I think I mentioned that I was speaking facetiously. I hope it was understood that I was not actually serious. To be frank, however, I must admit that I envisioned a biological entity (a person) into which a brain sample would be implanted. I do not see a method of avoiding this and still make the system work. As envisioned, it would, of course, be highly unethical, and something I would oppose, but, at the same time, it seemed to me to be a rather interesting idea to not mention at all.

I see no reason to believe that either brain would "take over." Regardless of percentage replacement, it seems to me that the receiving entity will simply have a brain containing a mixture of memories.

I do not believe in reincarnation.

Yes, I also have heard such things. I tend to be skeptical of such.

I think one must be detached in order to be objective.

I don't know what to say, Ms. Molino. I must admit that I favor animal experimentation over human experimentation. I do not think your $30 toy nor the studies by NIH answer the question in a persuasive manner. Dr. Pietsch's experiments do.

I think human cloning should not be allowed until the nuclear transfer process is perfected using experiments with animals.

Presumably, when the process is perfected, "over 200 miscarriages" will not be necessary.

As I stated before, I prefer experimentation with animals to experimentation with humans. Short term experimentation with either animals or humans is often needed to avoid long term suffering in humans. Sorry, but in those cases, I support animal experimentation.

While in theory what you say is correct about information stored in the brain there is a very complex problem.

While spatially "smeared" information, such as in a hologram is recoverable from very small samples the coding process has to be considered.

In a simple hologram the coding function is just a sine wave. It is easy, and more efficient, to use a pseudo random wave form but then you have to know the generator function or running "key" in crypto terms.

It appears that these "keys" are not only extremely complex for information stored in this manner in humans but they are different for each one and at different times and depending on the type of stimulus response required.

For instance complex memories that are associated with the sense of smell can be stimulated by the discharge of a single nerve cell, where as we don't have a clue about others.

Artificial memories that use a much simpler form of storage of this type become infeasable to decode after "learning" even a small amount of information.

The genetic code of a cell pales in comparison to the complexity of human brain which has a "raw" bit capacity of perhaps 100 to the 60 billion power.

---- Cont.----

----Cont.----

Given an entropy reduction or data storage rate of aprox. 10,000 bits/sec the human mind not only has a lot of "never to be used" memories but an extreme excess capacity.

This capacity is filled with randomness random until used and increases as a person grows.

Perhaps only a computer composed of a similar parallel system could decode the information. Then there is the integration problem. If you talk to the block of cells you will change them.

I recommend "Physical Control of the Mind" by Jose M. Delgado as a somewhat dated, but carefully documented starting point.

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. - D. Molino

Is a fox concerned with the "baby soul" of the chicken he is going after in the scoop? If a fox has the choice between a good-tasting chicken and some other prey, the fox will pick the chicken.

Animals can be as viscious as man is. This has been observed among various species.

Bernhard, I don't think you intended it that way, but your post seems to imply that you think animals deserve to be mistreated.

It is true that a number of animals, both domestic and wild, can be dangerous when cornered, when hungry or when their territory is invaded. It does not mean that they deserve to be mistreated.

I support animal experimentation not because I think animals deserve mistreatment, but because animal experimentation can have a positive effect of the health of humans. My perference is no mistreatment of animals of any kind at all, but where an experiment requires it, I can accept some disagreeable aspects of animal experimentation. The health and wellbeing of humans is more important to me than that of other animals.

Did I neglect to mention that these baby souls are still learning? I agree that some of them, when scared, can seem vicious. I have heard some really horrible tells of bobcats stalking humans, yet I have personally met one named "Merlin" who was raised by humans from the time before his eyes opened and he lived with me for two years, he slept in my bedroom and I have not one scar on me caused by "Merlin." I have raised and trained wild mustangs, including one stallion, and I was never bitten or trampled or even thrown when gentling a horse. I have hand fed a young bear and I still have both hands.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if that particular animal were scared so witless as to bite, that doesn't give us the right to perform experiments that we know enough by now to be able to do on computers, simulated, virtual reality style.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

I, too, want to see human suffering alleviated and even see those who are paraplegic be able to walk but stimulation of the growth of cells seems a lot more viable to me. The operant worker in the body is our body electricity. It is this which stimulates the heart to beat and the cells to grow and even be replaced. Electrical stimulation is doing wonders in therapy nowadays.

Cloning is only a temporary answer to the infertility problem. We could stimulate the infertile parts to mend. We need to spend some time finding out why it is occurring. Is it perhaps the natural response to over-population, part of survival of the fitest? Or even the result of pollution and additives? The governments hiding it's head in the sand and refusing to "risk" panic is not a help, either. When we see this in such things as the recent reaction to the stock market crash for two weeks, it is no wonder that we extrapolate and become concerned about our environment. The global warming will send a lot of people over to the environmentalist's side. I may meet you there yet, my friends:-D. oh, darn, I just can't seem to help it. How much of an incursion on the salamander population will all of those other experimenters checking his results plus the 700 the good doctor admits to sacrificing make. And isn't it possible that those worms keep the plants in good shape only so long as the salamanders keep only the fitest surviving, and what eats the plants and would they possibly fill in the water, as in the forest meadows. Another lake, river or stream then lost and less water on the surface. We do still want to eat and what we eat drinks water or it won't live either.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Oh, on the mustangs and bobcat. I have always contended that it is love that moves the old mountain and hearts, too. I must, of course, work in my own way, I move slowly and quietly and take time enough so that they get to know that I won't hurt them. The mustang stallion, as a youngster when he first got home tried to climb out of the corral he was so frightened, but he certainly wasn't mean and I wasn't so he didn't try to bite or kick or trample. When I saw that I backed up and started talking gently, using tone of voice to soothe. He calmed right down.

I met his true owner and told him I could get Merlin over a couple of his games and he poo-pooed that, so I challenged him to let me try. Merlin loved to stretch out in a doorway and believe me he filled that doorway at about 36" long. He would dare anyone to step over him, and growl about it if you did. We had a place with stairs at the door and he would sit stretched out across them, I just started petting him and calling him beautiful until he started moving into the petting and then I would walk right on past him. He soon realized that this old trick wasn't working and stopped doing it. He also learned that he didn't need to scratch to defend himself any longer, so he gave that up, and believe me his claws were a lot sharper and longer than a house cats AND HE HAD SCRATCHED CLEAR DOWN TO THE BONE.

I grew up camping outdoors and going places where I could feed squirrels and chipmunks then pet deer, so I did have some background on wild animals.

We don't need to treat them any other way but to love them. They are dependent on us, God gave us dominion over them and they look to us for that. My idea of dominion is not to use them at all. I don't think that the suffering will ever fully stop and to think that cloning will somehow stop it is to believe that there is no cause and effect in this world. We have found that nature abhors a vacuum and this is so even in the microcosm of the bacterium and virus,

the medicine resistant varieties have filled the hole left by those we have destroyed by vaccines and medicines. Karma. Everything has a result. What is the possible result of this? Overpopulation? What will be, will be.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Yes, darn it, you did forget. And speaking for myself, I must say that I was very disappointed in that omission :-)

I would be more inclined to discuss Pit Bull dogs and their propensity to attack and maul children, but have it your way.

Perhaps in the future. But right now, a significant number of ailments are caused by the lack of a particular protein. It appears to me that one of the most cost effective means of obtaining replacement proteins is in the milk of cloned farm animals.

It doesn't appear to me that electrical stimulation is likely to replace a missing protein.

And if it is found that the problem is a missing protein, I would say that "stimulation" is not likely to work.

Well, maybe the heart.

Prove that. First prove God gave humankind dominion over the other animals, and then prove that they look to us for that. In my opinion, we are one animal of many and have no "dominion" whatever.

Of course it will not fully stop, but it can help. And what does that have to do with cause and effect?

What in the heck to you mean by that?

Oh, you mean evolution.

No, evolution is the result.

Bernhard, I don't think you intended it that way, but your post seems to imply that you think animals deserve to be mistreated. - Cliff Beall

I don't see how you can make this assumption. Where did I mention mistreatment or experimentation on animals?

What I was referring to is that among various species (baboons, e.g.), violent, anti-social behavior exists, such as is in the case with man.

"... Prove that. First prove God gave humankind dominion over the other animals, and then prove that they look to us for that. In my opinion, we are one animal of many and have no "dominion" whatever. ..."

In the context wherein you used this, I can not help but agree. I would, however, like to dispute that actual position of dominion. By our breeding and technological success, we most certainly have established dominion of most multi-celular forms. Insects and single-cell organisms, to a degree, still alude our dominion.

In a similarly disclaimed (as per context) note:

"... No, evolution is the result. ..."

Shouldn't that be; "New species are the result of the process of evolution."

OK, now that I am finished nit-picking... :-)

It is very much in our own interest to manage our environment effectively. It is also in our best interest to act as ethicaly as possible at all times. While defering to human interest; We should not ignore the interests of other species.

I know this is rather tangetical, at best, to cloning; I do think that ethics and informed (as opposed to narcicistic flights of personal fame) self interest are cructial elements of any genetic/reproductive research.

It seemed to me that you were referring to this anti-social behavior in response to Ms. Molino's suggestion that animals should not be mistreated--as if to justify mistreatment. Furthermore, you referred specifically to foxes and chickens.

Well, I don't know about you, but I am an old farm boy, and the idea of a fox in the chicken house has me reaching for a gun to kill that rascal. It is my feeling, warranted or not, that a fox in the chicken house deserves to be shot. That, together with your observation that animals can be as vicious as humans led me to the conclusion I expressed. If I misunderstood your intent, however, I apologize.

I do not think Ms. Molino was describing "new species," although she may have thought she was. Specifically, she said "medicine resistant varieties have filled the hole left by those we have destroyed by vaccines and medicines.

I would point out that, in general, new species do not suddenly appear out of thin air to fill voids such as the ones to which she referred. Instead, usually it is certain members of the pre-existing species that already have a resistance to the vaccine or medicine. These members of the original species quickly multiplies and fills the void(s). It has nothing to do with new species (nor does it have anything to do with karma). It is simple evolution.

If the species just multiplies to fill a hole then it is evolution but if a species that has mutated (if accustomization to a poison can be considered a mutation) simply takes over the best territory ceded by the death of a stronger ex-resident then it "fills the vacuum."

I was referring to the animal kingdom where the strongest or smartest gets the best territory, all other considerations aside.

As for that protein, proteins can be synthesized and they can be ingested. First, though, I think I will play it safe and ask which protein?

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

There are plant proteins which cloning could not possibly fill in a human and there are animal proteins. Milk is a source of ingesting a animal protein as is meat and, of course, vegetables, especially beans, supply plant proteins.

Perhaps there are proteins I am not aware of but those are the ones I am aware of. Dear old Dad took nutrition at Texas A&M and I was a vegetarian for a while.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

I would point out that, in general, new species do not suddenly appear out of thin air... - Cliff Beall

Er, well they do indeed as a result of genetic engineering. For example, a new species of bacteria has been developed that solely thrives on mineral oils.

If the species just multiplies to fill a hole then it is evolution but if a species that has mutated (if accustomization to a poison can be considered a mutation) simply takes over the best territory ceded by the death of a stronger ex-resident then it "fills the vacuum."

It is same thing. In a stable ecology, by definition there is no "holes". Holes (technical term is "empty ecological niches") appear only if either an resident species has been destroyed or if conditions have changed - which usually leads to death of many residents.

Either way, you just gave a pretty good definition of evolution.

To Clarify: If the bacterial colony in a petri dish in agar or some other growth medium multiplies to fill a vacuum it IS evolution but not evolution to fill the hole, not for that sake.

If a wolf pack in the forest is the strongest and it is trapped and sent to a zoo, for instance, and a neighboring wolf pack takes it's place, that is also filling a vacuum, but NOT by or for evolution.

When a bacterial colony dies it may be replaced by a medicine resistant variety. The resistance to medicine is often the result of having developed a tolerance for it then Pavlov's theory takes over and we get survival of the fitest. Take, for instance, tuberculosis, it has been making a comeback via medicine resistant varieties. Also, a resistance to (medicine to us) toxins may occur when small doses are ingested, take the cockroach and it's resistance to insecticides, one cockraoch eats a part of a dying cockroach and gets a non-lethal dose then it's immune system develops a resistance to that toxin. This is passed on to it's young and we are then in the trouble of having to find another way to kill cockroaches. This because mankind has fooled with mother nature.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

My last post was a bit long and convoluted but I plead insanity. I was thrown by the idea of there being a "stable ecology???" There is surely no such entity or state. Especially after mankind gets done with it, if there can ever be such a thing out of mankind as being done with it. I should have ended the part just before the cockroach with a period. Mes culpa, mea culpa...etc.,etc.,etc..

The idea of cloning is only a small part of the problem posed, if you look at my first post you will see that I was concerned for the child and the mother of a cloned child.

Maybe it will help if I explain that I was talking about this very topic when one of the ladies popped up with this, her doctor told her, after she had gone through miscarriages and one live birth by cesarean section, that miscarriages scar the uterus and that a woman can only have so many before pregnancy can no longer be achieved. This being the case the liklihood is that Mr. Seed has not researched his subject very well. He needs to call a doctor and find out about this.

I still am against the cloning at this time of human beings. What is the rush?

As for medicine resistance being already in a species member. I wonder if you knew that the medicine resistance is like unto the resistance to pesticides. I love mysteries and have read of someone who thought she would be poisoned taking small doses to build up an immunity. I think that, say a cockroach (a good example because it is canabalistic) eats a small part of another cockroach it gets a non-lethal dose of the insecticide that killed the first roach, then it builds up a resistance. Now I will grant you that a murder mystery may not be a very good place to get a theory but I lack any first hand experience on poisons, thank God. I am open to any more knowledgeable theorys.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

I am sorry Donna, I assumed that you would know that I was referring to human proteins. That has been the objective of researchers like Wilmut and Stice from the beginning. As you may be aware, some people have genetic defects. For example, hemophiliacs are missing a gene. When this gene is missing, a blood clotting factor (protein) is not produced. There are a number of other genes that result in the production of proteins essential to health. When a person's body fails to produce one or more of these proteins, it is desirable to have an outside source.

By inserting one of these genes into the genome of a farm animal, it is possible to cause a human protein to be produced in the milk of a farm animal. As Dawn Willis Ph.D. explained on this board almost a year ago, the way this is done is that "DNA for the coding region of the gene (for say, clotting Factor) is attached to a control region that responds to the hormones that cause milk production--this keeps said gene from being expressed in other tissues. Also, to be secreted in milk, specific DNA coding for secretion signals are attached to the gene for the factor."

Normally, messenger RNA, essentially a copy of the underlying DNA coding, provides the blueprint for protein construction. But if an important gene is missing, the associated protein is not produced, and the person with the defective gene is not healthy.

If that person is provided the needed protein from an outside source, however, that person can be made healthy. The problem may be the availability of the needed protein, in sufficient quantity to solve the problem. In a number of cases, cloning has the potential of providing the needed proteins in sufficient quantity to do the job. In short, animal cloning for medical purposes has a huge potential for reduction of human m

In short, animal cloning for medical purposes has a huge potential for reduction of human misery. It also has a huge potential for monetary reward. That is the reason for the intense interest by the investigators. Among the investigators, human cloning holds little interest--no money there.

I wonder if you knew that the medicine resistance is like unto the resistance to pesticides. I love mysteries and have read of someone who thought she would be poisoned taking small doses to build up an immunity. - D. Molino

There was a case in Germany in the mid 60s when some guy got addicted to gasoline. He started sniffing it, then tasting it and finally sipping it. It became a habit. What killed him eventually was the lead in the gasoline and not the gasoline, per se, so the report said. Of course, it helped that he didn't smoke.

Now, essentially this case is similar to the consumption of alcohol or nicotine, which are poisons too, but not as lethal as gasoline in small quantities. When one starts out consuming small quantities and gradually inceases them, the body more or less will adapt to these poisons.

Are you guys serious? Look, I am no expert on this matter, but it is my understanding that this depends largely on the toxin. Some toxins are cumulative, meaning the body is unable to discard the toxin over time. Thus the more of the toxin is ingested, the more dangerous it becomes to the body regardless of the rate in which it was ingested.

Right, if there is no substancial change in the genetic structure of the two populations, there is no substancial evolution.

The important distinction is between individuals and populations. Individuals do not evolve; populations evolve. If a population develops a resistence that it previously did not have, this is evolution.

Yes, the current issue of Discover has an informative article on this.

That is not the way it happens, Donna. Individual cockroaches do not "develop" a resistence to insecticides. It is not individual cockroaches that gain the resistence, during their own lifetimes, it is the population, as a whole, that gains the resistence. Some cockroaches are naturally more resistent to an insecticide than other cockroaches. The few that survive are the ones that had a natural resistence to the poison in the first place. But, after a few generations, in the presence of the poison, the entire population will have the resistence since only the ones having the resistence will survive.

"It helps that he didn't smoke" ROTFLOL!!

Individuals can build a tolerance to some low level toxins, but this, of course, is not the effect observed where populations of organisms are no longer effected by the toxins we use to control them.

Pesticides are very toxic and kill within minutes. I the stuff you used last year doesn't kill this years bugs then these are either different bugs altogether, ecological opportunists filling the niche left by the one you killed, or an evolutionary change in the original bug population.

Keith, FYI, I have to confess that it is a made up name. Some time ago, I suggested to Donna that if she was going to be a regular, she should tell us her first name. Specifically, on October 7, 1998, I said: "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."

Failing to obtain the information I requested, I decided to make up an appropriate name, and, a couple of days ago, I settled on the name, Donna. Actually, I think the chances are better than zero that this is the correct name for our very interesting and thought provoking correspondent. In any case, this is the name I plan to use until I am told to use another one. You can do as you wish.

Some toxins are cumulative, meaning the body is unable to discard the toxin over time. Thus the more of the toxin is ingested, the more dangerous it becomes to the body regardless of the rate in which it was ingested. - Cliff Beall

Correct. It was a common murder practice in the Victorian era to administer small quantities of arsenic over a long period of time. In that way, the intended victim would eventually die without exhibiting the symptoms of acute arsenic poisoning.

Good Evening! Just for the record I am not the D on that earlier board. The reason we got D. is that I could not remember the password when I first signed in and when I re-signed in the darn machine kept telling me my name was already used. My first name is Diana. I live in a city with 13 million people, or so. I know I will get comments on my first name, I often do, like "Oh, like princess Di". Which I am not anything like.

I am left wondering exactly how you are proposing that the resistance got into this population, Mr. Beall? And are you positive that it is not that an individual developed it first?

A good book on thinking and questioning what constitutes life is "The Andromeda Strain" by Michael Crichton. The Bibliography is also especially interesting, if you can read things like "The Stoichiometrics of arterial gases..." Mind you I said the book not the movie version.

Anyway the topic has been left behind. We can grow , and I, for one, hope we do, or we can stagnate. If we never explored issues we would still be in the caves chasing down our dinner. But certainly care in our growth will do wonders for the survival of humankind. I am still stuck on no:-), not yet.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

On the resistance: It sounded a little to me like you were thinking in terms of a stronger immune system. This still starts with one individual then is spread throughout a population by virtue of survival to mate and reproduce more.

We are, of course, not referring to something like the andromeda strain.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Thank you, Diana. That is a pretty name. I will mention that the reason I chose the name Donna was that it is a name I am particularly fond of since I have a niece by that name of which I am particularly fond, but Diana is a very pretty name also.

First, we have been discussing insects and insecticides and bacteria and antibiotics. With respect to insects, I am suggesting that there were individuals that, by chance, probably already had a resistance to the insecticide. Since the lifetime of an insect is relatively short, it seems unlikely to me that an individual insect would "develop" a resistance to an insecticide due to exposure to the insecticide, and then pass that resistance on to future generations.

With respect to bacteria and it's resistance to antibiotics, the article in Discover suggests that while mutation is possible, the main reason for the rapid spread of antibiotic resistent varieties of bacteria is the ability of bacteria to share resistent genes. (This assumes, of course, that there is a resistant gene to share in the first place.)

With respect to human cloning, so am I. With respect to animal cloning for pharmaceutical purposes, I say the sooner the better. However, note. With increased use of animal cloning, the techniques that will make human cloning viable will be developed. In truth, at the present time, human cloning is almost a side issue, but it is a side issue that could become a main issue.

I agree with the "no" judgement. The time isn't right, and there is scant productive use of the technology in the human arena anyway.

The capacity of bacteria to exchange genetic information is similar in concept to the capacity of many plants to share expressed behaivior in times of stress.

Here is a thought:
If we could geneticaly modify a food plant such that the plants could use their behavior mechanisms to share imunities to contaigion we could utilize cloning to build up crops that would have a remarkable resistance to blights.

Keith,

How would this be done? I know of plasmids in algae (Lynda Goff's work on Gracilariopsis) which would allow for genes to be inserted, but I haven't heard of plasmids being found for plants.

Cliff: You are right. Thank You, sir, for calling my name pretty. There is a story behind it. My mother and father both have middle names they hate so a lot of thinking went into mine. My mother was into Greek mythology and chose the godess of the moon. Actually, Diana was also the godess of the hunt, too. So, now, Keith you know you are right about something, too. Or, at least, close enough for me.

Back to the subject: I hope we do get to the point fairly quickly where cloning is viable and I will even bet that some of the science fiction writers will be proved right. But then some of them are scientists, for example, Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov.

I just can't resist: Here I go again, Is chance a scientific fact? It sounds a little like nobody is really sure on how these insects became resistant. If that is true, then my theory has as much validity as any other.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Is chance a scientific fact? - D. Molino

It is.

Eons ago, chance produced man, the dinosaurs, and just about every variation of life known on earth.

It only takes a small deviation from what is to become what will be. And this deviation is very much subject to chance.

I am new to this "community" but after reading some of the past massages in this topic area, I found this statement a little funny.

Mike McFall: "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 wrote the ten commandments all stating things that thou shall not do. Killing is something god does not want us to do and yet it is possible. So if the basis of your statement is that, then you should rethink your position.

Killing is something god does not want us to do and yet it is possible. - Luis Rodriguez

Is possible because perhaps there is no god.

First, Diana, before arguing further, let me try to make sure I understand your hypothesis as well as I possibly can by attempting to put it in my own words and then asking for further clarification. As I understand it, your hypothesis is that the resistance by an insect to an insecticide is a direct result of subjecting the insect to the insecticide (not due to a preexistent resistance in some individuals in the population, due, perhaps, to a recessive gene).

Firstly, You assume that some insects in a population may receive a smaller dose than other insects in the population. Secondly, you assume that those insects, having managed to survive the smaller dosage of the application of the insecticide also manage to pass this developed resistance to the next generation.

Is this close?

I think a number of statements on this board border on the strange and some might be considered a little bit funny. The point that I would make is that one of the problems with gaining an understanding of what this technology means is that it is unevenly advanced and continues to advance unevenly. In some respects it is straight out of the most far out science fiction novel imaginable. In other respects, it is surprisingly limited. We can speculate on how future advancements of the technology will manifest itself, but if we do, we should be prepared to be surprised by the way it actually unfolds.

I do not accept that God wrote the ten commandments, or even that God exists, as I am an agnostic. I know quite a lot about religion, however, and have a great deal of respect for religion. And if it is any consolation, I will agree that some of the greatest philosophers who ever lived made major contributions to the Bible. In this particular case, I gladly accept that the man who originally wrote the ten commandments was a great philosopher as well as a great ethical teacher.

As I understand it, your hypothesis is that the resistance by an insect to an insecticide is a direct result of subjecting the insect to the insecticide... - Cliff Beall

Of course. It's called "adaption" - one mechanism of evolution.

melody,
Frankly... I don't know. I was only extrapolating the knowledge that genetic exchange is possible and that some trees are known to engage in low-level "communication" about environmental stresses.

Chance (Aren't those the orange cards in Monopoly?)

This term is not defined with the precision required to really answer the question. Randomness does not exist (except possibly sub-quanta) but emergent systems are not fully predictable, thus producing a functional illusion of "chance."

Cliff Beall-"I do not accept that God wrote the ten commandments, or even that God exists, as I am an agnostic."

I respect that, but that was not the issue and that was not my point. I was only responding to Mister McFall's message. Not to sound offensive or rude, just saying that is another topic for another time. My comment was only for the way this man contradicted himself.

Bernhard Schopper- I can't let myself believe that but for some people it may be true.

I have re-read Mr. McFall's comment several times, and I do not see a direct contradiction in his statement. Sometimes I am rather dense, however, and maybe that is the problem, but I simply do not see it. Could you point it out to me.

Cliff: Yes, you have got it right.

Keith: ROFL Loved the chance/monopoly comment.

Cliff: I am sorry to hear that you are an agnostic, but I believe in your right to be one.

If we believe that chance is all there is then why try to predict anything in science, being as how there can be no science and nothing can be reproduced inside or outside of the laboratory? Being as how chance and randomness would always skew the results.

Do we know that what we are doing is even cloning? How is one sure that the fetus is really a product of the donor only?

The bible states that the life is in the blood, and that is why the prohibition against eating meat with the blood still in it was in Genesis 9:4. Why?

Now, isn't there blood exchanged between the placenta and the baby?

We know so much and yet we really know so little. Let us hope that we never get too carried away.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

The bible states that the life is in the blood, and that is why the prohibition against eating meat with the blood still in it was in Genesis 9:4. - D. Molino

The Bible states a lot of nonsense.

If mankind were dominated by Bible-thumping morons, cloning and other scientific achievements would have never taken place.

Now you know why I am an atheist.

Diana,
You caught me 180⁰ out!

"Chance" does not exist (we are currently discussing the theological implications on the Religion board) in this universe.

Many events are unpredictible, but this is because we lack predictive data (Not being omniscient and all that!) not because the events are objectively unpredictable.

The entire unfolding of this universe (God or no God) was determined "before" time/space existed.

Diana -

Do you believe that the world is a flat disk (Book of Isiah chapter 40)?

I don't understand how fundamentalists can deny such truths as evolution by quoting Genesis but still believe the world is spherical when the bible states it is not.

Hi there, Cliff and Carl! These boards were gone for a while, and then I was out of the country for a month. Glad to see you're still out there. I didn't go back to read the old posts, but for Diana I canput in my two cents worth about mutations. when I worked with bacteria, there were two ways to isolate mutants to penicillin. Expose to one large dose, in which case you might pick up one in a million or (2) expose to a small dose, isolate a lot of mutants, and expose them to gradually increasing doses of drug until you reached the dose at which you got nothing.

Let me stress that the drug does NOT cause the mutation in either case. It simply kills off all of the normal bugs allowing the preexisting mutants to take over. You can show that the mutants were there before exposure by a technique known as replica plating. The kinds of mutants one got through the two different procedure were different, too. If I recall correctly, the mutantation one usually isolated after a single large dose exposure was in the enzyme penicillinase itself. The multi-step mutants were in the cell wall that prevented the penicillin from entering the cells.

The entire unfolding of this universe (God or no God) was determined "before" time/space existed. - Keith Fosberg

Nonsense. Natural laws are formed when the four (?) fundamental forces of nature interact in perhaps infinite possiblities.

There has never been a precedent for cloning or genetic engineering, for example. We combine A and B to make C. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But to say that the possiblity of cloning "was determined before time/space" is ludicrous. It smacks of determinism.

It's like saying that the outcome of any possible combination of the binary code has been pre-determined.

The contradiction was not direct, many things are allowed to happen even aganist God's will as a test of our faith and such forth. In saying that if god didn't want cloning, it would prove impossible is contradicting because he is sayingits ok, because God allows it and its obviously not a good point.

Things are moving quickly.

I don't understand how fundamentalists can deny such truths as evolution by quoting Genesis but still believe the world is spherical when the bible states it is not. - melody chen

What do you think is the difference between the Bible and The National Enquirer?

None, basically. Both publications require that one believes whatever nonsense is written. To believe someone, or in something, requires no intellectual effort which IMHO, most of the world's population is unwilling to exert.

Critical thinking really takes a lot of work, that's why religions, cults, sects, etc. prosper from the gullibility of the lazy masses.

Eventually, they will have to face the truth, however. It took about 500 years for the Church of Rome to vindicate Galileo. It will take 1000 years for the same church to accept cloning.

Melody: You are way off base. I just read all of chapter 40 of Isaiah and not only did I not find that it says the world is flat but I did find this: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." Isaiah 40:22. That is in the New International Version of the Bible.

Bernhard: I do not agree that the bible states a lot of nonsense. And that is not the subject at hand.

Dawn: What you stated at the end of your posting is subject to interpretation and can be interpreted to mean that the reason there were more "mutations" in the second batch was because they had become accustomed to the penicillin.

I firmly believe that cloning would still have been around, partially because it is, in spite of the bible and bible thumpers. What is more I have never been a bible thumper in my life and I would not treat the good book so poorly.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Try to look at it with an open mind for a minute. How do you detect the mutation that causes resistance to penicillin that you and others are so willing to assume exists? If it does exist it ought to be somewhere in the bacterium's DNA string. Another thing, the enzyme pencillinase? Penicillin comes from a mold grown on bread. Now I have heard of fruit having enzymes but never mold or bread.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

And I believe in your right to believe in God, with or without evidence to support that belief. I also believe in the right of atheists to believe that God does not exist, with or without evidence to support their belief--as long as they do not try to push their belief on me.

I think you have misunderstood, Diana. The scientific method requires repeatability. Without repeatability, the scientific method is meaningless. But that does not deny chance. Consider this. In the room you currently occupy, the air molecules are randomly distributed. It is theoretically possible, therefore, that all the air molecules in your room might suddenly head for the northeast corner of the ceiling in your room and you would suffocate. The chances of that happening are incredibly small, but they do exist.

Now consider this, some years ago, I took a course in creative writing. As it happened, a fellow student submitted a story to the class about a coincidence, based on another coincidence, dependent on yet another coincidence. Later when the story was being discussed by the class, the Professor remarked that the story was not believable. In time honored fashion, the student insisted that it had "really happened." The Professor admitted that, yes, of course, it had happened. But it was, nevertheless, he said, not believable, and it was not something that should be used in fiction.

The point is, reality really can be stranger than fiction (at least, good fiction) and some things do happen in real life, despite incredible odds. Therefore, you should not deny chance. Evolution, for example, depends on it.

Yes, this is definitely cloning, Diana. One way we can prove that the offspring is really a product of the donor only is that the offspring clone is genetically identical to the donor, much as identical twins are genetically identical.

That is religious dogma. Since I do not subscribe to such, this is not a persuasive argument for me.

True. But there are parts of it that are as noble as any literature ever conceived by man.

I disagree. I think some events truly are unpredictable.

From this, I assume that you do not believe in free will. I am surprised.

It is an absolute delight for me that you have returned, Dawn. Incidentally, Carl and I have been quite busy in your absence. Specifically, we now have a page on a machine in Taiwan, called the Cloning Chronicles page, that contains links to archive files containing most of the cloning messages that were ever posted to the cloning board.

I read your explanation to Diana, which was, of course, much better than the argument I had planned to write. But now that you are back, I have a question. Is it always the case that the bacteria that has resistance to a drug are always mutants. Is it not possible that the bacteria that exhibits resistance to a drug are merely expressing a recessive gene that the other bacteria have--but are unable to express. I am not familiar with replica plating. If you tell me replica plating, or some other mechanism excludes this possibility, I will have no difficulty believing you.

The main reason I wanted to ask the question is that, in some cases, according to the article in Discover, non-exposure of a particular antibiotic for a period of time sometimes results in increased susceptibility of the bacteria to the antibiotic when reapplied at a later date. In some cases, however, the susceptibility does not increase. Do you think that these differing results indicate the possibility that more than one mechanism for resistance to the antibiotic may be at work?

Not knowing otherwise, I might suppose that natural laws are not "formed," but instead, "always were." I understand that inside a black hole, the natural laws do not exist. And I suppose you might say that the singularity that existed prior to the big bang did not permit natural laws to exist. Perhaps this was so in our universe. But there may have existed other universes in which the natural laws did exist.

Maybe so, but I can't help but notice that the second sentence of the article says: "If the way these cells subsequently differentiate can be controlled and directed, it opens the door to growing from scratch everything from heart muscle to bone marrow and brain tissue."

It seems to me that when "the way these cells subsequently differentiate can be controlled and directed," then they will have something. I will be interested to discover what Dawn thinks of this article and the potential technology it discusses.

The KJ version says about the same thing. I must admit that I fail to see the point, myself.

Perhaps I ought to let Dawn handle her own arguments on biology, since she obviously knows much more on the subject than me, but I can't help but note two things. First, as I understood it, Dawn did not say there were necessarily MORE mutations, but that they were DIFFERENT mutations. And second, it never ceases to amaze me how skeptical religious people can be with respect to scientific evidence as presented by scientists. (And I thought I was a septic :-)

Another thing, the enzyme pencillinase? Penicillin comes from a mold grown on bread. Now I have heard of fruit having enzymes but never mold or bread. - D. Molino

Penicillinase has nothing to do with penicillin. It's an enzyme produced by a bacterium's cell to catalyze the drug's destruction, or to cause a decrease in permeability to prevent the drug's penetration into the cell.

Dawn, Glad to have you back.

If you have looked around CNN has created some boards on different subjects that deal with some of the side questions that the earlier cloning board discussed.

Private insurance and genetic information is one of the most complex that is surfacing. The idea of being able to predict a disease by knowledge of ones genome has immense potential to alter the systems as they now exist. Any way It is being discussed on the Health section.

CNN also gave us a Gen. Eng board, but I think it will take a major story to activate the serious conversations that should be taking place there.

I just read all of chapter 40 of Isaiah and not only did I not find that it says the world is flat but I did find this: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." Isaiah 40:22. - D. Molino

A circle is not a sphere. That the earth is flat was a popular concept in ancient times. As was the concept that the earth is in the center of the universe.

Very true, Bernhard. But so what. This particular verse does not say what Melody said that it said. It seems to me that when one goes on the attack in such matters, one had best be sure of one's facts. The fact is that Isaiah does not say that the world is a "flat disk." Instead, he used the word "circle" which gives the illusion of "roundness." Actually not bad for an ancient text. (If I were to make such an argument, I would probably refer to Revelation 7:1 which strongly IMPLIES that the earth is square, and INDICATES that the author of Revelation probably thought the earth was flat, as well as square. To me, this is a good reason to believe that God was not the author of Revelation. I mean, surely God would have known, would he have not?)

The fact is that Isaiah does not say that the world is a "flat disk." - Cliff Beall

You know, I always have problems with translations of ancient texts. Who was doing these translations in this respect? The Church of Rome? The Jews? Isaiah lived around 800 B.C. and who would know what he meant when he was referring to what has been translated as a being a "circle"? It could have very well been a "disk" he was referring to.

But certainly not a sphere.

Cliff, thanks for letting me know about your webpage--it looks great, and when I have more time I will read a few more of the most recent posts. For now, I'll try to describe replica plating in more detail. The reason I said that the penicillin resistant bacteria were mutants is that scientists generally try to up the ante on mutations by exposing a culture of bacteria to UV light. Then they are plated on a solid culture medium without penicillin at a concentration that allows about 100 colonies per plate (each colony represents the progeny from a single cell). A piece of sterile velveteen is put on the colonies and they are transferred to another plate that does contain penicillin. Only a few colonies grow. You can go back to the original plate and again show that only cells from those colonies will grow in the presence of drug. And yes, the mutation is found in their DNA, even without exposure to the drug. Since bacteria have only a single chromosome, this isn't the appearance of a recessive gene, but the modification of a preexisting gene by mutation. Naturally occuring mutations are far more rare than those induced by UV artificially, but by using thousands of plates and replicas, it has been shown that they exist. This experiment was done by Joshua Lederberg in the 60s, and he won a Nobel prize.

Diana, all living organisms have enzymes--molds, bacteria, and even the yeast that went into the bread (although the cooking destroys the activity). It is the enzymes in the yeast that convert sugar into CO2 and alcohol and make bread and booze possible.

The human ES cell culture is a major step forward, but we still have some ways to go before we are producing organs in test tubes. Heart muscle cells and pancreatic beta cells by themselves may be useful, though, even without making an intact organ. And this gives spinal cord injuries new hope as well. Genetic engineering will make it possible to put the transplantation antigens of the potential host

Dawn, your message got cut off just as it was getting really interesting. Could you re-post the portion that was cut off. Thank you.

Bernhard, I think your point is valid to an extent. However, it does not appear to me that this should be grounds for saying the Bible is the equivalent of the National Enquirer.

We very often do not know exactly what was intended in ancient texts. Also, it isn't only the integrity of the translation that we have to worry about. Sometimes, there is corruption--usually in the form of additions to the original work by a disciple or by an adversary, but sometime in the form of modifications that change the meaning. Bible scholars argue these points back and forth incessantly. (Incidentally, that is the part of Bible scholarship that I like the most.)

I'm quite sure Seed has thoroughly thought out the idea of cloning himself, including the potential spiritual, psychological, and social impacts both on him and his wife and indeed, the world. Has science come so far only to be halted to what amounts to our collective fears or fantasies? Perhaps it is a fear OF our fantasies and the unknown. I think that Seed's proposal should be taken seriously and should likewise be studied and documented very carefully, so that perhaps we could answer those ageless questions about humanity that we all have.

with all humility, Bryan Norton

However, it does not appear to me that this should be grounds for saying the Bible is the equivalent of the National Enquirer. - Cliff Beall

What I was referring to is that, in order to accept what is written in both publications, one has to believe.

You do not have believe what Newton wrote about gravity - the results of his theories are universally accepted scientific facts.

Cliff, Bernhard,
This argument (deterministic vs. random event generation) was one argument with the redoudbtable Tom Anderson that I finally conceeded. (Remember this one Cliff?)

We generaly accept that a -> b -> c in that events have causes. The non-predictability of certain events leads one to suspect a random factor, but this is actualy just a lack of data.

Since only an infinite being, that may or may not exist, could comprehend all data simulataniously; The rest of us make do with predicting emergent behaivior from chaos, with varing accuracy.

Since current theory holds that space-time and physical law came into being as a unit; The entire behaivior of the universe could be predicted at that point (by an infinite intelligence.)

I don't know why this question keeps coming up here (seems more at home on the Religion board.)

Bryan, this is basically a regurgitation of previous posts, but it is what I think:

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, one day, he woke up to the realization that he was now an old man, and still a virtual unknown. In short, it was clear to him that he had not become a Wheeler, a Sagan, a Feynman or a Hawkins. The time was short. How was he to make his mark at this late date? He read about this new technology called nuclear transfer and held a press conference. In retrospect, it is clear that his proposal in that first press conference was halfbaked at best, but he was taken very seriously by the general public, as well as by significant segments of the scientific community.

In his second press conference, six months later, in which he indicated a shift to the more personal objective of cloning himself, there was no evidence that he had made any progress in gaining access to the technology since his first press conference. He indicated that he had talked to people who might want to use this method of reproduction (assuming he was capable of performing it). But he gave no indication that he had enlisted the aid of scientist(s) in the field who might be able to help him achieve his objective.

I therefore think you are mistaken.

Since current theory holds that space-time and physical law came into being as a unit... - Keith Fosberg

If this were true, it does not guarantee that the subsequent unfolding of the universe, i.e. given that any particle at any place interacting with any other particle, or force, could have been predicted unless the unfolding of the universe occurs according to a divine plan which would not permit chance events to happen.

Such a divine plan, I reject.

Possibly, this may be the first company to accept orders for human clones:

Hmm, I'm seriously thinking of registering as a trademark "Clones-R-Us". I believe money can be made in brokering designer clones.

Great scam. I think I'll order 5.

I also liked the link to the alien visitor site.

Great scam. I think I'll order 5. - Carl Nicolai

Perhaps you're right. But then again, I would have gladly ordered 5 light bulbs from Thomas Edison (in those times.)

I wouldn't. Those bulbs were defective. Heck, they used a bamboo filament. How long do you think those bulbs lasted? And guess how expensive they were. I say invest in the company if you have some change, but don't buy the product until the quality goes up and the price comes down.

Reminds me of the present state-of-the-art with cloning :-)

Yes, I remember. But I had forgotten that you were one of those who manfully attempted to prove the unprovable.

My position is that merely because you were unable to find either an incorrect assumption or a flaw in the logic, does not mean one or the other did not exist. Not everything can be explained. Richard Feynman said that the double slit experiment was the "only mystery." But what he meant was that all mysteries in quantum mechanics are of that same type.

Personally, I am quite fond of the conjecture that since the air molecules are randomly distributed in the room that you are currently occupying, it is theoretically possible that all the air molecules that exist in your room might suddenly head for the nearest corner and you would suffocate from lack of air. If is true that the air molecules in your room are randomly distributed, then, it seems to me, the universe can not possibly be deterministic.

Also, consider this: in relativity, it is well known that at the speed of light, time stands still. But length foreshortening is at least as interesting and more visually stimulating. At speeds near the speed of light, both the length of objects and the distance between objects is reduced. And at the speed of light, the lengths of both actually vanish. This means that from the perspective of a photon traveling at the speed of light, all photons in the universe have zero thickness. But, also, the space between photons is reduced to zero. This means that all photons actually touch all other photons. Therefore, the number of possible interactions between photons must be incredibly great.

Now tell me once again that Tom proved that the universe is deterministic. Bah, humbug.

Those bulbs were defective. Heck, they used a bamboo filament. - Cliff Beall

In 1879, Edison produced the first practical light bulb, using a carbon filament.

In an Associated Press (Nov 10) story from Tsukuba, Japan I read that the Japanese researchers, farmers and entrepreneurs are rapidly taking cloning technology out of the laboratory and onto the dinner table. (parephrased)

Cloned potatoes, tomatoes, asparagus, orchids, goldfish are now available and flounder and salmon are on the way. In the US we are slipping behind it seems.

"Cloning, it is hoped will spawn a breed of supercattle and reliable source of high-quality beef that can be produced at lower cost."

In terms of regulation we read:

"Japan's strides in cloning have generally heralded in the media and welcomed by the public with little of the angst and debate over ethics and safety that has been seen in the US and elsewhere."

The entire article is quite long at 1/4 page and shows the difference in a government that is interested in helping the industry rather than just regulating it.

But fair warning, before you click that link, be prepared to be impressed. That photograph of an original Edison light bulb will take your breath away. At least, it sure took mine. The craftsmanship that went into the manufacture of that light bulb in the 1880's is astounding.

Well, first of all, it is no disgrace to be behind the Japanese in something. The Japanese are clever people. At the same time, they are not infallible. They are capable of making mistakes. Perhaps, some of the things they are doing now will turn out to be a mistake. It is not necessarily wise to jump into something just to avoid letting somebody "get ahead." We need to have some idea of where we will land before we jump.

As near as I can tell, Monsanto seems to be doing okay, Carl. Some people think that companies such as Monsanto may be doing irreparable damage to the environment. I am not saying that I am convinced that this is necessarily true, but I am in favor of a close eye. I think, by and large, that the FDA does a commendable job.

I notice that you said: " redistribute themselves more evenly." You did not say: "perfectly evenly" or "evenly per preexisting plan." Within the mystery of the double slit experiment, I think there is room for free will. I do not think Tom proved anything.

Cliff,
Actually, I have no desire to revisit this thing in depth. I will only say, lest people get the wrong impression; Physical pre-determination is based on the assumption that all events in space-time are caused, there is no suggestion of a "plan."

Cliff, sorry to be so long winded. You probably didn't care about replica plating at all! I was going to say that the human embryonic stem (ES) cells can be genetically engineered in the lab to contain the transplantation antigens of whomever the host for the transplant will be, thus eliminating rejection of the cells. From mouse work, there is already a good idea of what growth factors, etc., to use to turn the ES cells into liver cells, skin cells, cardiac muscle cells, neurons and probably other cell types. What isn't known is how to create an organ that is made up of several different cell types and has structure. But that might not be necessary in all cases.

There has been surprisingly little outcry (yet) from the pro-life folks on this one. A similar report from a British group that used aborted fetuses may attract more attention. The U Wisconsin human embryo research was supported by Geron, since government regulations prohibit the use of federal funds for human embryo research, even preimplantation embryos. I suspect that if spinal cord injury or congestive heart failure can be cured with ES cells, federal dollars will be forthcoming. Christopher Reeve is a compelling advocate.

Dawn: Thank You. I knew but had forgotten that there are enzymes in yeast and that the yeast was in the bread. As I am sure you can tell this is not my field. So I am open to correction in it.

Cliff: Well, thank goodness the air seems to be staying well disbursed. Perhaps the fan on and open window have something to do with it. They have been painting here for three weeks.

I am, indeed, a skeptic. If you put me in a laboratory I would question everything and snoop into everything and try everything that I could. Unfortunately I am allergic to almost everything in the lab, especially soap. Labs must be kept clean. I use Ivory, Clean and Natural and did use Phisohex, until they made it a prescription drug. None of these make soaps for the counter or wash. We improvise and use the liquid Ivory.

I am the daughter of a person who believed firmly in raising myself and my brother to question and debate. We were taught Philosophy, Economics, Ethics, Accounting, Law and just about anything else she knew. And believe me she knew a lot. But most of all we were to taught to think and to brainstorm. If nobody questions then we don't have intellectual growth.

By the way, has anybody out there, except Cliff who has obviously been very busy, read Andromeda Strain yet? If not, please pay special attention to the part about what proves that we are alive (the watch and black cloth as examples of fulfilling the definition of alive) and the bibliography. Please do not read the bibliography without reading the whole book.

If so, if you did read the book, what did you think about it?

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

One of the reasons I brought up Andromeda Strain was that it was a life form without proteins. In fact, it was a life form without a lot of the usual stuff. It also mutated. So this fits in with some of the postings on the board.

It would seem, at first, that this is just a story on a fictional idea but if you read the bibliography you can tell that a lot of it was based on what exists today or what was being worked on.

The question becomes what kind of a life form can live without proteins and how would it carry out it's chemical interactions? How would it replicate? and, finally, What would it use for growth?

So what kind of a life form can live without enzymes? Is there such a life form?

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Of course, you are right, Keith. As usual, I was overstating the argument. More fun that way.

Well, I did ask. As I understand it, you put bacteria of a particular concentration on a plate not containing the antibiotic and you watch it grow. Each colony on the plate is the progeny of a single cell, and, therefore, each colony contains identical bacterial cells. Then you transfer (a portion of) each colony to a plate containing the antibiotic. You observe that exposure to the antibiotic cause most colonies to die, but some colonies continue to grow. You can then go back to the original plate and show that only the colonies having the mutation, caused by UV light, were resistent.

I must admit that I was surprised, initially, by the comment that scientists "up the ante on mutations by exposing a culture of bacteria to UV light." I was under the impression that mutations cause by UV light were usually unfavorable. Therefore, I would not have supposed that the exposure of bacteria to UV light would have had a significant effect on an experiment involving antibiotic resistance. (Presumably, those mutations are unfavorable in some respects and favorable in other respects.)

As I read your comment, you think the research is further along than my reading of the article that Carl supplied a link to. This is encouraging. While having a "good idea" is not the same as knowing precisely, having a good idea can quickly lead to precise knowledge with additional research. The statement in the article that was most discouraging to me was the statement that: "The scientists warn that many of the most exciting applications are still years, even decades, away." I am encouraged that you seem to think that significant progress may happen much sooner than that.

Actually, I can not say that it surprises me. Even for a "radical" pro-lifer, I would imagine that it would be difficult to get excited about work that involves primordial germ cells (cells that eventually would have become eggs and sperm).

Yes, I can imagine. I, myself, would oppose that.

And, according to the report, it is being patented by Geron.

I would suspect that "if spinal cord injury or congestive heart failure can be cured with ES cells," Geron stock might be a very good investment.

I admit it was a bit of overstatement, but I think it makes a point.

Understood. But what I was alluding to was the irony of the situation. You accept without question the existence of God, for which there is no evidence at all, but question evidence when it exists. It just seemed remarkable to me at the time.

On the other hand, after further reflection, it occurs to me that perhaps it is reasonable enough. If evidence exists, it is reasonable to question it. But if there is no evidence, there is nothing to question. Makes sense.

Latest congressional action.

19. S.1601: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of human cloning. Sponsor: Sen Lott .- LATEST ACTION: 02/11/98 Cloture motion on motion to proceed to consideration of Measure failed in Senate, roll call #10 (42-54)

Cliff, Do you have any idea about where this is going? Or when?

By the way, has anybody out there, except Cliff who has obviously been very busy, read Andromeda Strain yet? If not, please pay special attention to the part about what proves that we are alive... - D. Molino

"I think, therefore I am" is the best proof that I am alive.

What truly amazes me (but maybe it shouldn't) is that there is a movement to ban the cloning of humans even though no one has demonstrated that any credible harm would result from such an activity.

Even though I think Dr. Seed is a narcicistic nutball who should not attempt to practice medicine, and further, I fail to see any compelling need to clone humans; I am not the "all seeing prophet." It is absurd to restrict a technology based on SF pulp magazines and George Lucas space-operas!

Well I am not very knowledgeable about stateists politics, but I seems a lot of the same people that are against any form of abortion are also totally against any type of human cloning.

Kind of adds a different twist to "right to life" and "right to choose" it seems to me.

I fail to see any compelling need to clone humans - Keith Fosberg

To make money is always a compelling need!

Has anyone read in today's Washington Post the story about a MA research team that produced a human-cow hybrid clone (cell stage only)?

I think Playboy magazine would pay a fortune for a centerfold spread of a woman with six nipples.

; ^ )

From what I can tell, nowhere. Best I can tell, the bill no longer exists. I checked Senator Lott's page and found a list of the bills Senator Lott is currently sponsoring. There was some 198 resolutions and bills for which Senator Lott claims sponsorship, but I was unable to find bill S1601 in the list. The bills sponsored by Senator Lott skips from S 1599 to S1618. Senator Feinstein's bill is still active, I understand, but it appears to me that Senator Lott has withdrawn his bill.

I was not able to find this movement to ban human cloning on Senator Lott's page. Also, BTW, I am convinced that significant harm could be the result of premature use of this technology with humans. I continue to support animal coning for pharmaceutical purposes. And that is where the money is anyway.

I think human cloning should not be allowed until the technology is right. I would be concerned if I thought Seed might actually try to do it. If Stice or Bishop were to announce an intention to clone a human, I would be immediately concerned, and I'd bet that Senator Lott would get interested again. But Seed--why bother?

Dawn, have you previously heard about this in the scientific press or otherwise? According to New Scientist, the calves were born in August and September. I did a search to see if this information was available otherwise and came up empty handed.

BBC: US scientists claim to have cloned human cells by fusing their contents with the empty egg cells taken from a cow. The research, which has yet to be published, is likely to provoke a major ethical row.

The basic idea seams to form xenoplants from human nuclear material and cow eggs and grow organs form the stem cells that are isolated from the blastocyst.

At some developmental point you transfer the now differentiated organ tissue into a human for final integration.

At least that is what I think they are planning to do.

Cliff, now I think I understand why there hasn't been more reaction to the human embryonic stem cell cloning. It isn't what the cells are destined to become, it is where they came from: an embryo fertilized in vitro with the sperm and egg of a couple who are clients of an in vitro fertilization clinic. The DRs. always make more embryos than they will need and freeze the rest. The couples gave informed consent. The embryos grew in the lab dish to blastocyst stage--I think about a week, 32 cells, but I could be wrong on that. But it is the "hollow ball" stage. That was the Wisconsin group. The Johns Hopkins group used primordial germ cells from 4-7 week old aborted fetuses. Here's a good place to find the story, from "The Scientist" webpage. http://165.123.33.33/yr1997/sept/lewis_p1_970929.html Mutations are not necessarily good or bad, they just are. Most are probably neutral. IT is just easy to screen for antibiotic resistance, that's why microbiologists love that trait so much. Another popular one is to make bacteria require an amino acid that they did not need before, by mutating the enzyme that makes it.

Bernard, from my reading of the papers, the human-cow cells fusion wasn't really a hybrid. The cow egg's nucleus was removed first, so all that was left was the cytoplasm and the mitochondria. Then the human skin cell was put in and they got some cell division. They didn't implant it back in the cow or anything, and it isn't likely that it would grow into a complete human--but who knows? If they can get this to work with primates, it will probably work with people.

Diana, it has been years since I read "Andromeda Strain." Chriton is a superb novelist, and his MD training gives him enough knowledge to tell a plausible story. But it is fiction, and there isn't any evidence for any of it. There are protein molecules known as "prions" that appear to replicate themselves and cause disease without containing any nucleic acid. The Nobel prize in 1997 (or 1996?) was for that discovery. Maybe there could be life without proteins, but we haven't seen it yet. I read once where someone hypothesized a life system based on silicon rather than carbon. So maybe computers can take over the world, at that!