Along comes a disease or virus which wipes out the entire population of chickens or cows ONLY because they had the same genetic structure of the immune system for fighting deseases or whatever. - Tom Long

This is a possible scenario, but unlikely to happen for the following reasons:

1. The cloned stock is not likely to remain in one place, but will be distributed widely. Thus, a virus wiping out one stock in one place will not affect stocks in other places.
2. If a virus indeed should infect one stock, an antidote can be developed to immunize other stocks.
3. I don't believe it has ever been shown that there are viruses attacking a specific genetic make-up.

Very funny Keith. You know this just for transport. It is an illustration though of how viable a blastosysts is, and how easy to move to a real host mother.

It also illustrates that if you have some genetic distance between animals the viral question is moot.

I disagree. that is exactly what they do.

If we had a virus that could attack any animal we would be in some serious trouble because any animal could serve as a vector.

Tony, if you had a twin and you got [upset] off at him and killed him, with what crime would you be charged: murder or suicide?

(Note: CNN wouldn't let me use the word you used, Tony. Had to make a substitution.)

If we had a virus that could attack any animal we would be in some serious trouble because any animal could serve as a vector. - Carl Nicolai

By "genetic makeup" I am referring to genetic traits within a specie that makes a member unique. For example, Angus cows are different from Hereford cows, but to both the Mouth and Hoof virus is fatal (as it is to pigs and man). Yet, there is no disease caused by viruses that afflicts either Angus cows or Hereford cows exclusively.

We just had an epidemic of Hoof and Mouth disease here in Taiwan. (First outbreak in 30 years) The government said that it was not a variety that could infect humans but only certain animals. They were not that sure though. It was known that humans that breathed the same air as the infected pigs could transmit it to other pigs for maybe 8 hours after exposure. They totally closed down the zoos here because of their concern.

One problem is that mutations can occur that change the danger of a particular infectious disease infecting a specific species.

In principle there is no reason why a specific virus could not mutate so that it would attack only an animal with a single gene trait.

The only thing protecting humanity and other animals in the long run is genetic diversity. This is one good argument against massive cloning with animals.

In that genetic engineering may be used to increase diversity as well as to weed out known pathogens some interesting choices will have to be made.

What if the engineering trade-off against suitability to all known diseases was to lower IQ by an average of 10 points., or reduce body mass by 20%? These things just are not known and won't be for some time.

No ! We should not permit ‘anybody’ to do human cloning ! Thou it’s good for genetic sciences progress But nobody can guarantee that humans will not misuse it .It is been proved by the atomic power. Human is such a animal on earth who invented lot of thing to fulfil his needs , so in future he can develop the technology if required. Presently it’s definitely not required only.

Pankaj Patole,
I would hardly compare cloning to fision warheads (even if the word 'nuclear' is used in both!) In the past year many people have attempted to show how cloning humans is evil. To date; No one has been able to field a credible argument to this effect.

Pankaj Patole - Thursday, 10/01/98, 6:06:46am (#207 of 208)

How can cloning of humans be misused??

I don't think there will ever be a danger of cloning replacing traditional reproduction. Sex is too much fun!

I do not think we can rely on stock breeders to use good judgement for the long term. Consider, for example, breeders of race horses. Suppose a breeder of race horses had a chance to obtain a clone of a triple crown winner (under the table so to speak). Do you think he would give "genetic diversity" a second thought in weighing his decision as to whether to go after it or not? Neither do I.

Now suppose another breeder of race horses got wind that a competitor was doing this, and had a chance to do the same. Do you think this other breeder of race horses would devote even a moments thought to "genetic diversity" in his haste to match his competitor’s move? Neither do I.

Suppose a breeder of race horses had a chance to obtain a clone of a triple crown winner (under the table so to speak). Do you think he would give "genetic diversity" a second thought in weighing his decision as to whether to go after it or not? - Cliff Beall

And neither would anyone give a second thought if given the possibility to clone some stars and starlets of Hollywood for profit.

I think a lot of people would find this unethical, but it is clear that there are people who would be willing to do it for profit with no concern for "genetic diversity." And, I suspect, there are a lot of people who would pay to have one of those children. (There are considerably more "users" of "drugs" than "dealers.")

Debate is pointless, why fight the inevitable? Rather plan for the eventuality that we will share our planet with droids, mutants, clones, aliens etc. It will be enough of a strain on our social fabric to deal with the way things will be in the new century, why bring self-defeating moralistic arguments into the picture. Prepare for the new way of life, don`t butt your head against walls.

Clones of people are equaly people Jaimes.

Every now and then the subject of "Sharon Stone 2.0" comes up. I would say; So what? Since it is absurd to even imagine a fad of this nature actually having a major impact on the diversity of a 6,000,000,000 person population I have to ask, "why does this disturb anyone?"

Prepare for the new way of life, don`t butt your head against walls. - Jaimes

Well said!

A new genetic treatment for unborn children is being debated by an ethics committee.

If any of you think Gen. Eng. and Cloning are not extremely derisive issues this story should change your mind.

"Prepare for a new..."

This sounds almost like a religious exhortation. It actually almost sound good--almost Biblical--but it is nonsense. As someone with great insight once said: "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

Thanks for the link, Carl.

After reading the article, I am of the opinion that what Dr. W. French Anderson has done will tend to reduce the divisive nature of the debate. He has invited debate on the procedure he plans to attempt before he attempts it.

It is obvious that this is an honest man who desires to do the right thing, ethically, as well as technically. I trust and admire this man. I hope the debate remains as civil as Dr. Anderson's proposal for the debate. Dr Anderson deserves a civil debate.

As someone with great insight once said: "The more things change, the more they remain the same." - Cliff Beall

If this were true, we'd all be still Neanderthals.

Seed should not clone.

What if a superstar signs an autograph with your pen. Then you sample the DNA from the pen and create 2000 superstars. Could the real superstar go to court for trademark rights? Will the clones have to pay big money in compensation?

(horrific idea: I should clone this cute girl in my school. She doesn't really like me, but maybe her clone will.) She is

if the court rules, that I am responsible for the clones, shouldn't I have total control over my clones then? Let's build an army of clones, change all the DNA, activate the introns, go to the olympics, make superstars, einsteins, presidents, and then collect the proceeds, royalties, trust funds.

I will kill my clone if he will be too nosy. "How come all fingerprints look the same? We got the wrong suspect!"

I don't think you solve the immortality problem by cloning yourself. The imprints will be completely different.

No, I do not think Mr. Seed should clone himself. Has anyone really thought this thing through on the humane levels? What do we tell a child? that he or she was brought into this world to prove cloning could be done. Also, what really makes this particular feat cloning? It was my impression that cloning was the stimulating of a set of dna in a cell to create a duplicate, more or less in a nutrient, not create a baby in a body. Here is something else no one seems to be talking about, what woman would want to have a baby just to prove a cloning could be done? I thought/felt children should be brought into this world out of love as an expression of a union between two lovers. "Because I want to have his child" to continue the human race, his family line and insure that if anything happened to him I would at least have some part of him still with me. Hey guys! I realize you are not into feeling as much as we ladies are but must you always intellectualize everything!

No! He should not. There seems to be a lot of confusion among the answerers out there between what is cloning and what is genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is the splicing of the DNA itself and adding, removing and/or rearranging of the dna. Cloning is the replication of another from a cell. Which reminds me that if you duplicate then you defeat the infinite variety in God's plan. Can you imagine an imortality of boredom? Is immortality a part of the reason for cloning? Just visualize walking down the street and seeing nothing but the same faces, absolutely no difference. Also, how does one make sure between a husband and a wife that the child does not replace the spouse? We could probably go on and on "what if"ing for months. We are playing at being God, think we have achieved that status, yet we can't even get the infinite variety, much less that universe creating and maintaining stuff. O.K., someone will say the genetic engineering will take care of infinite variety, but knowing mankind and especially the politicians and the military, and also the power of habit, I'm betting on no infinite variety from us. The biggest question is what kind of world do we want and how do we achieve it?

Yes! At at least I do . It makes me "feel" good to be thinking about new things. ;)

I don't know about infinite but it looks that at least 10E100 or so standard variations are possible without straying too far from the original design.

I hope to see your comments on the new Gen. Eng. board.

Bernhard Schopper,
We never were Neanterthals. (Wrong lineage.)

D. Molino,
We have been batting the variance question around a little in here. I don't see where this is a problem for people, but it could have the potential to create problems in livestock.

On the process itself: The baby is still gestated inside a woman and born in the normal way. The DNA that you want to reproduce is introduced into the egg and then the egg is implanted. This is similar to in-vitro fertilization (except for the method of geting the desired DNA in place.)

if my son was dying i could never replace him not even with cloning. the body may be the same but his personality and spirit and soul would not be the same. therefore it would be a stranger in my sons body. thats creepy and scary. we have to let those dying go and rejoice that we once knew them. i think cloning could be really scary and devestating to us all.

Bob -

Hey - I was NOT the one who said cows were sentient! I happen to use animals in my research (copepods). Get your quotes straight - this is annoying.

sma,
I think you might actually look upon the new individual as your second son, who looks remarably similar to your first son. :-)

Nothing scary here.

BTW: (All) I just noticed that Tom's FAQ is linked at the top of this page. Is that new, or am I practicing selective ignorance? :-0 In any case; I highly recommend it (the FAQ, not selective ignorance) as Tom worked very hard on it and produced an accurate and open-minded document regarding the facts and myths of cloning.

I think the regular contributors to this board has given this subject a great deal of thought--considerably more than you, I would surmise.

Regardless of the method of procreation, I think the one thing that a child must be told is that he or she is loved, and I think it needs to be said over and over and over. I think it is the most important thing one can tell a child. If the child hears that he are she is loved often enough, and the telling is sincere, nothing else that one might tell the child much matters.

Cloning is asexual reproduction wherein the entire genome of an existing organism is passed unchanged to an offspring. The specific method used to create Dolly, and presumably any human clone as well, in the near future, is called nuclear transfer.

Nuclear transfer involves the removal of the nucleus from a female germ cell (egg) and the replacement of that nucleus with the nucleus from a somatic cell (normal, non-sex cell). To complete the process, the embryo, thus obtained, must be implanted into the uterus of a woman. If the organism grows and develops normally, it will be an exact genetic duplicate of the donor of the cell. Since the entire genome is passed to an offspring by this process, nuclear transfer is correctly referred to as cloning.

Sounds great D., but I would bet that a smaller percentage of in vitro fertilized children are abused, than are naturally conceived children. I suspect that that would be a very safe bet. When the technique is perfected, I think a lower percentage of cloned children will be abused than naturally conceived children. I think cloned children will be children who are loved and wanted. Too bad so many naturally conceived children are not.

I am very serious when I say that I think children should be brought into this world when somebody wants a child to love, not because two people can not keep their hands off each other. (Nothing wrong with that, you understand, but that is not a good reason to bring a child into this world.)

I do not think you have a monopoly on "feeling" D.

Cloning may not be the same as genetic enginnering, D., but it does facilitate genetic engineering. The scientists who cloned Dolly had as their intention--from the beginning--to modify an animal’s genome such that it produces a human protein in that animal’s milk. It was the reason for developing cloning technology in the first place--to facilitate genetic engineering. Therefore, while it is true that cloning and genetic engineering are not the same thing, there is a very strong connection between the two technologies.

Ha! I knew religion would eventually be woven into this fabric. But what do you mean by "infinite variety"?

These are words that makes no sense to me at all. Surely, you jest. There is, of course, no such thing as "infinite variety." Variety in all species on this earth is "finite." And what the heck is "universe creating and maintaining stuff"? I practically grew up in church and I thought I was pretty good with church lingo. But this "stuff" is new to me. What church was this "stuff" derived?

Makes sense to me. Your prior points on this subject were also well taken, BTW.

It has been there for a while, Keith. Actually, CNN provided a link to Tom’s FAQ on the old cloning board. I do not remember precisely when it was added, but it was several months ago. It was not on this iteration of the board in the beginning, however. In a message on September 9th, a couple of days after the latest iteration started, Carl indicated that he had lost the link to Tom’s FAQ and asked me to post it.

I found the address and posted it a couple of days later, and the day following that, I checked to see if the link had been added, and there it was. (I have more or less suspected that Carl suggested it to CNN by e-mail. I do not know this for a fact since I have not asked Carl. But it sounds like something that Carl might do. I guess Carl could tell us how he got it done if he wants to :-)

I personally think it is rather biased and wrongheaded in some respects, and I disagree with a number of points that Tom attempts to make. Nevertheless, for the most part, I think it is useful.

I think one of the best parts is that it now includes some very good links, including an FAQ published by New Scientist Magazine (my favorite FAQ). After noticing that Tom has added those links, I am much more inclined to view it with appreciation than I was before.

KEITH: SO HAVE WE DISCUSSED THIS TODAY. I REALLY KNEW ALL OF THAT BOTTOM PART. HOWEVER, IN A REAL FERTILIZATION OF AN EGG THE FATHER'S AND MOTHER'S GENES ARE COMBINED IN A NEW PATTERN, WHICH IS ALSO SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT EVERY TIME. THAT IS WHY THERE IS ONLY ONE EINSTEIN IN HIS (EINSTEIN'S) FAMILY. ACTUALLY, INDIRECTLY, SO ARE SOME OF THE ANCESTORS PATTERNS PASSED ON. TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, A FAMILY WITH A FAMILY RESEMBLANCE TO EACH OTHER. NOT SO FOR ONE SIDE IN CLONING.

IN CLONING IS THE EGG FERTILIZED? HOW DO YOU DETERMINE HOW MUCH OF THE NUCLEUS TO REMOVE AND REPLACE? AND REPLACE WITH HOW MUCH MATERIAL? SOME INTERESTING MICROSURGICAL TECHNIQUES AND MEASURING INSTRUMENTS MUST BE AROUND FOR THESE PROCEDURES.

IS THE CHILD STERILE? HOW MANY X AND Y CHROMOSOMES DOES IT HAVE?

I KNOW I WAS BEING A BIT HARD ON HIS WIFE BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE ANY WOMAN GOING THROUGH 244 PREGNANCIES AND MISCARRIAGES TO HAVE ONE CHILD JUST TO PROVE IT CAN BE DONE. FROM WHAT I HEARD ON THE NEWS THIS IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES IT TAKES TO ACHIEVE A VIABLE PREGNANCY. ONE OF OUR LADIES SAID SHE BELIEVES A WOMAN CAN ONLY HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF MISCARRIAGES BEFORE SHE BECOMES STERILE DUE TO SCARRING. SO I STILL HAVE TO WONDER WHY THEY ARE DOING THIS?

SOME OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS ARE MY OWN AND SOME ARE FROM OUR GROUPS DISCUSSION TODAY AROUND THE LUNCH TABLE.

No, the egg is not "fertilized."

The complete nucleus from the germ cell must be removed and replaced by the complete nucleus of a somatic cell.

Again, you are missing the point, D. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Are identical twins sterile? How many x and y chromosomes do identical twins have?

In nuclear transfer, the donor of the cell and the clone are like identical twins. Look, I hate to say this, but you really ought to take a look at Tom Anderson’s FAQ. He explains this part very well. Look at the top of this page for a link to an FAQ. Click that link and read some of Tom’s explanation.

That is the reason I oppose human cloning at the present time. In my opinion, the technique has not been perfected, and is actually dangerous for the offspring (the clone). I think the procedure should be perfected using animals before it is attempted on humans. However, once perfected, I think it will be an alternate method of reproduction with some merit.

In my opinion, the technique has not been perfected... - Cliff Beall

As far as sheep are concerned, the technique works. Dolly is as good as she can get.

As far as humans are concerned, the technique has yet to be "invented."

Well this is good. It sure is great to hear that someone is talking about something besides sports scores.

I am confused by why you are yelling though.

If We were the Borg, We would say "Resistance is futile You will be educated."

Cliff: I didn't ask for Toms FAQ to be reposed. I was going to but the Elves beat me to it.

I did ask for the Gen. Eng. page because even though there is a lot of cross reinforcing they are separate subjects.

I agree with you on the New Scientist FAQ.

It is good to have both of them available.

Maybe we should add all of them to the Cloning Chronicle site???

Cliff,
Point taken on the FAQ. Tom does have an axe to grind, e.g. "Science is correct, science is always correct, don't ever question science." and it does show, but I, for one, get tired of answering the "Hitler" question over and over again. :-D

D. Molino,
Please use "mixed case" in your messages. All caps is very difficult to read.

I also agree that it is not time to move to human experimentation yet. If little lamby is born with a genetic diease/condition we can all have lamb chops for supper, but if Richard Jr. is born with a problem his father will have condemned him to a difficult, or even shortend and/or painful life.

Dr. Seed should think on this, and worry less about his fame.

If little lamby is born with a genetic diease/condition we can all have lamb chops for supper, but if Richard Jr. is born with a problem his father will have condemned him to a difficult, or even shortend and/or painful life. - Keith Fosberg

And, in what way would this be different if Richard Jr. were to have been conceived in the "old-fashioned" way?

The probability that Richard Jr. is free of birth defects, if created by means of a cloning process, is far greater than if he were produced by a pair of copulating humans.

O.K. guys, I apologize and will try to remember to use both cases from now on.

Cliff: To answer your questions above: Yes, it depends on the sex of the twin. IF it can be done on a human being at all. Your last paragraph still assumes that it can be in spite of the 244 tries before there was a Dolly. human beings are a lot more complicated than sheep. If the scarring issue is right, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then you would require something on the order of clinical trials lacking a herd.

Carl: I am assimilated. I am sure glad you are not Borg!

D. MOLINO - Tuesday, 10/06/98, 10:08:03pm (#241 of 241)

Both sheep and humans are mammals and therefore I doubt is there is any significant difference in the complexity of the genetic code. I still haven't heard any logical reasons to ban nor control cloning. Even the emotional reasons I have seen apply to the naturally conceived as well as the cloned.

Not according to Dr. Wilmut, the creator of the Dolly technique. Quoting from the Seattle Times, "The technique Wilmut's team at the Roslin Institute pioneered, which he calls nuclear transfer technology rather than cloning, is in its infancy, even though some of the work has been going on for nearly a decade..."

For additional information on the Seattle Times’ interview with Dr Wilmut, click the address below:

Unless I am missing a point, Bernhard, this is a rather puzzling statement. Do you have some specific reason for saying this? I have no reason to believe the technique for humans will need to be significantly different than the technique to be used for farm animals.

Interesting. I would not have supposed that the Elves would have been that interested in the FAQ. On some other boards, Elves have been known to join in on the conversation. But the only comment from the Elves on this board that I have seen has been associated with deleting posts for one reason or another. Makes one wonder...

I agree.

Keith, that is not my objection. I have a very high opinion of science. Actually, in some cases, particularly with respect to quantum mechanics, I am more inclined to accept the findings of science than Tom. It is more that I disagree with his assertions that his concept of ethics is correct, that his concept of ethics is always correct, and therefore I should not question his concept of ethics. (I do question his concept of ethics.)

Interesting statement, Bernhard. Since we are on the subject of Tom Anderson, anyway, I might note that the only other person I have ever heard make such a "rediculous" statement was Tom. In times past, I repeatedly pointed out to Tom that such a statement flies in the face of the facts, but he kept repeating it nevertheless. For example, I pointed out that when Dr. Wilmut was attempting to clone Dolly, he had many failures including some lambs born alive that later died from heart, lung and genito-urinary-tract abnormalties.

I do not know about you, but those kinds of ailments sound like severe birth defects to me. Based on that, I think I can truthfully say that it doesn’t sound to me like nuclear transfer is currently less dangerous than natural conception. To quote Dr. Wilmut: "It's distressing enough with farm animals, but to contemplate it in humans is quite appalling."

D. you keep referring to 244 tries, and I have no idea where you might have gotten that number. It does not appear to be correct. I suppose that if I question your number, I must name a number that I understand to be correct and explain why I think it is correct.

I think the correct number of tries with respect to Dolly is 29. In naming that number, I note that success can be measured a number of ways, but by my reckoning, cloning success rate should be counted as the number of live, healthy offspring, with respect to the number of attempted implants. Unless an embryo is implanted, there is not a chance for a birth. And an implant that does not result in a healthy, live birth would seem to me to be a failure.

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. Unfortunately, Nature has moved and I could not find the paper to provide a link to the chart,

However, if you will trust me, the chart specified that the the mammary epithelium experiment involved 277 fused couplets, 29 blastocysts transferred, 13 pregnancies and 1 healthy lamb (Dolly). Alternately, if you or someone else can find the paper and provide a link to it, I would appreciate it.

By the way, D., if you are going to be a regular on this board, what is your first name. I grow weary of addressing you as D.

Cliff,
We are agreed on the objection. Perhaps I could have stated that beter.

Funny that we should bring up Tom just now; One of the considerations in cloning that I never saw a satisfactory answere to was the question of telometers. Does a cloned organism enter this world with a shortened potential lifespan? (Remember the million year old DNA argument?)

Somehow, that question led to the long digression into determination, including the argument regarding randomness and chaos (whence came the QM /Superstring sidetrack!)

Dr. Seed brings us back (again) to the question; Are we sufficiently confidant that the nuclear transfer process to state that it will produce offspring without long term defects? Sufficient to trust it in human reproduction, that is.

dang!! meant to hit 'edit' not post...

Please subsitute:
Are we sufficiently confidant that the nuclear transfer process will reliably produce offspring without long term defects?

In place of: Are we sufficiently confidant that the nuclear transfer process to state that it will produce offspring without long term defects?

There's a problem with cloneing that will become clear as the technoligy goes forward towards cloneing humans. The cloning of humans who might be dieing of a viral desiese or cancer. this problem is it can be an exact duplicite of the the doner. tranzporting the virus with the genetic code this I believe can create a more powerful virus giving it a new genetic blue print untreatable with out killing the host because it is human DNA. In other words if science cant get a exact map of a persons DNA they dont know if they are in fact taking a virus mixed into the DNA and incorperating it into the Clone.While the new clone is perfectly healthy they might be a carryer of a deadly virus.

I don't understand why we're not trying cloning out on primates first. Sure, it won't be as interesting as doing it on humans, but if chimps have 99% of our DNA, shouldn't we test it out on them first? We can even compare things like intelligence, social behavior, etc. between donor and clone. Does anyone else find it odd that we are going from sheep and rats to humans?

Melody,
I think most of us are attributing that to Richard Seed's arrogance. So, yes; Most of us do find it odd!

Patrick,
If the donor has a "genetic disease" it will be present in the offspring.

A virus would not be "enhanced" by the process, even if one were present in the donor cell. It is most likely that the offspring would not gestate succesfully if a dangerous virus were present due to the limited number of initial cells.

A more benign virus (one that does not kill the host cell) isn't really of concern.

Well, one reason I can see to clone humans first is that we have a human (Seed) who is willing to pick up the cost. If we wanted to try it out on chimps first, I doubt we could find a chimp rich enough to foot the bill. We ought to let Seed have a crack at it, if it works then we've got a nifty new technology for rich people to blow their mony on....

Insufficient data to make a determination.

I am not confident the the nuclear transfer prccess will reliably produce offspring without long term defects or short term defects. I consider nuclear transfer to be quite dangerous at the present time. (But I think this will eventually change.)

Think about it, Melody. It isn’t so strange. Among the scientists who are actually working on it, most have as a goal to produce a female animal--such as a cow or sheep--that produces a human protein in her milk. Thus you can expect that scientists who are chasing this particular "pot of gold" will concentrate on farm animals. The reason for using mice is that they multiply rapidly, thus providing a great deal of data in a short period of time.

Now explain to me why any scientist, particularly one interested in money, would want to clone a primate. The only purpose for cloning a primate would be if the intended goal was to clone humans. But why bother with human cloning? There isn’t any money in that. (At least, not when compared to the rich potential associated with animal cloning.)

Now, do you understand?

BTW, T-Bone, don't get too wound up with what the Duke of Seed might do. He has about the same amount of money as the average chimp. Secondly, he has absolutely no expertise in this particular field. This is not easy technology and it is not likely that he will do anything with it any time soon. My question is why anyone would take the Duke of Seed seriously, in the first place?

What's the big deal about clowning? Some of my fondest memories are of when as a child my father took me to the circus. I think clowns are funny.

That is an old joke, Joe. But it is still funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Cliff -

I was thinking more in terms of being able to "work out the bugs" in the cloning process. It would be neat to clone endangered species (I think chimps are one of them?). We'll just have to keep really good stud books, like those being done with the golden lion tamarins. The people I know working on them seem to be adequately funded. As for rich people spending their money - hey its their money to blow.

So was I, Melody. The problem is that cloning, at this point is quite expensive. We can speculate about rich people blowing their money on cloning of primates and humans if we wish, but it appears to me that the only people willing to spend the big bucks needed to perform the experiments necessary to work out the bugs are people who hope to reap huge returns on the proteins produced in the milk of farm animals. That is why I think the bugs will be worked out on farm animals first.

I agree that cloning endangered species would be neat. But unless a government, a large society dedicated to that proposition, or an individual with lots of money, decides to promote it, it is not going to happen.

But even if that was a given, there would still a problem. So you decide you want to clone endangered species and you have a lot of money and want to "blow" it. Who you going to hire to do the job for you. Scientists who have any experience in this technology are rather scarce, and most of those are already chasing the human protein-in-milk pot of gold. How are you going to get them to forget the years they have devoted to that objective and the millions they plan to make from it--in order to play around with cloning some endangered species at your bidding?

And if you expect help from the Duke of Seed, I think you can forget it. The Duke of Seed has not spent a single penny on cloning. All he has done is hold a couple of press conferences and talk big.

My question is why anyone would take the Duke of Seed seriously, in the first place? - Cliff Beall

Did anyone take Einstein for serious?

Never underestimate the power of an inquiring mind.

Cliff -

I guess we'll have to wait until the bugs get worked out one way or another. As for money - never underestimate the ability of a passionate scientist to get money. One thing I have learned is that there is TONS of money out there if you are clever enough to get people to give it to you. I worked in the lab of Eugenie Clark and saw her go from conceiving the idea of trying to film the giant squid Architeuthis (sp?) live to having the trip nearly take place. She is not a squid person but enlisted the help of Clyde Roper (an expert on Architeuthis). She then basically offered submersible slots to people willing to pay $8500 per dive. Most of these were wealthy non-scientists who were friends of hers. One couple signed up for 2 dives a piece. That's $34,000 total! People were also responsible for their own airfare to the study site etc. Note - she didn't have to pay for her own sub dives - the other people's fees went towards that. Unfortunately, one of the big corporate backers pulled out at the last minute (MAREX - a name we shall despise for a very long time), but everything was set to go. We had the actual sub launch schedules and everything. Don't worry - everyone got their money back. I don't think a skilled scientist will have trouble getting what they want - even if it is in an area that is NOT in their field.

Of course, keep in mind that Dr. Clark has a stellar international reputation. If Seed called me up, I'd laugh in his face and hang up on him.

Sung to the tune of Home on the Range

Oh give me a clone

A clone of my own

with the Y chromosome changed to an X

Then when we're alone

Me and my clone

Will think about nothing but sex

Clone, clone of my own

With the Y chromosome changed to an X

And when we're alone

Me and my clone

Will think about nothing but sex

by Issac Asimov (or some other male science writer)

Sung to the tune of Home on the Range... - melody chen

...Part II:

The reason posted on the application form as to why someone would like to purchase a clone of actress Sharon Stone.

Not until they knew who he was and had examined his scientific papers.

Or a press conference. However, in the reports about the second press conference, I looked for any evidence that Seed had made some progress in his objective in the six months or so since the first press conference. I saw no indication that he had done anything at all except to talk to some people who might want to use this method of reproduction (assuming he was capable of performing it). I saw no indication that he had enlisted the aid of scientists in the field who might be able to help him achieve his objective.

I rest my case.

Bernhard Schopper: Did anyone take Einstein for serious?

Not until they knew who he was and had examined his scientific papers. - Cliff Beall

Not so. It was observable, and confirmed evidence that ascertained the validity of Einstein's theories of relativity. He was a nobody prior to this confirmation.

I agree that in these days, press conferences are a popular means to proclaim scientific progress, whether fraudulent or not (e.g. the cold fusion experiment). However, I still maintain that a would-be Dr. Mengele has a chance to be the first to successfully clone a human being.

Unfortunately I agree. Some poor hapless "Teckie" type what ever his or her educational or social level, who is willing to face the extreme derision of his fellows in the event of a mishaps will be the one to do it.

I am reminded again of Barbara McClintock who was derided for the better part of 50 years for proving a simple deviation of conventional truth about the genetics of corn plants.

Since many scientists live from the public trough by the money forceably extracted from others, they are extremely sensitive to certain political considerations that could effect their funding.

Evil, egomaniacal, weirdo, or brave, visionary, pioneer? It's a push. Even if Seed succeeds he is going to catch hell for incurring public indignation. If he produces a serious error he will be lucky to escape with his life.

Not so, yourself, Bernhard :>) Einstein published three scientific papers in 1905 while working in the Swiss patent office in Bern. The first dealt with wave particle duality, the second with dynamics of moving bodies (Special Relativity) and the third with Brownian Motion. Within three years, after publication of those papers, be was a lecturer at the University of Bern, and in 1909, he became a professor at the University of Zurich. Einstein did not have to wait until after experimental conformation of his theories to be taken seriously. While it is true that he did not become world famous until 1919, he was taken very seriously by his peers long before that.

Probably somewhere in between. After earning three Harvard degrees, Dr. Richard Seed, as a young man, no doubt, expected to slay at least one major dragon during his career. But then, suddenly, one day, he wakes up and notices that he is now an old man, and still a virtual unknown. In short, it is suddenly clear to him that he did not become a Wheeler, a Sagan, a Feynman or a Hawkins. The time is short. How is he to make his mark at this late date? He reads about this new technology called nuclear transfer...

Where does the phrase "Duke of Seed" come from? Is this a joke? Fill me in, if you don't mind.

Melody, I don't know why, but for some reason, Seed reminds me of the Dukes of Hazzard TV show. I think of Seed and I think of the good old Dukes. Possibly something to do with verbose baloney. In any case, it seems to fit. If you don't like it, tell me and I will stop.

It appears that the cloning litigation will start soon. Wilmut and Campbell are challenging the claim by Robl and Stice that the Robl/Stice method of cloning is not covered by the Wilmut/Campbell patent.

It seems that Robl and Stice have a method based on "actively dividing cells" that according to Robl/Stice does not infringe the Dolly team patent. But Wilmut disputes the claim of "dividing cells" and says that the key to creating Dolly was the existence of quiescent cells. He and his team indicates that they believe that there is every reason to believe that quiescent cells were present in the cultures used by Robl/Stice.

The American researchers "consider it highly unlikely" but are performing tests to determine how common quiescent cells are in their cultures.

Cliff: Thanks for the link from which I quote.

"The first shots in the war to decide who "owns" the technology of cloning have been fired."

Sheesh! I thought the "clone wars" would be fought nice and fair with people just trying to kill each other.

Now that the lawyers are involved things could get really nasty. ;)

Cliff -

Don't mind at all. I kept thinking it had to do with that "Duke of Earl" song with the phrase "nothing can stop me..." nestled in there.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo WAY! Stop everything! Bringing a baby into the world as an experiment? Although I don't agree with it, if he wanted to mess around trying to clone himself without involving another life (who doesn't even have the chance to give consent) sure, send him to his mad-scientist lab and let him at it.... But messing aroung with another life? That's asinine!

Wendy,
I [think] I agree with you here, as I have already stated; There are way too many unknowns about the potentail for partial, undetected failure and genetic damage with the use of the nuclear transfer technique to justify the involvement of human subjects at this time.

One question though; How does one experiment with cloning without involving another life?

Wendy -

Since when did anyone have consent over their birth or conception? As for birth defects, I have a cousin who has a daughter with birth defects who doctors say won't live for much longer. She has already learned a few words and so can talk to her mom and dad. I can see the emotional toll on the parents. I wonder if the people tinkering with human cloning realize what they might be in for considering how much more they are investing in the child's conception.

Well, you can not experiment with human cloning without involving a human life. But you can experiment with animal cloning without involving a human life. And animal cloning is where the money is. You can bet that animal cloning will be done. Therefore, all you really have to do to make human cloning safer is let the animal cloners get the bugs worked out first.

The thing we must guard against the most is getting in a hurry with human cloning. What's the hurry? I think we ought to exercise some caution on behalf of the child. Perfect the procedure using animals first. Waiting is a prescription for success.

Bringing a baby into the world as an experiment? - Wendy J Recker

Bringing a baby into the world is always an experiment!

When you conceive, you have no knowledge as to what genetic make-up you, or your implantor has. Furthermore, you have no knowledge as to what arbitrary environmental factors will determine the outcome of your offspring.

Genetic manipulations, done under controlled conditions, can minimize the risk of producing an offspring with genetic abnormalities.

Perfect the procedure using animals first. - Cliff Beall

You cannot perfect a procedure, Mr. Beall!

The procedure to clone Fifi, the Pekinese, will differ from the procedure to clone Dolly, the sheep, or from the procedure to clone you.

As a footnote: Perfection is an absolute state - its existence is prohibited by the rules of quantum mechanics.

Cute, but under the same rules you can not measure something accurately enough to know weather it is perfect or not.

I think we all understand what "Perfect the procedure using animals first." means.

One measure of acceptability is to have a procedure that produces no more problems on average as a "natural" birth.

This does become complex when you are trying to do something that has never been observed to occur "naturally" however.

The whole subject is a massive judgement call and depend on what the values and costs are.

In terms of humanity I think having procedures and costs down to the point where everyone can have a child that is genetically closely related to them and relatively "normal" will do the job.

The concept of "barren" will be of historic interest only.

It will also effect the adoption of children no doubt.

It will also effect the adoption of children no doubt. - Carl Nicolai

I concur. A couple in my neighborhood adopted an infant from Romania. Turned out the poor little chap has a serious genetic disease. Now they're stuck with him.

Presumably once human cloning has been "perfected", one need not to worry about receiving an offspring with genetic abnormalities.

Here's a question. Should we design all human clones to be sterile?

That way, no one individual will be allowed to let his or her genes dominate in the human gene pool. Then again, what are the clones' rights to reproduce in a natural manner?

Cloning will most likely be outlawed for all(on paper)but in reality, the ban will only extend to the general masses. As always the ultra-rich will obtain a "free" ,or possibly very expensive, pass around the law. Outlawing all cloning will ensure that the practice will go underground and create a very expensive and very secret black market. most likely that is exactly what will happen. Cloning will be abused. Any clear and far sighted vision of the future would acknowledge that cloning will be abused by a fair number of the un-scruplulous ultra-rich. Why wouldn't an un-ethical billionaire use some of his fortune to quitely grow a perfect replacement for his own worn out body? No fear of rejection. Not a murder by the classical definition. The genie can't be put back in the bottle. Rest assured attrocitys such as these will take place. I also assure you that plans are already well underway somewhere. Cloning and clone harvesting will occur; I fear it cannot be stopped. A public policy that allows the open and legal development of fractional body clones, as in body parts(sans brain), is the only way I can see to avoid the terror of harvesting fully sentient and normal human beings.

It isn't a pretty picture but I believe that it is a fairly accurate prediction of the future.

If you know a good reason why it wouldn't happen that way please let me know how.

Thank You: Steve Ivy Electrical engineer [email protected]

Everyone here seems to be assuming that the transfer of consciousness can be achieved. If you know something I don't, please enlighten me. So far, I have never heard of it being done by any other method than reincarnation, and some people question that. That rich fellow is going to be awfully disappointed when he wakes up on the other side instead of in that beautiful new body only to find out that he could have saved himself all of that money, karma had another body planned for him all along.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Everyone here seems to be assuming that the transfer of consciousness can be achieved. - D. Molino

This is not so.

There is no "transfer of consciousness" from the parent to the clone. In another words, what information has been stored in the parent's brain will not be transferred to the clone (if it is this what you mean.)

Generally, consciousness is awareness of one's existence - an awareness which every living being has.

I am not convinced that this is necessarily the case. I think the success rates are likely be different for different species for technical reasons, but I think the basic procedure is likely to be the same regardless of species.

I think this may be too restrictive. Nature is not always perfect, but it is quite good most of the time, and I do not think cloning by nuclear transfer will ever approach the success rate of nature. But I think that when it has been demonstrated that cloning success rates are close to that enjoyed by in vitro fertilization, clinical human cloning trials should be permitted.

I'm hoping the process will have success reasonably close to that of nature.

No.

Question, Steven. If an identical twin murders his or her twin, is this murder by the "classical definition"? Of course it is. So is the murder by the "un-ethical billionaire" of his clone.

That is nothing new, Steven, even if it is true. People do commit atrocities. But you seem to take the position that if you can imagine something evil, it must not only be possible, there must be someone who will do the deed: "a Hitler under every rock." And furthermore, there is no redress. Get real. People, in general, are not as evil as you imagine, and, in general, the rule of law works, and will continue to work.

I think that is a silly position to take. Society does not have to agree to any such thing in order to maintain itself.

I do not assume any such thing.

I would certainly question reincarnation.

I agree. I think that Steven was postulating the transfer of the brain (or portion thereof) of the "unethical billionaire" into the new body of the clone such that his identity remains intact. That seems to me much more likely than D.'s reincarnation.

Still I doubt it. There is evidence that if a portion of the brain of entity 1 is surgically implanted in the brain of entity 2, then entity 2 will have the memories of entity 1, in addition to it's own. But I am not aware that there is any evidence that any portion of the identity of entity 1 has been transferred to entity 2 in a way that entity 1 would be aware.

Anyone who is interested might access the ShuffleBrain site for more information. To do so, click the address:

I think we have to be quite a bit better than "nature" or the "regulators" will drive us out of business.

This is not (like drug use) a totally rational argument.

Like the women said to her female understudy " we have to be twice as good as men at half the cost. Fortunately this is not difficult". ;)

Check out Hans Moravec's book "Mind Children" which discusses the problem of migrating human consciousness into inorganic hosts.

Were this perfected, I would personally prefer it over cloning.

It creates the same problem as cloning and genetic manipulation do for the moralists who assign rights to that which is genetically human (even if it is only a single cell) and deny them to that which is not.

We will eventually assign rights to sentience. A sentient animal or machine host containing the consciousness of a human must have the same rights as that human, including the right to inherit the human's property. A sentient animal or machine host which achieves consciousness by any other means will eventually have equivalent rights.

An organism which contains human genes but which is not yet sentient or no longer sentient will have no more rights than a non-functional machine. It may be freely used for parts and freely recycled (not discarded) when no longer useful. At that point, abortion, birth control, genetic manipulation and cloning will be non-issues. The loss of a moral wedge issue with which to garner political power will have a greater impact on society than the enabling technology.

One consciousness might be resident in one host this year a dozen hosts next year and on backup media the year after. Only the deletion of the last copy would constitute legal death.

We would not have to deal with the headline "MAN KILLS COPY IN BOTCHED SUICIDE ATTEMPT".

To everyone interested in this discussion, I strongly recommend Ben Bova's newest book "Immortality: How Science Is Extending Your Lifespan, and Changing the World". While not about cloning per se (although it does touch on that subject), the book deals with the matters of extending human and with enormous political, social, economic, and moral changes that greatly enhanced life spans or even human immortality could create. Dr. Bova offers a nice, clear overview of how genetics has come to the brink of science fiction, made accessible to readers unfamiliar with the terminology through the use of explanatory sidebars and basic definitions. Dr. Bova's thesis is supported not only by the fact that people are living longer and healthier than ever, but also by an extraordinary 50-year time line, in which he shows how fast and furious technological developments have come - including things that were deemed impossible mere months before they happened (sheep Dolly included).

The book also shows what a powerful opposition any major intervention in human genetics is likely to provoke, and how such research may well end up being banned worldwide (and consequently driven underground, to be secretly available to the elite and the powerful).

There is evidence that if a portion of the brain of entity 1 is surgically implanted in the brain of entity 2, then entity 2 will have the memories of entity 1, in addition to it's own. - Cliff Beall

Perhaps so, but the process does not involve cloning.

I have never heard of a successful brain transplant - be it in full or in partial.

Please cite sources that verify your statement.

Actually, from what I have learned tonight, it appears that nature does not do quite as well as I had previously thought. My search tonight indicates that according to the FDA and the March of Dimes, approximately 3 to 5 percent of the 4 million infants born annually in the United States, are born with birth defects. Click address below:

It was my prior recollection that, according to a newscast on TV, a study had found that women over 35 have a 60% increased chance of having children with birth defects than women under 35. Specifically, as I recall, the actual incidence of birth defects were quoted to be 5 in 1000 for women under 35 and 8 in 1000 for women over 35. I have previously used this example to show how statistics can mislead (a 60% "increased risk" that is essentially meaningless). However, those numbers gave me to understand than 1% of children born by the natural method have birth defects and had imagined this to be a success rate that would be quite difficult for any artificial method of reproduction to match.

However, if the actual rate of success for natural childbirth is 95% instead of 99%, as I now understand the rate of success to be, I must admit that you may be correct, and cloning success may have to match natural childbirth success to have acceptance.

I was relying on the ShuffleBrain site, and the work by Dr Pietsch, for which I provided a link. Dr Pietsch did not do his work on humans, of course, but I consider the evidence that Dr. Pietsch provides to be excellent.

However, if the actual rate of success for natural childbirth is 95% instead of 99%, as I now understand the rate of success to be, I must admit that you may be correct, and cloning success may have to match natural childbirth success to have acceptance. - Cliff Beall

It will.

Simply because of the fact that donor genetic material can be screened before the cloning process is being initiated.

There could be "accidents" during the transfer process of genetic material (e.g. the lab technician sneezes on it), but I believe these "accidents" should be minimal.

Wow! This discussion is really getting heavy. I read the site Mr. Beall and I, too, see it as transplanting with no proof that it would work on a body where no experiential programming resides. Especially, anything as complex as the human brain and nervous system.

Then again there is the old idea of racial memory residing in the genes. Hmmm....mm.

At any rate the idea of consciousness being other than the brain and memory is also a consideration. Supposing that in the case of the tadpole the consciousness stayed in the brain area but in the human it would not. Great site though!

One other thing, the site gave me the impression that he would think little more of experimenting on us than the salamanders. The concentration was so heavy on trying out his theory that he never once considered if the salamander suffered, if it had only the tadpoles memory, at a loss inside a body that would then be unresponsive to simple commands like unroll the tongue to catch flies practice. That may account for it's unusual liveliness and seeming curiosity over the others.

Also, some people who have had transplants have said they experienced some residual memory from the person the organ was harvested from.

Whatever, I still have not changed my mind about the no. Mr. Seed should not clone himself through his wife, and not do it at all, yet.

Hey Cliff -

Is Dr. Pietsch the guy who did head transplants with monkeys? Do you have a link we could check out? Also - do you think head transplants could be used so that people could swap heads with their clones? This raises all sorts of questions if the donor body is in a higher state of deterioration than the clone's.

The upcoming issue of Invertebrate Biology 118(4) is going to have an article about head-foot grafts of gastropods. I believe one of the authors is a guy named Sullivan. Pretty neat stuff if you don't mind people lopping the heads off small snails and sticking them onto the heads of bigger snails.

Bernhard, I think there may be "accidents" of a type and nature with respect to nuclear transfer of which you and I may not be specifically cognizant that may have a significant effect on the wellbeing of the clone offspring. For example, the "screening" process, itself, may have specific dangers. Also, understand that nuclear transfer is "surgery." Can you tell me when "brain surgery" will ever be considered "safe"?

Ms Molino, I agree that the SuffleBrain site is a very thought provoking site. It is interesting that you suggest that Dr. Pietsch "gave me the impression that he would think little more of experimenting on us than the salamanders." It is abundantly clear to me that Dr. Pietsch has the detachment of a true scientist. (Note that there is a significant difference between a scientist by education, and a true scientist.) This is what gives me complete assurance of Dr. Pietsch's integrity and his reliability. I think it is clear that one can be sure that if the results were different, the good doctor would accept those different results just as easily and wonder about those different results in the same way he wonders about the results he did obtain.

Melody, I do not believe I was aware of "head transplants with monkeys." This does not mean it hasn't happened, just that I was unaware of it. Actually, I think that this may very well be the first time I have ever heard anyone mention a complete "head transplant," although "brain transplants" have often been mentioned on this board as a possibility.

I think it is clear that brain transplants will work as a means of transferring memory. Also, since it appears that the brain has the characteristics of a hologram, it would appear that if the surgeon doing the transplant operation misses a few small pieces of brain tissue--or the rest of the nervous system, for that matter--it will be relatively inconsequential with respect to the receiving memory, since the strength of a memory is, itself, relative.

Obviously, the major question is: does the transfer of consciousness occur in a way that is meaningful to the original entity. In other words, is it possible for an "evil billionaire to extend his life indefinitely by cloning himself and transferring his consciousness to the clone"?

You can decide the issue for yourself however you wish to decide it. I am of the opinion that it will not be possible although I admit that we can never know for certain since it is not possible to experimentally determine it (or, at least, it does not appear that this is possible to me). The following is my reasoning:

I start with a question: when the brain is transferred, can one be sure that the receiving entity is the same as the giving entity? Let us examine this specifically. Suppose I remove 10% of Sally's brain and add it to Susan's brain. Susan will then have a portion of Sally's brain and her memories. (Actually, according to Dr. Pietsch, Susan will have all of Sally's memories, but with only 10% the strength due to the hologramic nature of the brain.)

Is Sally, the original entity, aware of any of this?

Suppose, I remove 90% of Sally's brain and also 90% of Susan's brain. Suppose I then implant the 90% of Sally's brain, previously removed, into Susan's head. Susan will now have 90% of Sally's brain and all of Sally's memories at 90% the strength and 10% of her own brain and all of her own memories at 10% the original strength. The question is: who is this person? I think she is Susan with Sally's memories. In addition, I strongly suspect that this person would identify herself as Susan. But even if she chose to identify herself as Sally, it would seem to me to be inconsequential to the original Sally.

Again, I ask the question: is the original Sally aware of any of this? I do not see how she can be. Therefore, it would appear to me that if Sally were to be this evil billionaire that wished to extend her life, I think she would miss out.

Change the percentage any way you like. Increase it to 99%. My questions are: will changing the percentage make a difference, and, if so, at what point does it make a difference? I think it should be clear that the identity does not transfer in a way meaningful to the original entity. You can come to any conclusion you like. If you come to a conclusion different than mine, I would be interested in your logic.

Incidentally, it appears to me that I have conceived of a very efficient and possibly conclusive lie detector for a future generation. Since "the engram, or memory trace, is distributed and repeated throughout the brain," a small sample of the brain must contain all the memories of an individual, including those of any crime. A "biological processor" of such memories taken from a suspect might be of immense help in determining guilt or innocence in a murder case, for example.

I mention this for two reasons. First, a number of people have indicated on this board, at one time or another, that this cloning technology will make it easier for criminals to commit atrocities. I would like to point out that similar technology will increase the capability of crime detection also.

But the main reason I mention this is that, like Dr. Seed, I am getting up in years. Unlike Dr. Seed, I do not hold any degrees from Harvard, but like Dr. Seed, I have not yet left a mark on society. I suppose I could point to my existing patents as evidence of some possible continuing impact on society, but those inventions are in a very specialized field, and thus the effect on the population, in general, is limited.

But this is different. Facetiously speaking, this is an invention that will touch almost everyone in one way or another in the future. Facetiously, I desire to be remembered as the first man to propose a "biological memory processor" as a means of superior crime detection. (I mean, if we had had the "biological memory processor" during the OJ trial, we would now know for sure if OJ did it. I am personally of the opinion that Barry Sheck's analysis was probably correct and that OJ did not do it, but that is beside the point. We would know for sure. Also, if we had had my new invention last January, we all might have been spared the wagging of the Presidential finger. This is facetious!)

Cliff: I have to wonder what sort of a "reader" of these memories would be used to catch our criminal. We already have the psychological stress evaluator as a remarkably accurate lie detector that can now be used court (it uses the inaudible frequencies).

Also, the brain transplant or cloning will at some point run into the problem of dominant and recessive genes, which goes to Sally's problem with Susan. Perhaps dominant is more important as to which brain would take over.

I am personally of the belief that consciousness resides inside the person and is not just the brain. We carry memories over from other life times and this just isn't possible if the brain is all there is. There is an instance, for example, of a child going to her past life's buried treasure. Others have described past lives that fit perfectly, without having been there, past lives in different places than where they lived.

oops! That should read: can be used in court.

Another area of interest in genetic experimenting is what the difference is between being detached and being objective. Which is preferrable?

detached: aloof, impartial (an attitude).

objective: treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices. Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

It is easy to see what we set out to see and ignore the fact of how an abused animal in a labratory setting sees or feels things. To not even be willing to consider that it is just barely possible that this is abuse is to show prejudice.

Nowadays, we have computer models and artificial intelligence is developed to the point where we now have a little $30 toy that speaks "Furby" and learns English. It also learns to navigate it'e environment, something that surely required knowledge of how we learn such things. How we remember has been studied by the National Institute of Health in clinical trials so why do we need to deplete the salamander population and subject them to this atrocity of head and eye transplantation.(shades of Auschweitz!) Can you imagine, having had one body and brain, waking up in another body with another brain? The confusion and fear that must ensue. Unless, you assume amnesia, which is also tramatic. What it might have felt like to have that other brains tendrils invading, perhaps painfully, your medulla? I am on the side of ecologists and environmentalists.

I still say no to cloning humans until more is learned. We are fooling around because of inordinate curiosity, where we don't belong. We are also showing an alarming disregard for those we are experimenting on. I noticed that no one answered whether or not a females body could take over 200 miscarriages, for instance.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Oops, that should read traumatic.

We once said we would make sure we never forgot Hitler and what he did to the Jews, so that it could never happen again. Yet, it seems when it comes to the animals, we do just exactly that, we forget. History has a way of repeating itself.

To my way of believing the animals are baby souls and it is our responsibility to be their caretakers. Good caretakers, practicing harmlessness. That means doing no harm at all in any way. We are supposed to be helping them to grow up, not using and abusing them. IMHO.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

I don't want to give someone the idea that I prefer animals to human beings. I would come to the defense of humans being treated like that even faster. I learned the trick of putting myself in the other guys shoes from my mother in childhood. Later I expanded it to include being the other guy in his shoes with all of the other guys personality, experience and human foibles. There is always more than one side to a story and even more often the truth is somewhere in between.

I can remember wondering about the ants in my grandmothers driveway one year and I found myself trying to imagine what it would be like to be one of them looking up at big me. I could not imagine anything that much bigger and decided that the ants had to have great courage to have me anywhere near and still continue gathering the grass leaves and sticks and carry them home, as they did.

I have never had any reason to be sorry that I could do this. I have found it useful in understanding some human interactions in a reasonable way. Sometimes I could really see their point of view. Sometimes I had to change mine because of it, but I did not regret that because I knew I had stretched and grown.

I do not believe in destroying any laboratories or such, I just believe that it is time for science to grow and change. To take to the ways of less inhumane methodology.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.