Slashdot Mirror


Monkey Cloning. Sort Of.

A whole slew of people have written about the announcement from scientists that they have "cloned" monkeys. Actually, in yet another case of bad science coverage (See my rant earlier today), they split an early-stage embryo. So, they really made artificial twins, which they then re-implanted into the mother. Still a heckuva a ways away from actually doing any sort of real cloning, IMHO.

5 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. shakespeare by dr_labrat · · Score: 4

    cool. Now all we need is an assembly line doing this sort of shit and we can get that complete works of shakespeare going....




    or double the IQ of texas or something...

    --
    The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
  2. I plea guilty of underestimating CNN's stupidity. by Apuleius · · Score: 4

    Which in turn shows a measure of my own stupidity. There. I've said it. The rest of y'all can sit it out while I eat the crow. (Mm.. tastes like chicken.) I saw a headline, and thought the article reflected it. Pass the ketchup.

    The reason I'm stepping forward is to start this discussion: how can a techie community browbeat the media into reporting with a clue? It's frightening to see how the media mislead the general populace so damn stupidly and see the techie sector utterly unable to do anything about it.

    We've just made it out of the Y2K scare, and we're moving on the the usual fare (internet porn, et cetera, et cetera).

    It's also sad to see how many scientists and engineers agree with the phrase "I'm not superstitious in general, but I believe reporters are bad luck."

    *sigh*

  3. Still a significant achievement by jabber · · Score: 5

    It's not cloning by a long shot, but creating identical twins on demand has huge benefits.

    For one, you can create a significant population for a 'nature vs. nurture' study.

    Two, with an identical genetic baseline, all with a specific genetic defect, you can do comparative studies of different treatments. Since treatment on the genetic level is likely to be affected by the genetics of the individual being treated, a 'same' baseline allows for much more reasonable studies of treatment effectiveness.

    Three, again a common genetic foundation in animals engineered to produce a hormone, or grow organs or whatever have you, is going to result in a much more consistent product. And Animal Farm (heh) can essencially be a mass-production assembly line, with little or no variance in the 'components'.

    You can tweak a brood of embryos, analyse the yield, terminate those that are not desirable for your needs, and 'twin' the ones that are. No need to repeat the original impregnation and creation of life - since nature will do that for you. You just pick the good 'fruit' and reproduce it on an assembly line.

    --

    -- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
  4. On the contrary, Hemos by konstant · · Score: 4

    Clones are twins. And twins are clones. I understand that you'll reserve the term "clone" until I can take a clipping from your fingernails and grow a Hemos Mark II inside a bubbling vat, but in my opinion it's pretty important not to make this false clone/twin distinction.

    The reason is that, if we continue to think of a clone as different from a twin in some vague, undefinable way, then we are sure to treat clones as less than human if ever the technology becomes widespread.

    People are often arrogant about the things they create. If we allow ourselves to be deceived in considering clones "our creatures" rather than as human twins achieved at a rather late date :-) then we know what will result. We've all read the sci-fi: sex slaves, war drones, and second class status.

    Yes it would be stupid! Surely the origin of a genetic duplicate is irrelevant when determing the intrinsic worth or rights of the duplicate. But somehow I fear that logic wouldn't play a very large role in the decision.

    We have a chance to forstall all this if we try to change our thinking now, before clones are walking down the street alongside us.

    Clones = Twins
    Twins = Clones


    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

    --
    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
  5. Destroyed Human Clones?? by lisa · · Score: 4

    "In 1993 Dr. Jerry Hall said he had cloned human embryos by splitting them, although he said the clones were destroyed."

    He destroyed the clones?? At what point in the lifecycle, I wonder. It seems to me this would have been a huge deal-even if the clones weren't born yet. The pro-lifers would have had a cow. So how come I've never heard of it? They mentioned it so casually here.

    Lisa
    www.grrl.org