the address. Sorry.

I am beginning to wonder about that source, Carl. Something doesn't ring true. It almost sounds like PPL is trying to hide an association with a marketing effort from which they are seeking to reap large profits. It would not seem to me to make sense for PPL to do this since PPL has an excellent reputation and name recognition. Would they not want to use that excellent reputation and name recognition in their marketing effort? (If it were true, why didn't PPL put out a press release?)

Krista Landon - 02:50pm Sep 17, 1998 ET (#85 of 98)

and

"The unanimous Declaration [of Independence] of the thirteen united States of America" cites un alienable rights. The Constitution of the United States (being a more 'legally-oriented' document) eschews such vagueness and gets rather specific as to just what rights are had by whom.

Presumably, you are a vegetarian, and would never consume the parts of such sentient creatures as cows. Also, you should feel as though transported to the mythical Garden of Eden were you in parts of India, where they worship not only snakes and cattle but, even, rats!

There aren't any (other) animals as intelligent as we -- it is our characteristically differentiating attribute.