Send out the Clones?

ParticleGirl writes "This morning, congress called for a federal ban on human cloning. The associated press has an article. This follows the International Cloning Ban which took effect last month. This is research into human cloning for any reason, this is "importing a clone" ...a kid born of cloning overseas can't come into the U.S.? And other weird stuff." If god is all powerful, then can't this just be another way he works? Personally I don't care if there's a god or not: I want clones. I wanna grow spare hearts in a vat. I wanna have a brainless clone in a tube in case I blow out my liver drinking whiskey. And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

Comments

paparazzi

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now, rather than chasing celebrities around for photos, the paparazzi will now be chasing celebrities around trying to extract blood samples ...

Re:What have we here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vivisecting prisoners will benefit science as well. So will deliberately infecting people with disease and studying the effects. So will will bashing the skulls of young childen and examining thier behaviour. Hell..lets perform experiments on the minute brains of slashdot technocrats to see why they are so morally insipid and intellectually void, That too will benefit science. The ends do not justify the means, not even for the Great God Science. Ah well..at least I can move to a mountain somewhere and live out my life while all you decadent freaks stagger step by step towards the nihilistic dark age you all crave so much.

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the ignoace of not creating hundreds of people with genetic defects that might not be noticable until after birth. If great break-throughs are made in animal cloning then we can reconsider.

I honestly think that slashdot would be against murder laws if they were sponsored by the republicans in the US.
"It says it in the bible, so its just because they are religious bigots"

Re:Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Everytime something new comes along, people in the U.S. choose to fear it rather than learn about it and carefully consider it. Unfortunately, once you make something like this illegal, it's very difficult to re-convince the public that it's better to make it legal than keep it illegal, due to the fact that there are several good reasons to be cautious of it. A good current example being drug laws in the U.S.
We continue to commit ourselves to ignorance.

Murder your clone

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems thiis molecular biologist done already cloned himself. Amazingly enough, his clone grew quickly, and had all his creator's knowledge and skills. An immense help in the lab, and the publications started to fly out... but this clone had one terrible flaw. He could not control his choice of idionms and adjectives... by which I mean, his language was terribly filthy. Every other word seemed to offend someone, and he quickly offended everyone. The Molecular Biologist at first thought this a small price to pay... but it began to get on his nerves. This was, after all, his identical clone. So, one beuatuful clear fall day, he took his clone tot he top otf the trade towers, and in full view of thousands of tourists, he pushed the clone off the edge. Startle, scream, thunk, squish.. end of clone. Now there is a problem. No question, this biologist cone killed his clone... but what was the crime? Was it murder? Or perhaps creating a public nuisance, simialr to cutting your fingernails in public? Thsi was, after all, himslef 9in copy) that he killed. And complicating the issue, every law enforcement or government bearuocracy in existence wanted to get involved. A high profile case like this? Of course they wanted to get involved. So finally,after much negotiation, and many, many billable hours, it was decided by consensus that the Federal Communications Commision would charge the biologist with a misdemeanor... for making an obscene clone fall.....

Re:Murder your clone

[grammar fascist]

Bad pun, sir. (That's a compliment.) But I think you've gotten to the heart of the problem right here:

Was it murder? Or perhaps creating a public nuisance, simialr to cutting your fingernails in public? Thsi was, after all, himslef 9in copy) that he killed.

Who owns the clones? Do they own themselves, or does the creator own them? That's the real problem. Assuming we succeed in cloning people, the people who create the clones will think they own them and have every right to do with them as they please. We already have a hard enough time figuring this one out with our children.

Will we have a clones' rights movement?

Re:Brainless clones in tubes.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the difference between growing a brainless clone in a vat/tube and culturing your own tissue samples for burn-grafts? Even if potentially "human" tissue is being used, why should anyone care or be concerned if it is not self-aware? Personally, I'd have no more care to that collection of cells, then I would for the bacteria that grow my antibiotics... - Adam Lydick

Re:mini-clone

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

"Like CmdrTaco in every way except one eighth size, I will call him MiniTaco"

MiniTaco... wouldn't that be a tacquito?

yo

[Anonymous Coward]

if cloning is outlawd only criminals will have clones

Re:yo

[Keighvin]

No, this is a direct take off of the fortune output: "If marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws."

Re:Mini-mower?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe we have enough genetic information about lawnmowers to clone them yet. My solution is therefore a clone with no brain (or minimum at least) twice the size of me to do all the gardening. He'll be the incredible gardener!

He's Maxi-me. I can be Mini-me running around biting people in the groin.

Or something.

-skurk

I think it's already happened ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and I'm the clone. I work my butt off, and I never know where the hell my money goes. I think the Real Me is sitting on a beach in Hawaii, siphoning off half the money I make, laughing like hell.

Re:I think it's already happened ...

[SymLink-Dyn]

Check your paycheck. If you see a deduction for Social Security, then you're a clone. Consider the following facts, which hold true in the US:

1) There is already a propaganda campaign underway to prepare people of your generation that you won't see any of your SSec income.

2) At a 6-7% percent deduction rate, a Real You only needs 16 clones to reap your full salary. Amway was founded by a clone who figured out this trick.

3) According to the CIA world factbook, the USA has 9.1 million square kilometers of land area. That means that each of the 16 copies has roughly 0.5 million square kilometers to wander about in. You'll never find them. (Note that this only counts the land mass of the states. Greedy Real People can squirrel away a few extra clones in Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands for a higher rate of return.)

Just a thought...

...dave

you're missing the *important* applications

[Anonymous Coward]

for example, I want to clone myself, then get my clone a sex change and a boob job, and then I'll have someone who'll put out. I just can't decide if that's more like incest or a really exotic form of masturbation.

Re:Cloning slavery?

[MacJedi]

Yeah the comment was in very, very, very bad taste. I strongly fear that inexpensive human cloning will lead to a slave race, or worse.

But unfortunately, as history has shown us, you don't need amazing technology and clones to enslave a people.

/joeyo

Re:Christianity

[Falrick]

Then you should have no problem with cloning for gestation or cloning for slavery, as long as the clone isn't harmed and has a chance to know God, right? QED

Wow. How did you possibly get that out of my comment? You seem to have some serious issues with Christians. I'm not going to even begin to claim that there aren't any bad Christians out there. Being a Christian and living like a Christian are two totally different animals. I'm sure that there have been many a monster that believed in Christ, or at least believed that he believed in Christ, yet didn't live his life as a Christian. Christians are sinners too.

As for clones for slavery, I wouldn't want anyone to be a slave regardless of how they came into this world! There are a whole lot of things that I wouldn't want clones used for, I guess that I didn't feel like I needed to cover every crime against humanity in my previous comment and say that they also applied to clones.

Your god laid out ten simple rules to live by, and as much as you'd like to, you can't easily adapt them to the science of cloning as long as it doesn't harm the fetus.

Yup, God did do that. In fact, one of those ten simple rules to live by is Thou shalt not kill. I think that applies. You've got to remember, the problem that I have here is creating a clone and then killing it (whether that's in the process of organ harvesting or whatever). I don't want to even begin debating creating a clone of a whole person because you're right, I don't know what God thinks about this.

... life begins ... [at] some stage in between when the brain has grown to the point that it can support the impulses of thought you call a soul ... [and when] a child realises its own existance, which I'm sad to say isn't until they've been out of the womb for several years.

Ah, I see the root of our disagreement. I do believe that life does begin at conception. If you've been around new borns much, you would begin to appreciate that yes, these are very much people. Being able to express self-awareness is not a pre-requisite for being alive or for being a person. Are you telling me that a three year old isn't alive? That's several years after they've been out of the womb.

People like to hate homosexuals and unwed mothers

That's funny, some of my best friends are homosexuals. I haven't known that many unwed mothers, but I'm sure that they are wonderfull people too. God told us to hate the sin but love the sinner. If you were to hate everyone who was a sinner I'm sorry to say that you wouldn't be able to love anyone but God himself. Everyone sins. I sin. The pope sins. Martin Luther sinned. Adam and Eve sinned. But good news! Christ died so that our sins would be forgiven! And he taught us to forgive and forget. Oh, and to not judge others. So who am I to criticize others for the way they live their lives? Besides, what on Earth do homosexuals and unwed mothers have to do with the act of cloning?

The most common complaint that I've heard expressed against Christians is that we're not very tolerant. I'd like to think that I'm a fairly open minded individual. I've shared my views with you in as pollite a manner as possible. I had hoped that I would receive the same courtesy from you in response.

Christianity

[Falrick]

Ok, I haven't seen it, so I'm going to post it in here. I'll even put in the requisit "You probably won't agree with me so you will most likely mod me down" comment that almost ensures that this comment will get modded up just so that people can say they support free expression of opinions even if they differ from their own.

Why, from a Christian point of view, cloning is bad. Creating another person, whether that be through good old fashion sex or by fertilizing an egg with existing DNA, is still creating just that; a person. My problem with cloning is the same as my problem with abortion. If you create this person, and then "terminate" them, or whatever other euphamism you choose, you are commiting murder. The method that is taken here is still a conception. Christianity teaches us that a person is a person from the point of conception on (no, I can't site you passages from the Bible on that, but I will look if you ask nicely). If you create a clone, or a cloned heart, or a cloned body minus the brain, through a method of conception (i.e. fertilizing an egg), you are still creating a person.

What I don't have a problem with, and other Christians may disagree with me on this, is generating a new organ from an existing one. Take tissue from a heart and generate a new heart from it. Cool. So long as we do it without conceiving a clone.

Where does this take us with a brain? I'm going to be honest here; I don't know. I honestly don't believe that I am my brain. If I lose my brain, then I lose all ability for me to express myself through my body. By my soul is still there.

Even if you choose to ignore the Christian point of view, or disagree with it (God gave us free will after all): Has anyone else ever seen Gattica? Blade Runner? Any of the number of other clones-are-scum centric movies or books? Egad man. That's some scary stuff.

Re:Christianity

[fizban]

What I don't have a problem with, and other Christians may disagree with me on this, is generating a new organ from an existing one. Take tissue from a heart and generate a new heart from it. Cool. So long as we do it without conceiving a clone.

Hmmm, can't think of any possible way to do this without going through the natural development stages. I suppose you could do it using the embryo of an animal, but that's not very nice either. It's much better to just develop a mechanical one, IMO.

--

Re:Christianity

[dasmegabyte]

So, from this, Christians have no problem with cloning as long as it has little or no possibility of killing the fetus. Then you should have no problem with cloning for gestation or cloning for slavery, as long as the clone isn't harmed and has a chance to know God, right? QED.

Bull-fucking-shit. I'm sure you're alone there. Christians like to think that if something's not in a contradictory book rewritten by the human puppets of the Catholic church all throughout the first millenium and through a great period of the second millenium, that you just flat out shouldn't do it. Cloning alone is NOT a crime, a sin or a travesty against nature, nor should it be considered as such. Your god laid out ten simple rules to live by, and as much as you'd like to, you can't easily adapt them to the science of cloning as long as it doesn't harm the fetus. And since a fertilized egg is not a fetus (remember that even a normally impregnated woman might miscarry within the first few days of impregnation and never even know it...reproduction is not the bulletproof activity we want it to be), destroying one is not murder. Your job, as a doublethinking purveyor of myth approaching a legislative solution to a scientific issue, is to define once and for all where life begins. It isn't conception, and it isn't birth. It's some stage in between when the brain has grown to the point that it can support the impulses of thought you call a soul. I'm fairly sure they don't exist until a child realises its own existance, which I'm sad to say isn't until they've been out of the womb for several years (which is why it's often hard to tell if a child is blind, or deaf, or has brain damage until they are much older).

Of course, you can also continue doing what Christian pundits are best at: fly in the face of science, reason and education and make up some cock and bull story about how god hates fags and all clones are gay or something. People like to hate homosexuals and unwed mothers -- you know, sensitive types that are easy to push around. You don't see the 700 club complaining a lot about buff gun toting lunatics who don't like being touched.

Re:Evil Technology?

[cduffy]

You don't read much SF, do you?

The logical (and not hideously difficult) conclusion is to arrest the development of the neural system of the clone, such that it never reaches self-awareness (and thus is never deserving of human rights).

Re:Evil Technology?

[cduffy]

Agreed. Nonetheless, it can be done... and I'd be disappointed to see any research towards the goal outlawed.

Re:How many organs == a human?

[jafac]

I need a replacement ear, so a headless clone would not work for me.

Why now?

[Jeremy Erwin]

I'm curious as to why this process must be banned now. Sure, cloning has a huge "ickyness" factor, but I get the feeling that most of these ethical dilemmas are being "resolved" by individuals who are not rationally approching the matter.

Many of the concerns are with the (lack of )safety of the procedure. Cloning is associated (when performed with other mammals) with extremely low success rates. However, that does not mean that the problems are unsolvable. Perhaps a ten to fifteen year ban on human cloning would be more advisable, subject to review if the problem is solved.

We must remember that in vitro fertilization also has problems associated with implantantation, yet few argue that IVF is ethically problematic because of these problems.

Human cloning, is at presnt, ethically problematical becuase of the high mortality rate. But this does not mean `There is no need for this technology to ever be used with humans,'' (to quote Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kans).

The problem appers to be that the future of cloning humans lies with two groups of people who want to force the issue. The time is not right for bold intrepid scientists to drag humanity kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Nor is it right for lawmakers to read a few papers, listen to a few scientists, and decide the issue for all time.

With advances in cloning technology, it may be possible to replicate mammals with a very high degree of success. At that point, the application of this technology to humans should commence.

Ignorance

[Psion]

Although new technologies often cause new problems, no solutions are ever found with ignorance. The U.S. is only harming itself in the long run.

Re:Ignorance

[ConceptJunkie]

So all you have to do is fire up the cloning vats, take a sample from your Dad and clone a (presumably) viable embryo, bring the embryo to term, allow the person to become mature enough for organ to be usable, hope he doesn't mind that you're going to kill him, kill him, take out his liver, transplant it into your father.

Time estimate: 20 years.

You've been reading too many science fiction books. No wait, you can nver read too many science fictions books. You haven't read enough science non-fiction books!

Re:Ignorance

[ConceptJunkie]

OK, fine, when you put it in terms of organ factories, which I think you'll agree is essentially what you are saying, I don't think there's necessarily a problem. The problem I have, and that you and the other person who responded seem to have missed is how do you get there. How do you grow a human body without a brain (jokes about Congress and Microsoft engineers don't count)? These days, that would probably mean growing a human and taking out his or her brain. Now the problem comes back to, what defines human life? This is essentially the same problem that is the crux of the abortion issue. Anyone who considers a human embryo or fetus as not a person must then logically be able to point to some defining event which makes that person a human after some period of not being one. You will find there are three alternatives:

1. Life starts at the point of conception.

2. Life starts at some point after conception that can only be defined completely arbitrarily (much like Jews or blacks being defined as not human), or on the basis of the available level of technology, money, or desire of the parents. In all three cases, the argument is not scientific and we return to treating people as commodities. While, the other poster doesn't seem to have a problem with it, I am certainly not looking forward to the day when people are executed because they are not deemed economically feasible to remain alive, and that is a guaranteed result of that thinking.

3. Life never starts. I think even on Slashdot, it would be hard to find someone who takes this view.

Now, in the case of clones, the situation is pretty analogous. If an embryo is afforded the right to life as a result of being an individual, genetically-unique human being, then an embryo put together by replacing the nucleus in a developing zygote, which is how I understand cloning currently is done, I think you can see where I'm going.

I also have a problem with the whole argument of "if the embryo doesn't suffer, we are not doing anything wrong". A person at ground zero of a pre-emptive nuclear strike doesn't suffer either, doesn't that mean the same thing?

Now I will accept that very few people on /. will agree with me that the fact that the soul created at the conception of a human being is sufficient reason to grant that embryo the full rights afforded to other humans, I will think that any honest person will agree that any other definition of when life begins involves tradeoffs and compromises, many of which are a slippery slope leading to the kinds of dystopias we have seen in both the real world and in fiction, where people are considered things.

I believe that unless we keep an absolute definition of human life and its rights, we will eventually see those rights whittled away. Abortion has been legal for almost 30 years, and you are now hearing academics openly advocating allowing infanticide. Answer me this, now that we are going down that path, where will we be in 20, 50 or 100 years?

Re:Ignorance

[ConceptJunkie]

You seem to think that this is driven by the same kind of irrational fear that lead to the persecution of Galileo. I think we are talking apples and oranges. The fear that this technology will be used to exploit human beings for the benefit of others is no irrational fear, it is the only way it can go. Aside from skin (and that is limited), we can't currently grow any organ in a laboratory and can hardly keep organs in a transplantable state. The _only_ way cloning could benefit anyone today is for cloned humans to be grown and harvested for their body parts. All this business about brainless human organ farms is still firmly entrenched in the "many years down the road category, if ever".

Your arguement that we shouldn't worry about it because we will save lives applies equally well to the Nazis experimenting on Jews. Another post of mine got modded down to 0 based, I suppose, on the fact that anyone who invokes the Nazis is making a spurious argument. However, there is no doubt that what these "doctors" learned could be used to save lives. If we accept that and put it into practice, what happens the next time someone tries to do it? They will reason that ends justifies the means. Going back to the cloning issue, it all comes back to the idea of what constitutes human life and what rights do humans have.

Look at this way Anonymous (and why in the world would you not get yourself an account so more people will read your posts, unlike a lot of folks around here, you are actually responding intelligently? We need more good debate on /.),
if we do ban cloning, people will die because of lack of potential benefits of that technology. If we don't ban cloning, people will die in the attempt to reach that technology. I think we need to be extremely careful who we consider human, because we are already on the slippery slope to having our humanity, as well as our right to life being defined in more and more arbitrary and expedient terms.

Please see my response to another AC in this thread for that discussion.

Re:Ignorance

[ConceptJunkie]

Good argument. Too bad many of the folks here seem to think people are just so much meat.

Re:Ignorance

[ConceptJunkie]

You're right.

However, the former will happen for many years before the latter. Therein lies the problem. There was a recent news story about a doctor in Italy who wants to use cloning to help infertile couples despite bans against cloning that are being considered and/or enacted. About the same time came news that Dolly, DotCom the pig and all those other cloned animals are suffering from a large percentage of serious, apparently congenital, ailments and many are dying young of serious illnesses. I think given the current, limited state of cloning technology, a ban on human cloning is the only logical way to proceed.
Because once human cloning starts, living human beings will become a commodity, and I think we, as a civilization, can all agree that people shouldn't be property.

Re:Ignorance

[krmt]

I am pro choice, but I'm not for the indiscriminate killing of fetuses. No one wants to abort their child really, and if you go in to cloning planning to abort 99% of the fetuses, then that's just plain wrong.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Ignorance

[krmt]

I agree with you in that solutions are never found with ignorance, I don't think that the U.S. is really approaching this one from the point of ignorance. The idea to ban human cloning is really resting on the fact that you will get many many defective fetuses who will die on their own, have to be aborted or euthenized, or will live in pain. This is inhuman for a technology that won't really have that much payoff in the sense we're looking for. Why do you need to clone a human being? Organs? We can do better than what we're doing now, and we can do the research on animals to get it right first. The U.S. isn't harming itself by banning human cloning any more than it isn't hurting itself by banning torture.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Ignorance

[The Flymaster]

Sure, with CURRENT technology that's what we'd have to do. Maybe, with more reasearch, we could have a vat o' livers up and running, as people need them. They'd be cheap and plentiful, and if one was rejected, they could throw it out and try a new one. Sure, we can't do this now, but without the research, we'll NEVER be able to do it. I agree, the slaughtering of human clones for spare parts should certainly be outlawed. But the growing of individual spare parts in labs? How could that be anything BUT a good thing?

Re:Ignorance

[Hoo00]

The idea to ban human cloning is really resting on the fact that you will get many many defective fetuses who will die on their own, have to be aborted or euthenized, or will live in pain.

That is why we need to study human cloning in the first place, i.e. to prevent such pain from happening. Remember that we already open the pandora's box of cloning. A ban to human cloning means that we will never find out how many of these defective fetuses can be avoided, etc. etc.

Re:Ignorance

[ConsumedByTV]

How can we do better then that now?

My father needs a liver or he will die, guess what?

Thats right folks: HES GONNA DIE!

If we could clone people things might be different.
I might get to have a father.

But fuck cloning! What good would it ever do! And we all know what kids with out parents end up like....


Are you on the Sfglj (SF-Goth EMail Junkies List) ?

Re:Ignorance

[Ripped_edge]

I think we're all getting a bit ahead of ourselves. It took somewhere in the range of 500 attempts to produce one Dolly. What do you do with those five hundred dead or deformed human clones? Let them ban cloning on humans. We're not ready technicaly to do it.



Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Importation ban

[dkusters]

The legislation prohibits the importation of clones. This is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the Supreme Court if ever enacted. Human clones are humans. The "all men are created equal" clause of the declaration of independance is a lens that the judicial branch uses to interpret law. Preventing the "importation" of a clone (would that be immigration?) would be treating the human clone differently than anyone else.

Furthermore, being a clone could be considered a medical condition. If successfully argued as such, then human clones have protection against discrimination from the government, private employeers, loan officers, etc.

Human clones are human. That's the point. They have all the same legal rights as any other human. Treating them specially for legal purposes will quickly be challenged and, probably, ruled unconstitutional.

Dave

I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn

[Tumbleweed]

"I shall call him...CmdrTaquito."

Animals are people!

[leoc]

How is using an animal like a great ape morally any different from making and using a brainless human? The only difference is the genetic information, which is 98+% the same anyway.

Re:It's the failures that cause concern

[leoc]

We should fund research into cloning of other animals before we attempt it with people.

Why should it be ethical to do this to animals, but not humans? If we clone humans with altered (or nonexistent) higher nervous systems why shouldn't we be allowed to experiment on them?

Re:food

[otis wildflower]

what really excites me the most is the prospect of cloning only parts of animals for food.

Why stop at animals?

Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)

All I can say is...

[otis wildflower]

Stay Alert!
Trust No One!
Keep Your Laser Handy!

Otis-U-WLD-4, Alpha Complex


Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)

Well duh

[geek]

Didnt you watch "The 6th Day". You put a little dot under the bottom lid of the persons left eye lid.

Clones and sex?

[geek]

You could literally go fuck yourself right? Or would that be considered masturbation? Any sex ed students care to comment?

Re:And why not?

[garcia]

that is why I don't see a problem w/cloning. Just because you are genetically identical does NOT mean that you are in anyway more likely to become some sort of superhuman mutant capable of killing everyone... Who's to say that this clone won't be completely against that sort of shit?

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[garcia]

what I am confused about is how are they going to distinguish between a clone and a regular person? Is there some kind of stamp that is put on your forehead that says, "My other cells were someone elses too!"?

Steven M. Gillon wrote about "Unintended Consequences" in legislation... This one's unintended consequence was that it is fucking stupid and too general...

Re:Best to hold off until the bugs are worked out.

[mandolin]

Mice can't even be cloned yet properly without a high percentage of them suddenly becoming morbidly obese upon reaching what would be the human equivalent of about 30.

And what's wrong with that? That's almost exactly how it works in this trailer park..

tacos lives

[DarkClown]

y'know the liver is the one organ that will repair itself, so a little gumption would negate the need of said clone.
the blood supply, however, h'mmmm....

Re:tacos lives

[DarkClown]

sorry _internal_ organ.
damn, picky picky picky.
remember humor?

Re:tacos lives

[bmongar]

Wow, only your liver heals? My organs repair themselve all the time. Last week I got a cut (the skin is an organ) and it healed right up.

Re:I can see it now

[Bob McCown]

Why would I want a half-price clone of a half-rate musician?

Half height clones?

[MAXOMENOS]

And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

The year is 2015, and Internet legend CmdrTaco has received a fully grown half-height clone, whom he has named Tacillo.

CmdrTaco OK clone, now mow the lawn!
Tacillo Mow the damn lawn yourself, Taco boy.
CmdrTaco (incredulous) Why you little prick! I made you to mow my goddamn lawn! Now mow the goddamn lawn!!
Tacillo Fuck you, I'm not mowing your goddamn lawn. And by the way, if I'm a little prick, it's only because you're a big prick!
CmdrTaco (Pissed) YOU...YOU...
Tacillo Never thought your genetic material would turn on you, eh Taco boy? (Gives CmdrTaco the finger) Now piss off before I punch you in your now-redundant nuts.
CmrdTaco [Censored by the FCC. Have a nice day!]
Tacillo You said it yourself Taco Bell, you made me. I'm going to surf for porn. Deal with it.


ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.

Re:Spaghetti Ethics

[MAXOMENOS]

Problem is, it is cut-and-dried. But it's cut-and-dried only to those who've thought about it, and who have made a decision between two mutually-exclusive points of view:
(snip)

That's not a bad way of summing things up, although I might suggest that it is possible for someone to consider one who lacks the capability for even rudimentary cognative activity (e.g., the brain dead) to be essentially soulless. But that depends on how one defines the soul ("fundamental algorithm?")

ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.

baby got back

[cswiii]

And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

For some strange reason, I now have Sir Mix-a-Lot stuck in my head.

"36-24-36? Only if she's five-three!"

Someone, help!

Re:baby got back

[MustardMan]

That would make CmdrTaco over ten feet tall...

I knew some zealots tend to make out RMS or ESR or Linus as larger than life, but, REALLY GUYS, this is Taco we're talking about. Personally I like to picture him looking like Smithers and Katz looking like Hans Moleman

Re:Cloning slavery?

[Col. Klink (retired)]

I wish I had a pointer to the Calvin and Hobbes strips which dealt with him cloning himself...

My pleasure. The series began on Jan 8, 1990 (skip the Sundays) and continues to February 1, 1990.

Re:Cuban bio-tech ?

[Mr. Flibble]

No, I am not confusing Medicare with Biotech.

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[Mr. Flibble]

what's so great about spare livers/hearts etc? Clones are every bit as human as you are, what if you were the one who lived your entire goddamn life in a vat, so that one day someone can walk up to you, kill you, and rip your liver out to give to the "human" you were "cloned" from?

You are assuming of course that you grow just an entire clone for a few spare parts, as opposed to growing only the parts you need. (I.E. A liver or a heart alone.)

I see nothing wrong with cloning parts. It is the grey matter (nervous system/tissue/brain) that I take issue with.

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[Mr. Flibble]

You've fallen into the TV Clone trap. You know the one where we grow clones in incubators and make them into adults before they get to get out and do anything.

I am aware of how clones would develop (and the inherant problems with shortened telomeres as well), but what I imagine are "clone camps" where the clones are raised to be slaves from the start. Remember it was not all that long ago that a similar setup (or rather class system) was in effect in North America. (Indeed, it still continues throughout the world.)

From the perspective of the law it is as unlikely that anybody but your doctor would know that you are cloned, much as you don't know who around you is a test tube baby.

This depends on how you define a clone. If you cloned an ordinary human, sure, it would be difficult to tell (and if the telomeres were intact, I doubt if a doctor could tell.)

What is more worrysome is a simple manipulation of the gene code. Let's say that clones all have different coloured eyes and skin. (Sound familiar?) You could easially engineer a "race" that appeared signifigantly different from "normal" humans, and would be instantly recognizable as a clone (or, perhaps, slave is a far more accurate term.)

Hopefully with overpopulation as it currently stands we wont have to worry about a genetically created race of subordinates.

(I realize that some of my above remarks could be taken as inflamatory by some readers, if they offend you, tough. You are obviously missing my point. =)

Gotta love governments who don't understand tech.

[Mr. Flibble]

``There is no need for this technology to ever be used with humans,'' said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

Three Years Later:

Doctor: Well, Sen. Brownback, your liver and heart are failing. There is some great cloning technology in China that would let you live for an extra 10-15 years. I guess we can't use that on you here though. It's not legal here, sorry.

What? No, you can't go to China and have that procedure. If you did you would not be allowed back in the US. No clones in the US remember?

Now I am not too familiar with American politics (I am Canadian) but:

``The scientists who created Dolly had over 200 attempts before Dolly was born,'' said Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., a physician. ``The prior attempts resulted in malformed, sickly creatures that had to be euthanized.

``We cannot allow this scenario to play out with humans,'' said Weldon, who is co-sponsoring the House bill with Bart Stupak, D-Mich.

Is this a contraditcion in terms with what the Republicans are trying to to with abortion in the US (or do they see it as a continuation of the same issue?)

Although I am arguing on a slippery slope here, if cloning *DOES* get approved somewhere for humans, what rights would a clone have?

You can't abort "natural" fetuses, but cloned ones? Thats ok!!

Ah yes, the new slave trade. Come down to Wal-Mart and buy yourself a new Chinese-Engineered clone, if you are unsatified with their performance, remeber you can just not feed them, and throw them in the trash!

(Here I am picking China as a leader in Bio-tech, but maybe I should have picked Cuba, I understand that they are very advanced on this front...)

Re:Mini-mower?

[ethereal]

"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun."

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[ethereal]

So, if I created two clones of myself, it would be OK? They'd just be twins, right?

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:What have we here?

[ethereal]

``it's morally wrong and reprehensible for anybody to consider the cloning of a human being,'' said House sponsor Dave Weldon, R-Fla

Nice to see that it's not just Germany and France (cf my comments here) which believe in ThoughtCrime. Thanks, Rep. Weldon, but I don't need you or anyone in the government to tell me how to think. I grudgingly allow the public good to interfere with what I do (on the expectation that my fellow citizens will be similarly restrained in their actions towards me), but my thoughts are accountable to no one.

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

cloning a whole human won't become epidemic

[ethereal]

...because it's not worthwhile. What would be the advantage of creating a baby that's an exact genetic copy of someone, and then waiting years for it to be able to walk, talk, and think? I could see some advantages to cloning body parts, but cloning a whole person will never be worthwhile. Unless of course we've developed something that can accelerate your growth tremendously and also dump knowledge directly into the brain, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

At least Congress isn't going after mutants. Yet.

Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

Re:cloning a whole human won't become epidemic

[Tower]

Think about it - fantasy sports players have always asked, "How would Babe Ruth and Ted Williams do in today's baseball world?" Now you could find out.

--

Re:cloning a whole human won't become epidemic

[e-Motion]

What would be the advantage of creating a baby that's an exact genetic copy of someone, and then waiting years for it to be able to walk, talk, and think?

It might be worth the wait if the original had genetically superior intelligence.

Re:cloning a whole human won't become epidemic

[Prior Restraint]

Unless of course we've developed something that can accelerate your growth tremendously and also dump knowledge directly into the brain...

And why should such advances be the sole province of clones? I'd rather dump knowledge directly into my own brain than let some younger look-alike run off with the Nobel prize.

Re:Will cloning of an organ be allowed?

[Belgand]

While I'm still only an undergrad in biology cloning issues are at the forefront of not only my interests in science, but also my career interests for the future. That said it's impossible to tell that someone is a clone without a valid copy of the original genes to compare them to. AFAIK it would also be impossible to tell whether someone was a child or a clone without extensive testing of genes.

The main telling factor though would be an extreme similiarity in introns. In a standard gel electrophoresis you can match up the most likely, but they won't be (or at least I've known them to be) identical. In such a case it could be assumed barring more extensive testing that you're dealing with a clone.

Discrimination is the real problem!

[zCyl]

All the posts on here are stating the obvious such as how cloning is just a scientific tool, or how twins are clones, or making silly jokes. Everyone has missed the REAL social issue at work here. Clones WILL be created, and when they are, the world will hate them and shun them! Clones will be just as human as you and I, but they will be outcast and feared by society at large. It's the new wave of discrimination, and there will be a whole new debate about whether they are "real" people. And no one will think to ask the clones...

Re:Discrimination is the real problem!

[Prior Restraint]

I read an article some time back that hypothesized a clone running for president. Assuming s/he was born in the U.S. (ban or no ban) and at least thrity-five years old, is s/he eligible? The author thought so, since being the child of a felon is not a ban to public service.

Any thoughts?

Re:Discrimination is the real problem!

[ichimunki]

I don't see how it's going to be a problem. It's not like you can grow a human in a vat of goo like in the Matrix. This process, at least for many years to come, will still involve implanting what is essentially a zygote into a human womb (although it would be interesting to see them try a chimpanzee womb to get rid of that whole informed consent thing). A human child inside a human womb will have to be born just like all other children, and would therefore have a birth certificate and be a regular citizen. No one, not even the clone, will necessarily know it is a clone-- except for the newspaper clippings and science papers that will be written about it.

I'm guessing that success with a human in a non-human womb is unlikely for some time as well. There are few, if any, discrimination issues with humans who resulted from artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood. The biggest problems seem to be legal, and not social.

On the other hand, there is a big difference between a straight-up clone and a genetically altered clone. Adding non-human genes or purposefully altering the human genes in the process of cloning probably will result in someone who may be evidently not quite human, and yes, I'd say this is going to take some time to solve in the social arena. But given that we'll need to perfect the straight clone methods before we get all Dr. Moreau, I'm more worried about global warming than clonism. That would seem to me to be a much more pressing issue.

Re:Discrimination is the real problem!

[dasmegabyte]

The world will hate and fear them because of some factor of their genetics...just like the X-men!

Once again, the whole world proves Stan Lee right, like it did with Ghost Rider!

Re:Discrimination is the real problem!

[Ripped_edge]

Will a clone be the same as everyone else?

That brings in the question of what are people, more importantly, what is life. Strictly speaking, the clone did not undergo Darwinian evolution to appear on the earth. NASA's defintion of life would them rank them somewhere in the range of a virus.



Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

grist for the mill

[geekd]

http://www.plif.com/archive/wc263.gif

excellent cartoon on the dangers of cloning.

Re:What have we here?

[Blitter]

I can't tell how serious Taco was about the clone mowing his lawn, but I suspect there are people out there who would be serious about that. Slave labor was great for the South for a while. But we have to deal with massive racial problems for the next couple centuries as a result. Do we really want that again? Are clones people? If not, why not? Do people have any inherent dignity? Or are they just tools to be used at the pleasure of the powerful, and human dignity something something you own in proportion to your bank account?

as things that all good Xians should oppose. It's as if they'd never heard of the separation of the church and state

Separation of church and state doesn't mean that religious people should have no voice in government or that some laws should not be motivated by religious beliefs. It merely means that there must be no requirement that laws be in conformance to the teachings of some religion. It's not illegal for me to murder you in the United States because we all signed a social contract that says the party of the first part agrees not to do that to the party of the second part. It's illegal because Christianity condemns such actions as being morally wrong. Despite the Rousseauxian delusion of a social contract our society is based on a more or less shared view of morality. And religion is a valid basis for moral values.

Re:What have we here?

[Blitter]

I just don't buy into the idea that the laws that I have to follow should be based on someone else's religion.

Well, what do you suggest they be based on, your own religion? Or just your own "experience", "reason" and "common sense"? Common sense is just the intuition we've developed for things we are familiar with. Reason can prove anything you want as long as you start with the right assumptions. My experience is that Christianity has some valuable truths to teach. So why is your basis any better or worse than mine? More to the point, why are you basically saying "Oh, you believe in a religion, sorry that disqualifies you from having any input at all in making laws." Would you support a Constitutional amendment excluding citizens with religious beliefs from holding elected office and from voting? Or would you merely rule as unconstitutional any law that happened to coincide with the teachings of some religion?

I don't see any indication that believers in one or another religion are any nicer ... than believers in some other religion or non-believers.

This in no way invalidates religion from being a valid basis for moral values. In fact, the existence of a single person who has done great good exclusively as a result of religious beliefs proves religion can be a valid basis for moral values. (Mother Teresa fits this criterion I think, just to throw out a name.) Note I never claimed religion was the only valid basis, nor did I claim that religious beliefs guarantee good civic behavior. But then lack of religious beliefs hardly guarantees that either.

mini-me

[Lars J]

If you're gonna have a clone - do it with style. You can't go wrong with Autsin Powers...

Let's work on the logic here . . .

[Badgerman]

1. There is a new technology.
   
2. Like any new technology, it is experimental , unpredictable, and new
   
3. Due to the experimental and unpredictable nature of this new technology, someone wants to outlaw it.
   

End result? Restraints on developing a new technology, which will thus remain experimental and unpredictable for much longer than is necessary.

I smell technophobia and political grandstanding.

Re:Let's work on the logic here . . .

[krmt]

Due to the experimental and unpredictable nature of this new technology, someone wants to outlaw it.

Get your facts straight. It's not unpredictable. We know that cloning will result in plenty of problematic fetuses, and we know that it can result in an individual with the exact same DNA as the donor. People want to outlaw it not because of the things that could happen, but because of the things that will happen. You are dealing with a bigger issue here than your typical tech. Read some stuff on bioethics and then say it's technophobia.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Let's work on the logic here . . .

[dazedNconfuzed]

Let's continue the logic:
There is no difference between a normal human and a cloned human, other than duplicating the 0.1% of DNA that is often different between people (the rest is always the same). A clone is merely a little more the "same" than most people.
Why, then, should clones be subject to treatment that would be intolerable if done to other people?

Re:Let's work on the logic here . . .

[john_many_jars]

Rather than calling it technophobia and political grandstanding, let's look at it from another perspective..

The parables of Pandora, of the temptation of the forbidden fruit, of the tower of Babel, Prometheus, (sorry about all the occidental references, but I am not too familiar with other belief systems) and others all point to the fact that with new technologies come an entirely different set of problems and responsibilities.

Whether or not the change is good or bad (I do not pretend to be able to judge any of the parables, let alone cloning), there is a lesson to be learned: the consequences of invention include unforeseen, radical shifts in everything, most of which cannot be determined a priori.

To speculate about the repercussions is folly. However, to deny the fact that radical problems will arise is more so. The pols are short on facts but long on principle. Whether or not their actions are correct (history is the only yard stick we can use, and the history has not happened yet), it is a bit naive to assume that just because something is done in the name of science, it has to be valued as good, whether you measure by cost-benefit analysis or other metric. Einstein went to his grave rueing his thoery of special relativity.

The only way we can learn and judge paradigm shifting discoveries is to experience their ramifications. Experience does not grade on a curve, so I believe we should best understand what direction we are going in before blindly heading down that path. ET IN ARCADIA EGO, death also lives in heaven.

Re:Let's work on the logic here . . .

[john_many_jars]

I didn't say stop.. I just said be careful, very very careful.

Brainless clones in tubes.

[meldroc]

Actually, I have less problems with the brainless clone in a tube than I do with the creation of "Mini-Me's". If the clone was grown so that the development of the brain was completely supressed (scientists have already done this with frogs), it doesn't have, never had, and never will have a mind. It won't feel pain, it won't feel anything - as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly usable spare parts. The "Mini-Me" clone mowing the lawn does have a mind, therefore he should be considered a full-fledged human being.

However, I think that a more viable option is to use my stem cells to grow individual parts on demand - quicker and not as many ethical issues.

Re:Human clones are people!

[meldroc]

There's no indication so far that we can create "cloned" organs unconnected from the rest of a body.

This can and has been done already. Scientists have been able to create a dog's bladder purely from muscle, lining, and a couple other types of cells grown in nutrients on a polymer mesh (the same way that the ear was grown on a mouse's back.) When transplanted into a dog, the bladder worked just like the dog's natural bladder. Supposedly, these guys are going to work on creating a heart next. Between this and stem cell research, I see lots of perfectly ethical uses for grown organs.

Re:I can see it now

[malacai]

Of course, a true clone of Brittany would look
how much like her??

Or a clone of Michael Jackson for instance ... how
different would that look?

1 clone of Brittany: $500
"Enhancements" to look like the real thing: $5000

Re:How many organs == a human?

[Yogger]

How is creating a headless body any more freaky/creepy than growing a bodyless foot?

Re:A new body every 20 years or so?

[5foot2]

Oh man!, I fell dirty. A Schwarzzenegger movie? Trust me, this is just a coincidence.

A new body every 20 years or so?

[5foot2]

It would be really cool to be able to upload your current knowledge/soul/personality (or what ever) to a new system (body) every 20 years or so. You could start out with a new fresh 20 year old body and trade it in when you hit 40. Also if you did a nightly backup of the stuff that makes you "you", and you had a major system failure (Say you die or something), you could then just restore to the new body.

Re:A new body every 20 years or so?

[5foot2]

The worst possible senerio, would be if M$ software was the defacto std. used for the "data" transfer, or nightly "backups". You would then trully be owned by Microsoft. Wouldn't that sux, everything that is you held in a very proprietary format.

After a "restore", or "hardware" upgrade, you just wouldn't work quite as well as you did to start with. Once or twice a day your eyes would glaze over with a blue color and you'd shit yourself. A hard reset would be the only thing that would bring you back.

Re:A new body every 20 years or so?

[bareman]

Sure, we could restore you if you died accidently or something but what if we all decided that you were obsolete?

Re:A new body every 20 years or so?

[ahem]

This strongly resembles the plot of the recent Schwarzzenegger flick, The 6th Day

Debate of the century: Genetic Property

[Smallest]

Imagine the fun people will have trying to claim rights on their own genetic material. every celebrity hairdresser will have a lucrative side business selling celebrity hair to cloning agencies!

-c

iMow, uMow, we_allMow...

[SEWilco]

It would be cheaper to use a Toro iMow than to have a clone made.

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[bprotas]

what's so great about spare livers/hearts etc? Clones are every bit as human as you are, what if you were the one who lived your entire goddamn life in a vat, so that one day someone can walk up to you, kill you, and rip your liver out to give to the "human" you were "cloned" from?

Re:Robots are better than clones

[Patrick Lewis]

Perhaps something like this? It's not a multipurpose robot, but it would at least get the grass cut.

Or you could just buy a goat.

Re:Bad Choice, Taco

[Unknown Poltroon]

Have a kid. Thats what their for.

Urg. That's "failed"

[Valdrax]

If we try right now, the failured attempts...

That's "failed attempts." I gotta read more carefully when I preview, or I don't have the right bitch about the Slashdot editors anymore.

It's the failures that cause concern

[Valdrax]

Is this a contraditcion in terms with what the Republicans are trying to to with abortion in the US (or do they see it as a continuation of the same issue?)
...
You can't abort "natural" fetuses, but cloned ones? Thats ok!!

Actually, you're missing the point. This kind of anti-cloning sentiment is very consistent with pro-life attitudes. Basically, there were a few unviable attempts at Dolly that had to be put down, and many, many more that never sucessfully grew past the initial stages of fertilization.

Pro-life people hold that a fertilized human zygote has just as much right to live as a newborn baby. They are both people, even though one is far more dependent on their mother for survival than the other. Thus, the creation of hundreds of malformed, doomed to die human beings would be considered abhorrent. This is the same mindset that considers fetal stem cell research as unethical, because it essentially involves harvesting murdered people.

Let me reiterate. The objection is that you are creating (and killing) hundreds of people to attempt to get one successful attempt. They are not saying that it's okay to abort cloned people while its not okay to abort others. They are saying that the necessity to abort failed attempts or to let them continue living broken lives with their deformities is sufficient reason to ban human cloning research.

I find an outright ban to be a bad idea, but as someone who is pro-life, I find the current failure rate to be unacceptable. You can't clone a human nowdays without doing something a little unethical. (I'm not even going to respond to CmdrTaco's outright appeal for the creation of subhuman slaves and mindless people to be killed so that their bodies can be harvested for your own immortality.)

Here's my proposal:
We should have a complete moratorium on human cloning until the cloning of mammals has a failure rate approaching natural human pregnancy. Only then can we attempt it on humans. As is, cloning is far too risky to attempt with humans. We should fund research into cloning of other animals before we attempt it with people. It's just too soon right now. If we try right now, the failured attempts, and the ruined children that come out of them, will create a public backlash that could destroy all cloning research for decades, if not longer. We cannot allow premature attempts to ruin the future of cloning.

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[daviskw]

Although I am arguing on a slippery slope here, if cloning *DOES* get approved somewhere for humans, what rights would a clone have? You've fallen into the TV Clone trap. You know the one where we grow clones in incubators and make them into adults before they get to get out and do anything. The truth is much more benign. If they clone you, they put you into a non-artificual real life mamary based famale incubator and let you gestate for nine months. After this time, you are freed from your prison but you get to spend the next sixteen to twenty-four years with your own personal slaves who do your bidding and let you wreck their car. At the end of that time they throw you out and tell you not to come back until you've got your own mamalian based replicant masters that they can give money to, bounce on their knees and then send home. From the perspective of the law it is as unlikely that anybody but your doctor would know that you are cloned, much as you don't know who around you is a test tube baby. In the view of congress however it is probably a bit of a good idea to ban cloning at this point in time. I don't believe it is because Congress knows what they are doing. They don't. Neither, on the other hand, do the people who want to clone other people. Put it in perspective: If the people who had invented the atomic bomb had known what they were setting up the last half of the twentieth century for, do you think they would have agreed to do it?

Cloning challenges medical ethics

[lart]

With new developments in stem cell research, most of the (IMHO good) arguments for Human Cloning are met. Stem cell cultures taken early in life can potentially yield fresh organs, nerve tissue, limbs, what have you.

While that may not provide any of us with miniature lawn-mowing versions of ourselves, many can be satisfied.

Human cloning comes so close to violating, and it definitely challenges, codes of ethics that Doctors and Scientists have been struggling with for hundreds of years.

These codes have been held in high regard for the protection of patients and subjects. While it's true that these rules have definitely held back pharmaceutical, surgical, and psychological research that could have benefitted or even saved the lives of millions, in these cases the good of the few or the one must outweigh the good of those millions.

There are so many ways Human Cloning can be misused and abused with tragic results, there must be some sort of regulation, and starting early and prohibitively is a good start; it is easier to relax restrictions later than try to enforce greater ones once Human Cloning becomes commonplace.

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[Absynthe]

ummm, try again, he said "identical twins" which are always the rarer case of the egg being fertilized and spliting, which is exactly what cloning is.
I date an identical twin and they hate each other like no one else on the planet. Although nobody forced to zygote to split in a lab, they are for all intents and purposes clones. I don't think you would always find your clone to be good company, much less your obediant servant.

Cloning is just another method of reproduction!

[JCholewa]

You're starting from the assumption that we want to make clones into duplicates of ourselves. But what about the prime drive of our entire species? What if somebody wants to continue their family line but has no spouse (or their spouse is infertile) and does not want to use some stranger's DNA?

What's wrong with having a child as a single parent? People forget that this area of science can have applications as a simple, straightforward means of having a normal child.

-JC
http://www.jc-news.com/

Fascism and Single Parent Reproduction

[JCholewa]

> WWII. Nazis. Hitler's 'super men.' How bad would it have been had they had human cloning?

How would cloning at all affect this issue? First of all, Hitler wasn't in power for nearly long enough time to even bring a single generation of clones to maturity.

Secondly, cloning would probably have been thrown out in favour of selective breeding or dual parent genetic alteration. Frankly, Hitler would never have accepted any individual as an ideal Aryan, so producing a genetic duplicate would be seen as a useless tool in their quest for the ultimate human form.

-JC
http://www.jc-news.com/

Re:Bad Choice, Taco

[Tower]

Could be worse... "Inna gadda da vida, baby"?!

--

watching this movie last night... "The 6th Day" -

[soren]

The movie had some interesting insight to human
cloning...possibly our parallel...someday? :)

The 6th Day

why half his height?

[jamesbrown1000]

does cmdrtaco have a small lawnmower? and if it's a riding mower the MiniTaco would have to be able to reach the pedals, for goodness' sake ...

Imagine

[wiredog]

A beowulf cluster of half-height CmdrTaco clones mowing the lawn!

Why Ban? Corporate America

[detritus.]

Cloning as a advancement in science seems to have it's benefits. However, my concern comes with Corporate America's exploitation and ruining of such technology.

Imagine companies designing and marketing
"proprietary" genetic races of human beings.

One forseable advantage is the test of medical drugs, being able to have a true "pure-bred" human as a consistent test variable. But then again, is it fair to subject a human to a life of potential anguish, disease and being born into bondage? Hell, we do it to rats..

I find the exponential uniqueness of the human race fascinating. It's truly an artform within itself, and really I see cloning is painting the same picture over and over again. If the factors of greed and selfishness didn't exist in this world like it does, i'd be for it.
- Slash

Re:I think they're already doing it.

[Monte]

C'mon -- the F15/F18 was designed like in the 60s or 70s. That's still our "current" air combat technology. Stealth bombers were designed and flown decades ago. Don't you guys already think that the g-men already have been cloning people in the deep depths of black ops?

You're right! And remember the Apollo program goes back to the 60's! And people give me funny looks when I tell them about the moonbase the NSA/CIA uses to listen in on our conversations!

Re:And why not?

[Monte]

HOWEVER: From the moment they split, twins develop differently, live differently.

And that would make identical twins different from clones just how? Aside from the different birthdays. I guess I don't get your point.

I support a ban on cloning for now, until the majority of the US matures enough to handle the technology they're getting themselves into.

Aww, hell, what fun is that? You're the kind of spoilsport that would ban the Bomb, I bet!

Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children.

What's wrong with that? People generally pick breeding partners they have commonality with - if we all bred randomly then the human race would be well on it's way to a uniform color. As it is, everyone pretty much runs their own little eugenics program...

Re:Maybe not a ban

[Monte]

Now it looks as though there genuinely are some problems with the clones having reduced viability, so there are some very serious long term health issues to clear up.

So what? There's no ban against giving birth to a baby with a genetic defect that would limit it's life, why should their be one on creating a broken clone? What's the moral difference?

(And if the answer is "choice" I'd point out there's no ban against people who know there's a high chance of passing on a genetic disease from having kids)

It only makes sense to put a hold on human cloning until the clones are actually likely to be as healthy as an ordinary baby...

Sounds good, but you've got to give somebody the power to define "likely" and "healthy" and "ordinary". And once those restrictions are put on clones, what's to keep that power from being applied to regular old-fasioned conception?

People take for granted the freedom to pretty much breed however they like, so why shouldn't that same freedom apply to cloning?

Cell Phones

[QuantumG]

man.. it's just like that 60's thing dude. We're all gunna be lookin' back in 40 years saying "damn, we could have had clones way back then.. stupid government, I'm glad we did away with it and now live in underground caves" or something

Re:Your half-height clone

[MustardMan]

Worse yet, his shoulder is at the perfect altitude to come runnin at you on a full charge and slug you in the nuts

Re:I can see it now

[Tackhead]

> Order your very own clone of clone of [Brittney Spears / N*Sync boy / etc] now from us and get a 2nd clone at half price!!

Problem is, these brainless clones wouldn't be useful for organ harvesting.

I suppose they could be used as fucktoys, though. Now that'd be a growth industry. Like RealDolls(tm) made out of meat!

Re:How many organs == a human?

[Tackhead]

> I would guess that a brain is what makes a human, but if only a guy's head is left, I doubt the public would buy creating headless human bodies (that would be freaky!) In that case though, why not create the parts one by one to avoid public/congressional objections?

Agreed. I'm ready for growing headless human clones, but the rest of the species isn't.

But the businessman inside me says "if the entire body's shot, and you need a head transplant", you've gotta solve the problem of nerve regrowth for quadraplegics first. So there wouldn't be much use for a whole ancephalic human clone of yourself, because the best you could do with it would be to hook yourself up to it and still be a quadriplegic.

Plus - and more importantly - it's probably a hell of a lot cheaper to only grow the part you need, one at a time. Maintaining single organs in small vats is bound to be cheaper than maintaining a whole body and growing it for the 10-12 years it would take for the parts to be interchangeable.

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[Tackhead]

> Well, Sen. Brownback, your liver and heart are failing. There is some great cloning technology in China that would let you live for an extra 10-15 years. I guess we can't use that on you here though. It's not legal here, sorry.

Good point. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Maybe not three years, but definitely within 10-15 years from now, it'll all be legalized. For some reason, a bunch of Congresscritters will start changing their minds when not only their largest campaign contributors, but they themselves, will need the technology.

This has the fringe benefit of there being 10-15 years of research being done (perhaps outside the US) to perfect the technology. Everybody wins, it just takes a little longer. Unfortunately, a lot of good US biotech docs will be working offshore, and that money won't come back into the States.

Re:Spaghetti Ethics

[Tackhead]

To clarify my "it is cut-and-dried" comment.

It's pretty much cut-and-dried only to the few people who have made a choice between the two points of view ("soul exists and mind/body are inseparable") and ("meat machines").

The only reason it's not cut-and-dried in Congress is because most of the voters and campaign sponsors have never thought about which world view they hold true.

Re:Spaghetti Ethics

[Tackhead]

> I gotta think that cloning is one of the weirdest ethical dilemmas we've ever met, and the US Government is doing its damndest to convince itself that it's pretty cut-and-dried.

Problem is, it is cut-and-dried. But it's cut-and-dried only to those who've thought about it, and who have made a decision between two mutually-exclusive points of view:

One: A human being is a thing that was created by God or some other process, and the notion of "soul" is meaningful, and that maybe even a brainless body has a soul, because, after all, if it were conceived naturally and happened to be a mutant, God oughta have mercy on it. There are many ethical concerns about cloning if you're part of this group. (Sorry if I've misstated the underlying philosophy - it isn't my view, and its adherents can probably describe it better than I can.)

Two: We are machines made of meat. "Self" or "soul" or "consciousness" is an epiphenomenon of neural activity. There can be no neural activity without a brain. A brainless (anencephalic) clone grown in a vat would not be a person. A brained (i.e. "normal") clone grown in a vat or womb would be a person, just as an identical twin is a person. There is no ethical dilemma.

Problem is - 99% of the population has never thought about these issues. We - as geeks - are accustomed to thinking about these things because we've grown up in a world where science-fiction robots and real-world AI debates are part of our daily existence.

We're not the norm here, though, and our education system is pretty much geared to making sure nobody ever thinks about "deep stuff" like that (after all, it's not conducive to producing worker bees), and as a result, we will continue to see decisions based on ignorance.

I don't care what side of this debate you're on. Just think about it and pick a side. Enclue your friends as to your point of view. Because the educational system sure as hell won't.

Brave New World

[Mr.Mustard]

Am I the only person that thinks "And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn." is a Brave New World reference?

But it's the American Way

[Gorimek]

These politicians are fighting to destroy some core American Values.

After all, who but a clone can better illustrate that All Men Are Created Equal?

Re:Cloning slavery?

[dpplgngr]

Yeah, why should Rob Malda be a slave owner just because the slave shares his genetic material? Patent infrigement? Not a very open source philosophy. But I don't honestly think he's the slave ownin' type.

And now for a few what ifs. Clones should have real parents, everyone else should have real parents (who don't work 60 hours+ a week). They're individuals. As far as their human rights go, I am more concerned about things going the other way. Beyond cloning, genetic manipulation/hyperbreeding should eventually produce beings who are each and every one beyond
us in cognitive turbo. We will fondly think back on those annoying times when we had to give basic stupid user help to our parents as the good old days.

Side note- Larry Niven covered cloning related problems and organ farming/organ jacking quite well in The Long Arm Of Gil Hamilton. I believe this book is out of print, but if you can find it, keep it. Good screenplay basis, too.

Re:Cloning of an organ will not be allowed.

[Spasemunki]

Well, not exactly. The transfer of a somatic nucleus into an egg cell is the procedure currently used to close whole animals (a la Dolly). If you could come up with an organ cloning procedure that did not involve this, than you would be legal. The issue is placing somatic nuclei from humans into egg cells, which are still totipotent (capable of creating any and all other forms of cellular matter through division). Maybe there could be a way to simply use a single liver cell if you wanted to grow a liver; no one knows yet, because frankly we're not very skilled at cloning yet, much less starting to figure out how to grow individual organs (though we have caused a few flys to grow eyes all over their bodies- that's a long way from transplantable organs, however)

"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"

Re:Cloning slavery?

[Lord_Breetai]

I especially like the second strip in the "Boink" series:

Calvin: Ok Hobbes, press the button and duplicate me.

Hobbes: Are you sure this is such a good idea?

Calvin: Brother! You doubting Thomases get in the way of more scientific advances with your stupid ethical questions! This is a brilliant idea! Hit the button, will ya?

Hobbes: I'd hate to be accused of inhibiting scientific progress... Here you go.

[BOINK]

Hobbes: Scientific progress goes "BOINK"?

Calvin 1: It worked! It worked! I'm a genius!

Calvin 2: No your not you liar! I invented this!

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[Lord_Breetai]

If the people who had invented the atomic bomb had known what they were setting up the last half of the twentieth century for, do you think they would have agreed to do it?

Yeah, they set up us the bomb.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Re:Common Sense

[lucyfersam]

I agree that banning full human cloning is an excellent idea. Cloning is biologicly pointless for reproduction, as is pointed out above. There are only 2 possible uses of cloning:

1. Creating cloned slave, which is illeagle and immorale. This reason for cloning however, is also why clones should not, under any cicuimstances, be banned from immigration. If a clone was created in another country and would end up as a slave there, we should support their immigration and treat them like the human being they are.

2. Organ farming, which we are not currently equipped to do in a reasonable fashion and may not even be a feasible method of organ growth. Growing a full human clone just to take its organs is wrong by any standerds, as by the time there organs are really usable in an adult body they are concoius and aware. We currently lack the genetic technology to create a clone w/out a brain, and such a clone might not even be possible or useful, due to the necessicity of neural activity for full neural deveopmnet throught the body. Embryonic stem cell reserch is currently our best bet for good organs.

This means that cloning is an entirely pointless endevor, and givin our already ridiculus population, should be highly discouraged accross the world.

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[Stonehand]

How's that a contradiction? The same thread -- opposition to the killing of embryos -- runs through both abortion (direct killing of embryo) and arguably as a prerequisite for cloning (through creating lots of doomed non-viable embryos... and also, the whole clone-for-spare-parts idea.).

UNIX insights on cloning

[eries]

For those hollerin for cloning tech now, here's a little story from Graham Glass' excellent UNIX for Programmers and Users, Page 410 (SystemsProgramming, Getting a New Process: fork())

"It [fork] reminds me of a great sci-fi story I read once, about a man who comes across a fascinating booth at a circus. The vendor at the booth tells man that the booth is a matter-replicator; anyone who walks through the booth is duplicated. The original person walks out of teh booth unharmed, but the duplicate person walks out onto the surface of Mars as a slave of the Martian construction crews. The vendor then tells the man that he'll be given a million dollars if he allows himself to be replicated, and he agrees. He happily walks through the machine, looking forward to collecting the million dollars... and walks out onto the surface of Mars. Meanwhile, back on Earth, his duplicate is walking off with a stash of cash. The question is this: If you came across the booth, what would you do?"

Careful what you wish for. Also beware programming books that keep you up nights.

Re:Cloning slavery?

[dimator]

if he didn't want to clean his room or do his homework, neither would his clones

Looks like someone can't control his clones.

My clones will like what I tell them to like!
--

Re:basis for concept that clones are monsters

[dimator]

Also this. Small part, but they were in there (and they were disgusting)


--

How many organs == a human?

[dimator]

If cloning of spare parts is allowed, how many parts == a human? Ie, if a guy has his foot amputated, I can cook him up a new foot. If his leg is amputated, then surely I can cook him up a foot attached to a leg.

Well, how far can I take this? What if the guy is mostly gone, can I make him legs, arms, torso, etc? How many parts can I grow together before someone says "hey!"

I would guess that a brain is what makes a human, but if only a guy's head is left, I doubt the public would buy creating headless human bodies (that would be freaky!) In that case though, why not create the parts one by one to avoid public/congressional objections?


--

Re:How many organs == a human?

[Artifice_Eternity]

Scientists are starting to realize that it isn't all about the DNA...it's about the whole environment in which DNA does its works. The next big frontier is "proteomics" rather than "genomics," because genes by themselves can't do much...they are activated and enabled only in certain situations.

I wonder if the fantasy of growing organs in a vat is even possible. It may turn out that our organs have to develop inside our bodies...that there are all kinds of complex interrelationships that are necessary. Trying to grow one organ in isolation from the body's other systems -- circulatory, endocrine, nervous, etc. -- may be futile. Perhaps you COULD supply a liver-in-a-vat with the exact combination of nutrients, hormones, growth factors, temperature, etc....but chances are the body can do it better.

Re:Broken?

[broter]

Although I do agree that there should be a *temporary* ban on cloning, I think your statment about choice is a bit off.

If you know you have a dominant genetic disease, then it's 1:4 to 1:1 (double occurance of the gene) likely that your offspring will have it too. Yes, you're right, that is a far cry from 49:50, but it's still a CHOICE that you're bringing someone into the world with your fucked up genes. Since our genes tend to motivate us into replicating ourselves, any suggestion that we not bread like bunnies is seen as unnatural and hostile. Similarly (sp?), any suggestion that we bread like bunnies in a different way is also seen as unnatural.

It's too early to know what benifits or pitfalls await us down the human cloning path; so I'd like to see the decision of permanently banning it put off til a later day. The technology will improve, and new areas of medical research will be uncovered via cloning in general.

-RB

Send in the Clones

[bjorky]

Isn't it rich, are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the clones.

Isn't it bliss, don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around
One who can't move
Where are the clones?
Send in the clones.

Or.. from Zorak:

Zorak-
Ahem, a'right, look out
My mother said to me one day
"My little tator tot,
We're going to the circus whether you like it or not"
I told her she could take a hike,

She kicked me in the rear
I said, "Allright, I'll go,
But let me just make one thing clear
Don't send in the clones,
ugh,

Don't send in the clones,
Don't send in the clones,
They always bring me down.


-----

Re:Send in the Clones

[itzdandy]

outlawing medical miracles that could lead to better/longer/happier lives. Oh, you gotta blown knee? here , have another, take two! they're cheap and they grow in jars!

in response to the .sig
All you basepair are belong to us,
hurry! set us op the Dyno Nucleic Acid!

Re:Send in the Clones

[sulli]

And this is different from the status quo how?

Re:Send in the Clones

[Nic_7]

I just want a couple miniature CmdrTaco clones to use as lawn ornaments... and the marketing rights

Do you think...?

[webword]

Do you think that some day, clones will do research on the days before cloning? They will read these comments and they will think about what you said. They will have feelings about your comments. They will look at CmdrTaco's comments and they will not laugh. The idea that they could have been used for "spare parts" will be so frightening. The idea that they might have been slaves, or treated as slaves, will not be funny. They might weep at your comments. They might feel nothing. Either way, they might your comments some day. Are you creating the history that you really want to create? To the future clones out there, reading my comments: Please find me. I'd like to find out what you think of my comments. I want to know how you really feel and if I was right.

If you are a clone reading this 15-20 years from now, don't take the negative comments to heart. Remember, people were once afraid of CD players.

- John

Re:doing chores

[passion]

Well, that statement is incorrect in all cases except where party (A) is a homo sapiens.

Hmm - this is one of the basic reasons why I became a vegetarian. I don't take my higher intelligence and dexterity for granted, I appreciate them, and feel that other animals are my brothers, and choose not to keep them locked in a warehouse, unable to see the sun their entire lives.

If you go back far enough, you find the entire human race all descended from the same tribes, and if you go even futher, you find that all animal kingdoms descended from the same living beings.

doing chores

[passion]

I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

Hmm, seems to me that the ownership of a living being by another living being is referred to as "slavery". No matter what color, etc. this is still the same issue.

I would rather have R2-D2 mowing my lawn, such as one of these Mowbots

Re:doing chores

[dcollins]

Hmm, seems to me that the ownership of a living being by another living being is referred to as "slavery". No matter what color, etc. this is still the same issue.

Well, that statement is incorrect in all cases except where party (A) is a homo sapiens.

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[LordNimon]

Twins are the same age (give or take a few minutes). Clones aren't.
--
Lord Nimon

Re:computer nerds doesn't always = intelligent

[hellfire]

No do not filter this out... its important! :)

Okay Taco was being amusing, but if he were dead serious, he'd deserve having a man in full Plate Mail beating him with a rubber chicken.

Cloning is a dangerous subject. When you clone someone, you are cloning a human being. When do his rights as a being stop, and when he is suddenly subhuman? Now some would put this in line with abortion debates and some would simply be selfish and say I don't care... well its those people who dismiss this argument who such laws are designed to stop!!

Cloning needs serious debate. I think research must be pursued into cloning, and I think that one day cloning a limb or an organ is something we must do, but cloning an entire human and sticking him in a tank somewhere just in case you need a transplant suddenly destroys all our present day notions of who is human and who deserves human rights.

Human Cloneing company

[ZiGGyKAoS]

Check this out. They think that jesus was a clone of a extraterristial.....
http://www.clonaid.com/english/pages/home.html

Re:And why not?

[RGRistroph]

Twins are clones.

What is being proposed under current cloning, that is the process which produced the Dolly sheep, is essentially the creation of an identical twin who is much younger than you are.

What were you immagining a clone was ? Some sort of Star Trek transporter echo ? If we create an embryo from one of your cells, then it still has to be implanted in womb that will not reject it and then raised to adulthood.

As such, cloning is much more of an incremental advance than the reactions of congress and slashdot would suggest. Parents of a sickly child already occasionally choose to have additional children to increase the number of potentional organ or marrow donors for the first child, an ethically problematic decision because you are bringing someone into the world with a purpose or implied obligation.

You say "Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children." But that's exactly what they think they are doing already, by marrying white women and raising their children to be racists.

In India and China many pregnancies are tested for sex and aborted on those grounds. In the US this surely happens too; people also test for various genetic diseases such as Down's syndrome and choose to abort pregnancies based on that. Can you immagine how a mother who had aborted a Down's syndrome pregnancy feels when she finally has a child, and the kid decides to make himself retarded by sniffing glue ?

People will be bad parents regardless of the tools science offers them or the tools congress denies them. The ability to create an identical twin embryo from an adult won't change all that much. Idiots will want to clone dozens of Sarah Michelle Gellers, so what ? Some of them will probably grow up ugly, and then we'll learn a bit more about how the womb and environment effect our development.

Nature's Clones

[Greyfox]

I wonder if the phrasing of the treaty is such that identical twins would be illegal? Perhaps women carrying identical twins (Which are basically just clones that happen naturally) will be required to abort their children?

basis for concept that clones are monsters

[jimmcq]

Sure there is! :)

Re:Your half-height clone

[Sax Maniac]

Wasn't that in an Austin Powers movie?

Cloning slavery? But it already happens every day

[Hell O'World]

My son may not be an exact genetic duplicate, but as soon as he's tall enough, he'll be mowing the lawn. The difference is that he will grow up and become a full member of society. The distopia CmdrTaco evokes is that these clones will not be our children, but will be considered less than human. The scariest part of his comment is not the so-called slavery of cutting the grass, but the "brainless clone in a tube".

Re:What have we here?

[krmt]

Your stem cell application isn't really critical. They've found that they can get stem cells from fat cells recently here at UCLA, and you can get them from aborted fetuses too. Stem cell research is not funded by the U.S. govt anyway (which is wrong). People seem to confuse stem cell research with cloning a lot. They are linked, but one isn't necessary for the other by any means. Stem cell research will have major benefits, but cloning most likely will not.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Human clones are people!

[krmt]

I seriously doubt it's possible at all actually. If anyone knew anything about developmental biology, then they would know how much cells influence each other during devlopment to get a functioning organ. You simply can't have a heart without the cells around it influencing it to differentiate in to the heart. And those cells can't influence the heart without influence from other cells. The "heart in a vat" idea is impossible, you need a body.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Broken?

[krmt]

There is a moral difference because it comes down to choice, not in spite of it. You are choosing to create a "broken" clone.

This "broken" person will suffer or die, one or the other. 1 out of 50 at best right now will be healthy and not have to suffer in any abnormal way (aside from premature aging) but 49 out of 50 will be a "broken" person. Sure, if that's acceptable for machine prototypes and such, then why not for people?

You simply don't build people and allow for them to break. In natural childbirth, you're not making the choice to have 49 "broken" kids to have one healthy one, but in choosing to clone you will be doing just that. These clones are living people and they deserve every right to health that naturally born children get, and what you are proposing is that parents are allowed to break their kids. That is simply a crime, but with cloning that is what will happen. The choice to concieve a child is very very different than choosing to clone one.

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Re:Maybe not a ban

[debaere]

I personally think that there IS a moral problem with parents having kids with a very high chance of having defects. What gives someone the right to fuck up someone else? Just because something is possible, doesn't make it right.

My problem with cloning is the huge door it opens to new diseases. Anytime humans have seriously messed with nature it has caused problems. Clear-cutting caused enviromental problems, and changes in weather patterns, anti-biotics is causing so-called "super-bugs" to show up that modern medicine can't deal with. Mad Cow disease is another example.

I am all for banning human cloning until we know for sure that we understand it completely, and have genetics down cold. If we can't clone a viable sheep, what makes us think we can clone a vialble human?

my .02c

DOS is dead, and no one cares...

Dr evilTaco?

[evilWurst]

I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

"he is like you in every way....but one eigth the size"
"i shall call him...mini-Taco"

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[evilWurst]

I think the choice of phrasing was intended to set the stage to ban imports of any clone, not just humans. As well as the eerie in-between partial-clones that Taco wants..

fair use

[evilWurst]

This is just another attempt to take away our fair use rights! The Supreme Court said I could time-shift my TV-watching...
I wanna time-shift my life!

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[Sc00ter]

"Doctor: Well, Sen. Brownback, your liver and heart are failing. There is some great cloning technology in China that would let you live for an extra 10-15 years. I guess we can't use that on you here though. It's not legal here, sorry.

What? No, you can't go to China and have that procedure. If you did you would not be allowed back in the US. No clones in the US remember? "

Is the ban on cloned parts or whole clones?

--

Re:Best to hold off until the bugs are worked out.

[Sc00ter]

Problem with that is.. Any genitic disease you'll just get again, butcause the clone will have it too. And if it works like car insurance they'll send it to the cheapest bidder and you'll have a dented kidney with some bondo on it and a runny paint job.

--

I can see it now

[skrowl]

"Order your very own clone of clone of [Brittney Spears / N*Sync boy / etc] now from us and get a 2nd clone at half price!!"
____________________
Remember, not all /. users hate Windows or think Microsoft is out to get them!

Re:And why not?

[borzwazie]

Think we abused Napster? Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children.

Perhaps a clone army of like-minded corporate comsumerites would appeal to you.

Oh wait, we don't need cloning for that, we have the NEA and marketers to thank for that already :)

Re:Will cloning of an organ be allowed?

[n3m6]

hey.. and the good thing is .. clones can claim themselves twins to the original in order to get access.. assuming that they are at the moment at the same growth position as the original. If they are not i wonder how you are going to stop a clone who is 6 years old and the original who is 40. Are the immigration going to check your DNA too ??

Re:Maybe not a ban

[clem.dickey]

There is an assumption here that clones must be unnatural. That isn't necessarily so. Cloning can be natural. That is, an unfertilized egg can spontaneously start dividing. This is common in some lower species and occurs occasionally in fowl, I think. That's why, before the days of close quality inspection, you would occasionally find a bloody chicken egg. It wasn't (necessarily) because some rooster snuck into the henhouse.

Natural cloning (parthenogenesis, or virgin birth) is rare in mammals, in which it usually induced by great stress. I don't know that there has ever been a confirmed case in humans. Jesus Christ doesn't count. Being male, he was obviously not a clone of Mary.

The point of this rambling is that a natural human clone is theoretically possible. I wonder if the Congressmen plan to outlaw both artificial and natural clones. And if so, I wonder how they propose to distinguish between the two.

Re:Maybe not a ban

[BradleyUffner]

Ahh yes. let's put a stop to cloning research until we understand it more. Wait a second, how are we supposed to understand it more if it is illegal to research it? We can't really learn more about cloning to se if it's safe without actualy trying it by doing an experament. How are we supposed to actualy see if our technique is correct without a test first?
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\ =\=\=\=\

Great Cloning Piece on Wired

[bladel]

Wired ran an incredible article on this a few months back.

J.

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[tps12]

I hear you. The biggest problem I see is that already there is an "import ban" on clones. Shouldn't that be an "immigration ban," or are we deciding before cloning has even succeeded that clones will be nothing more than property? Didn't these guys see Blade Runner?

Re:Cloning slavery?

[belgin]

Yeah. I just love how all of these people seem to think that clones will have no minds of their own and will be property. It's like saying, "He's my twin! I can lock him in the basement and beat him daily with chains if I want to! What business is it of yours anyway? People are allowed to destroy their own property." You can substitute "twin" with clone, wife, or pet and there will be people who have said/will say it.

I believe that a bunch of barely post-Renaissance Europeans had the same ideas about people with different colored skin. That turned out well, didn't it?

B. Elgin

One word

[Oztun]

Greed.

Re:Human clones are people!

[vorpal22]

Thank you for adding that... Well said. It disgusts me to think that people are viewing clones as some kind of "organ farms"... when they are equally alive, conscious, etc... as you are. You have no right to their organs.

Re:And why not?

[AMuse]

Twins are not clones. They're not always even identical.

Twins are the result of either: a) Two eggs were released this month, and both of them are now impregnated, or b) (more rare), one egg is impregnated and then splits, resulting in identical twins. HOWEVER: From the moment they split, twins develop differently, live differently.

I support a ban on cloning for now, until the majority of the US matures enough to handle the technology they're getting themselves into.

Think we abused Napster? Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children. Think bad parents treat their kids poorly because they wanted an image of themselves? Just wait until they GET a perfect image of themselves and are still frustrated because the child has a mind of its own.

Think it won't happen that way? http://www.genochoice.com has it all.

Re:Bad Choice, Taco

[Capt. DrunkenBum]

Forget mowing the lawn.. I want 4 or 5 clones to go to work for me.. Then I could just surf /. all day... Hmmm, maybe I already have them..

Re:Human clones are people!

[donglekey]

Becaue with a brian a person has choice, pain, and emotion.

misunderstanding

[donglekey]

I think we all realize that (most) people who are against this don't really understand what is going on. People always seems to say, you shouldn't be playing God. Well I'm not God so I can't play God. And neither can anyone else for the same reason.

Re:Human clones are people!

[donglekey]

You are missing the point, if I am cloned without a brian, then yes, that would be an organ farm and if one of my organs failed what would be wrong with getting a replacement that way? An identical match with a brain would be a person, but without, it would not.

Re:Best to hold off until the bugs are worked out.

[TimTr]

I completely agree that human cloning is a bad idea until the bugs are worked out. Bringing a human being into the world with a high probability of a horribly poor quality of life is a bad idea (whether through cloning or any other circumstances.) Its not like there is a shortage of humans out there.

As far as cloning for parts or slavery - I think those are two totally different things. A clone that is an actual person - ie: has a brain - should have any and all rights as someone born through good ol' fashioned sex :) Just as invetro etc do... However, I am all for raising organs using cloning technology that are never the conscious organ of a human (ie: no brain grown then discarded or anything like that.) There is serious research in growing just organs that could be amazingly beneficial for humans...

Imagine discovering you have kidney disease, then having your insurance company pay for a new one EXACTLY LIKE YOURS (except healthy) to be grown and in a year or so you get the transplant and the insurance company saves the money of an alternate transplant, the failures and the blood cleaning machines...

Cool stuff but the kinks have to get worked out first. A unilateral "ban" is short sighted so hopefully it has the ability to be overridden.

Clones

[Isldeur]

Remember, that this would open up a whole bucket of smelly fish. Who's to say it will be used for good. (What would "used for good" mean, anyhow?)

This throws everything off kilter if not handled properly. Forget the over-crowding. What if some bozo starts making his own Arian race? What then? What about clones being used for slavery? Afterall, they're not the _real_ thing, right?

Re:Cloning slavery?

[e-Motion]

I completely agree. I was a little offended when I read that comment. I realize that it was a joke, but it still sounded too much like slavery, which is something that is hard to laugh about. I'm glad to see that someone else felt the same way.

My feelings on the matter: If cloning were allowed, I think it would be important for us to accept them as equals in all respects.

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[thefoobar]

Give me a break. One twin is not a clone of the other. Twins are the result of either two eggs being fertalized in the same month, or the rarer case of the egg being fertalized and split.

Yeah

[Shin Elendale]

And the DMCA was supposed to be pro-consumer as well.

-Elendale

Woah...

[Shin Elendale]

You know all those sci fi nuts who talk about how clones are going to be the next generation's slaves? Wonder if this law is the first step toward that.

-Elendale

Re:Woah...

[de Selby]

This law is supposed to be the first step in preventing that...

mini-clone

[tobyjaffey]

> I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

"Like CmdrTaco in every way except one eighth size, I will call him MiniTaco"

Re:Maybe not a ban

[rgmoore]

Well, they have been doing experiments on animals, which is normally the first stage in these things. After they have the procedure pretty much down cold with animals, then they can start trying it with human volunteers in clinical studies. Once they've established the safety there, it should be possible to allow it as a general purpose procedure. That's the way that these things normally proceed, and that's the logical course to take here, as well.

Maybe not a ban

[rgmoore]

I'm a bit dubious about a permanent ban on cloning, but a medium term moratorium seems like a very reasonable precaution. While it was initially believed that clones were going to be genetically perfect copies of their progenitors, there's always been some suspicion that there might be problems with the cells they've started from. Now it looks as though there genuinely are some problems with the clones having reduced viability, so there are some very serious long term health issues to clear up. It only makes sense to put a hold on human cloning until the clones are actually likely to be as healthy as an ordinary baby, the same way that other medical procedures are not permitted until their safety is adequately demonstrated.

Re:Maybe not a ban

[rgmoore]

So what? There's no ban against giving birth to a baby with a genetic defect that would limit it's life, why should their be one on creating a broken clone? What's the moral difference?

One of them is an artificial medical procedure and the other one is a natural biological process. The FDA (and they are the logical agency to make this kind of decision) currently has the role of approving or disapproving novel medical procedures, and IMO they should use that role to temporarily block approval of cloning until the problems are worked out. It's their job to approve new procedures only after their safety and efficacy has been established, which has certainly not happened yet with cloning. Nobody has the right to restrict the natural biological process of producing a baby; it's pretty clearly one of the non-enumerated rights reserved to the people by the 10th Ammendment, and IIRC it's now also protected legislatively. As a practical matter it's also now A) grandfathered as a procedure that was well established before the FDA started it's regulatory role and B) clearly safer and more effeective than cloning and hence a better choice by the normal standards of regulatory approval.

It only makes sense to put a hold on human cloning until the clones are actually likely to be as healthy as an ordinary baby...

Sounds good, but you've got to give somebody the power to define "likely" and "healthy" and "ordinary". And once those restrictions are put on clones, what's to keep that power from being applied to regular old-fasioned conception?

As stated above, the natural agency to regulate this would be the FDA, who actually have a pretty good track record of serving the public interest on these issues. If there are any real complaints, it's been that they've recently been too lax in allowing new procedures and drugs to be used before their safety has been established. As for adding new restrictions on doing it the old fashioned way, I think that it will be essentially impossible to do so both as a practical matter and a political one. Nobody would stand to have their right to have sex restricted, and it would be pretty much impossible to implement anyway.

Re:Maybe not a ban

[dachshund]

I'm a bit dubious about a permanent ban on cloning, but a medium term moratorium seems like a very reasonable precaution.

While your reasons are very good ones, this is not the reasoning our government is using. As evidence, those in charge are not limiting themselves simply to the prevention of full-scale human cloning, they're now taking steps to ban (or is it continue the ban?) on Federal stem-cell research.

Every year we spend not pursuing this research results in a large number of dead or very sick people. And the only reason for the decision is so single-celled embryos won't be destroyed for "moral" reasons... Of course, they will still be destroyed, as the fertility clinics who supply the embryos will now simply dispose of them.

I remember when "Test Tube Babies" were the enemy

[awch]

I am the lucky father of two beautiful children. I have friends, however, who have not been able to conceive children. If cloning can become another viable alternative for loving individuals to have families, then I am all for it.

I was a kid when the first test tube babies came along and many doomsayers were convinced that we were creating monsters. Many believed we needed laws to stop this research. Well, guess what, we weren't creating monsters, we were creating beautiful children using technology that has become universally acceptable today.

Cloning's not an ego trip or a mad experiment. It's an option, probably the final option, for couples that are not as fortunate as my wife and I have been. I sincerely hope that they will have every opportunity to find the happiness that I have found.

This will, of course, not last

[Theodore Logan]

Obviously, no one wants to have 100 dead embryos and another 100 deformed babies running around, just because they want to clone someone. But techonology improves, and probably some time in the not too distant future, the statistics may appear less frightening; perhaps the numbers will even be reversed (saying that 1 in 200 clones may be deformed or dead, instead of the other way round). Creationists and the like may complain by then too, but not the average Joe, and certainly not the average cancer-man, and thus this will in the end be approved of anyhow. Technological progress is irreversible, and whatever can be done will be done.

Another Bad Choice, Taco

[ekrout]

I wanna have a brainless clone in a tube in case I blow out my liver drinking whiskey -- CmdrTaco

And the difference between CmdrTaco and a clone of his without a brain is...?

;).

Re:Another Bad Choice, Taco

[Poligraf]

Clone without a brain is a better speller ;-)

Re:Another Bad Choice, Taco

[the_brat_king]

The Clone would be smarter?

Re:Another Bad Choice, Taco

[haruharaharu]

The clone won't blow out his liver on Whiskey.

Bad Choice, Taco

[ekrout]

And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn. -- CmdrTaco

Would you *really* want someone as weak and lazy as yourself to mow your lawn. Why not just get a clone of Arnold Schwarzenegger to do it?

Re:Bad Choice, Taco

[WolfWithoutAClause]

That's not such a good idea:

"Hasta cutta the vista baby?"

Re:Bad Choice, Taco

[darkfus]

Well if Taco was serious about everything that he wants out of cloning, he is stupid. If he is just trying to piss people off, then he is brilliant.

Objectively, what is the practicality out of cloning? I can see organs being cloned for people who need replacements but lets be real here, the general public is not ready (if ever) for a harvest of "brainless clone[s] in a tube" to be backup plans for those of us who plan on blowing out some organs. People will bitch and human rights activists will blow themselves up until it's banned.

Aside from a way to directly grow just spare organs, the whole idea of cloning loses its practicality anyway. The world is getting overpopulated, do we really need another form of reproduction? And to add to that, do you really want the only people who can afford it reproducing? Ugh, another Bill Gates.

I can see a day when cold war-like arms races are based off of countries cloning their strongest men at faster rates, etc... We can live without that crap, nukes are bad enough. It's too early to ban the research of cloning, but I can see why it should be globally controlled.

Scott

Re:Bad Choice, Taco

[mizhi]

Because a mini-Schwarzenegger could still beat the begeezus out of a full-size Taco. :-)

Re:Bad Choice, Taco

[Davewpw]

I can see it now ...

CmdrTaco: MiniTaco go cut the grass!!

MiniTaco: No! You do it yourself.

Just say no to minitaco's!

addendum to brain

[gunner800]

I may be smoking crack. I haven't found the text of any proposed law, only vague news stories. "Import" may not mean what I think it does.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

Re: Common Sense

[gunner800]

I'm not necessarily in favor of cloning, just in favor of logical arguments...

The technology, for one, isn't perfected yet....

But eventually it probably will be. If research continues, it will eventually be possible to create clones with about the same "failure" rate as with conventional embryo implants or maybe even natural pregnancy.

This is slavery and THIS is against the law in the U.S. and immoral no matter how you look at it. Sadly, this would be the primary reason for cloning human beings... NOT for medical reasons.

How do you support your statement that this would be the primary reason? It seems the only people qualified to say why they want clones are the people who want clones. You do not seem to be one of those people.

Thirdly, the world already has a serious population problem....

The same argument would apply to "natural" reproduction. If the argument is sufficient to justify banning cloning, is it sufficient to ban natural reproduction for "undesirables"? Should we not allow people to breed if they will tend to pass on genetic weaknesses? Or, to more directly address the problem of food shortages, maybe we shouldn't allow people to breed if they have a genetic predisposition to obesity.

Finally, everytime a baby is born it inherits certain characteristics from it's mother and father and essentially evolves. Cloning /bin/halt's evolution.

Three counterpoints, because I study evolution a bit:

1. First, evolution occurs over many generations partly due to mixing of genes (as you said) and partly due to mutation. Mutation is still possible for clones.
2. Second, clones are not perfect genetic copies, just very nearly. Some genetic material is found outside a cell nucleus; this material is not copied from the person cloned. Therefore, some recombination of genetic material will still happen.
3. Third, to varying degrees, humans have already botched evolution. We can evolve only if "survival of the fittest" still applies, meaning that the fittest are more likely to produce viable offspring than the unfit. But at least in the United States, virtually everybody has children. Unless a defect is extremely serious or directly hinders reproduction, the genes contributing to the defect will probably be passed on to children who will in turn have children. The subtle differences in probabilities that drive evolution in nature just aren't fashionable anymore.

My mom is not a Karma whore!

Re:Violation of human rights of cloned individuals

[gunner800]

I agree that barring "importing" is a bad mistake, but you've mistated the problem. Cloned people won't be people at all under this law. Makes me wonder whether it will be a crime to murder a clone, or steal their wallets.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

Cloning slavery?

[don_carnage]

Not to troll, but this remark kinda struck me weird: "And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn."

It's like one of those awkward moments at a party when you're not sure whether or not you're supposed to laugh. :^)

--

Re:Cloning slavery?

[Drone-X]

My feelings on the matter: If cloning were allowed, I think it would be important for us to accept them as equals in all respects.

I think we should even accept them as equals in all respects if cloning isn't allowed. Just because it will/would be banned in most parts of the world doesn't mean it can't/won't be done, if it is done then the clone should not suffer because of the parent's choice.

Re:Cloning slavery?

[RuneB]

Question for the science fantasy people out there: What would happen if it were possible to embed something like Asimov's Three Laws into a clone through some method that ensured that the Laws were deeply embedded (as they were, theoretically, with Asimov's robots.)

All the benefits of a human, without all that nasty free will stuff?

Re:Cloning slavery?

[ackthpt]

I wish I had a pointer to the Calvin and Hobbes strips which dealt with him cloning himself with a carboard box. Calvin was sadly educated to the reality, that if he didn't want to clean his room or do his homework, neither would his clones (or anyone else, for that matter.)

--

Re:Cloning slavery?

[ConsumedByTV]

On the other end of the table we also have the Gattica problem.


Are you on the Sfglj (SF-Goth EMail Junkies List) ?

What About Money Then?

[Poligraf]

Don't you think that such a thing as cloning an organ (or cloning an "organ donor") will be too expensive?

The problem is not just with "riches only" sign at the door initially; the problem is with rising cost of medical care in general. Everyone will want this, and organ cloning will becone the mainstream eventually, thus making the insurance cost to rise even more (I've become self-employed again after 2.5 years at the company just to discover that the cost of insurance has jumped from 140/month 3 years ago to 235/month now).

As for the costs, they are in general like a pension when a younger generation pays for the retirement and medical needs of the older ones (try to remember how often have you seen a doctor lately). If cloning will add its enormous cost to the rising cost of drugs and medical care, developed countries where the age distribution is leaning towards sharp increase in the retirees will just go bancrupt.

Can you imagine ...

[Poligraf]

... a Beowulf cluster of brainless Taco clones mowing the lawn? ;-)

Not Only That

[Poligraf]

Isn't prohibiting a cloned person's entrance into the US an example of clear discrimination?

It is not this person's fault, he has not made a decision to be cloned. Why has he pay?

Spaghetti Ethics

[connorbd]

I gotta think that cloning is one of the weirdest ethical dilemmas we've ever met, and the US Government is doing its damndest to convince itself that it's pretty cut-and-dried.

I am somewhat against it myself, especially because of the problems involved in producing a viable embryo. That probably comes from my Catholic background. But what I don't get: illegal to import a clone...

Now, I don't know about anyone else. I once asked my father about cloning and he was convinced that a clone of a person is not a person. How the hell does that follow? The genes are human, presumably the mind is human. If it looks like a sheep, baahs like a sheep...

I don't know. This could be an extended rant but I just don't have the energy to put into it right now.

/Brian

KKK?

[-=OmegaMan=-]

"Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children."

To have a perfect clone, wouldn't one have to start with a perfect original? Good like finding anything remotely resembling "adequate," let alone "perfect," in the KKK. ;-)

An island in the sea

[gimple]

There was a book a in the early nineties called Honey from Stone, by Chet Remo. It has been a while since I read it, but there is a quote in there about how knowledge is but and island in the sea; the larger your knowledge gets the more you realize how vast the sea is.

It seems attractive to grow replacement parts, etc., but I really can't imagine that it is that simple. Even though they "mapped" the genome, they discovered along the way how much we absolutely don't know about the genome. It is analogous to the dark matter in space.

While we could argue about the benefit of genetic engineering, we still have to consider the spector of eugenics. This in itself, to me, seems reason enough to tread VERY lightly when is comes to cloning.

A definition

[Spoing]

Clone - A time-shifted twin.

Re:Human clones are people!

[dazedNconfuzed]

How is making and using a brainless clone morally any different from making and using a brainless human? The only difference is the genetic information, which is 99+% the same anyway.

Re:Human clones are people!

[dazedNconfuzed]

All people's genetic info is 99+% the same anyway; why does pushing duplication to 100% suddenly do away with any personal rights?

Re:What have we here?

[dazedNconfuzed]

It's as if they'd never heard of the separation of the church and state...

That phrase is nowhere in the Constitution, and does not mean the same as what is said: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Human clones are people!

[dazedNconfuzed]

I want clones. I wanna grow spare hearts in a vat. I wanna have a brainless clone in a tube in case I blow out my liver drinking whiskey.

Too many people don't realize that there is no difference (other than being genetically identical to someone else) between a normal human and a cloned human - both are people. "Spare hearts in a vat" or a "brainless clone in a tube" are no different than conceiving a child the normal way and abusing it for said purposes; a clone merely gives you a genetic match.

There is no basis for the widespread concept that clones are monsters to be feared or used for our selfish purposes.

Re:Human clones are people!

[dazedNconfuzed]

There's no indication so far that we can create "cloned" organs unconnected from the rest of a body. The only conceivable way would be morally no different from conceiving a child and suppressing growth of other body parts, i.e. intentionally causing grotesque deformations in children.

Re:Human clones are people!

[IronChef]

"Spare hearts in a vat" or a "brainless clone in a tube" are no different than conceiving a child the normal way and abusing it for said purposes; a clone merely gives you a genetic match.

I disagree, at least in the case of the Vat O' Hearts. If they could take a blood sample, squirt it into some magic machine and produce a cloned heart a week later -- how is that a moral issue? I don't see that as anything like "conceiving a child the normal way and abusing it." Instead, it seems like a way to remove that temptation.

Re:Human clones are people!

[IronChef]

The only conceivable way would be morally no different from conceiving a child and suppressing growth of other body parts...

Maybe that's the only thing you can conceive of, and the guy who replied to your post. But things like space travel were once considered crazy too. As a biochemist myself I am confident that it's a solveable problem, if society decides to tackle it. All your talk about deformed children sounds like anti-progress scare tactics to me.

Re:Human clones are people!

[rabidcow]

Hang on, then why should we care if cloning is illegal?

Aside from cases of non-genetic infertility, why do we need another method for creating people?

Perhaps cloning (whole) humans SHOULD be illegal, except at approved clinics, to prevent the much more obious possible abuses?

Re:Human clones are people!

[Kletus Cassidy]

I disagree, at least in the case of the Vat O' Hearts. If they could take a blood sample, squirt it into some magic machine and produce a cloned heart a week later -- how is that a moral issue?

If that was the technology being discussed there would be no issue but currently since all we can do with regards to cloning is create a genetic equivalent of a twin then using him/her as an organ farm does raise moral issues.

Re:Human clones are people!

[niftyzero]

The original poster referred to *brainless* clones. Wouldn't you agree that an organism without a brain is non-human and can be viewed as an organ farm? A clone with a brain, has the same rights as anybody, of course.

Re:Human clones are people!

[dachshund]

If you could manipulate the DNA enough to simply grow an organ-- or some cells, at least-- would that be unethical?

How about if you could grow a brainless clone, through the same process? It's pretty disgusting, but would a brainless clone really be a human being? That's a tricky one...

There is no basis for the widespread concept that clones are monsters to be feared or used for our selfish purposes.

Well, there are already cases in which young identical twins are required to give bone-marrow or organs to their sibling. I suppose this would be a similar case of "using for selfish purposes."

Re:Human clones are people!

[cavemanf16]

I think there are two different arguments here:

1) 'Cloning' as it currently exists involves basically injecting DNA from one living specimens' cell into an egg and/or sperm of a 'donor' egg and/or sperm that the DNA has been extracted from to make room for the 'cloned' DNA. Then this new 'clone' cell is allowed to grow just like any other cell would in a reproductive method. Which means that this new cell, if human, would basically be akin to an identical twin. I would say I'm opposed to this. And it cannot be considered a true form of cloning as you are not taking base elements and making copies of an original. You're injecting some elements (DNA) into other elements (cells with removed DNA) to create a near copy of the original.

2) CmdrTaco seems to refer more to an advanced form of 'cloning' where we can donate a few cells, then the scientists go to work artificially growing new body parts that can work as replacements for your old, worn out, or damaged parts. Hence, the reference to a new liver. I'm not opposed to this as long as it doesn't harm the existing fetus, person, etc. that is donating the cells to expirement on. But current 'cloning' techniques are not the stuff of distopian future novels where we can grow slaves of soul-less creatures made up of spare body parts, yet. Which is why a temporary moratorium on human cloning is probably a wise move.

Re:Human clones are people!

[Macrobat]

Didn't someone deliberately conceive a baby so that they could have a kidney donor for their other child? Also, I believe livers have been split so that siblings could share them. So, non-clones have been created specifically for the sake of being organ donors already.

Re:Human clones are people!

[avatar382]

The Price of Freedom is eternal vigilance eh? Hehe, yeah I know, Wing Commander 4 kicked ass! -avataR

Clone Jesus! (not a religious rant)

[seanmeister]

I say we start here. When he grows up, I've got some serious questions I'd like him to answer.

--

Whiskey? Taco...

[Amon CMB]

"I wanna have a brainless clone in a tube in case I blow out my liver drinking whiskey"

That's what your morning overdose of coffee is for. :)

Clones moderating the news

[Amon CMB]

Maybe if we had a bunch of CmdrTaco clones running around, we could avoid a lot of repeated news postings?

Clones for instant slashdot effect

[Amon CMB]

Create an army of Slashdotters to Slashdot the RIAA and MPAA websites.

Your half-height clone

[Amon CMB]

What if your half-height clone ends up kicking your ass out the door and makes YOU mow the lawn?

Anyone else find it disturbing that:

[Bloodrage]

Personally I am yery disturbed that the US government seems to have the opinion that a cloned person is _not_ a human being who ought to recieve the same human rights as any other person.

It reads like some cheesy preface to some pulp sci-fi novel.

Re:Half-height clone drives

[YetAnotherDave]

Or if you have stuff even they'll refuse to do,
clone a few dubyas

:)

Re:Spare Organs

[IronChef]

Spare body parts can already be grown without the need to clone a human. Just look at the mouse with an ear on it's back...

That was an ear-shaped patch of skin, growing on a sculpted ear-shaped scaffold. Neat, but trivial compared to the "heart in a jar" problem.

If you know where I can get fresh, healthy human livers grown on demand, please post.

Re:Spare Organs

[IronChef]

We have the technology to grow hearts in jars...

You're wrong.

If you can prove otherwise, I'll gladly eat my words.

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[Keighvin]

Since when are maternal twins more rare? From personal experience, I've known many more identical than fraternal (two separate eggs) twins.

It's a matter of time.

[Keighvin]

Last I checked, a year still took a year to transpire. There's no (current) way to accelerate the growth of clones, it's still a practice of creating fetuses with implanted genes. They still have to go through a regular growth process, no "instant person" possibilities. That means you're still going to have to wait 18 years (or less, depending on the country) to get your life size Spears.

Re:It's a matter of time.

[Chainsaw Messiah]

what about human growth hormones and steriods? maybe that would speed up the "maturity" of the clone by 25% or so

I think they're already doing it.

[Deal-a-Neil]

C'mon -- the F15/F18 was designed like in the 60s or 70s. That's still our "current" air combat technology. Stealth bombers were designed and flown decades ago. Don't you guys already think that the g-men already have been cloning people in the deep depths of black ops?

I for one (or two, or three) think that it's been going on -- so hell, I'm with Taco, give me another Neil.. there's work to be done!

Get Site Search - let us clone your site.

Re:I think they're already doing it.

[haruharaharu]

How exactly does expertise in aircraft design translate into Genetics? You don't go to a mechanic when you get a toothache, do you?

Re:Ignorant....

[de Selby]

Religion and the media are usually at odds, clones do have brains (organ donors should not), and abuse may outway use.

And why do we have to jump into cloning right away? It's not nearly perfeced, the implications are not known, and the "idiot in the government" have at least the balls to say don't know everything yet and we should hold off until we do.

When dealing with human lives, it's always best to err on the side of caution. Your almost unthinking support of cloning when so little is known, and your painting of all those who think otherwise as religious morons who fear what they don't understand is the only display of ignorance and hatred I see here.

Here's an interesting context...

[wodelltech]

Imagine that I inform you, right now, that you are a clone (not to mention a half-height one). How does it make you feel?

The opinions in this seem to assume that clones wouldn't mind accepting a lower role than other humans. But in the end, they'd want to feel unique and special just like each of us.

I've never heard of a wise person doing something just because he can...

Best to hold off until the bugs are worked out.

[knnnigit]

It's probably best to have a moratorium on human cloning at least until other mammals can be cloned reliably, without the horrible, somewhat random side effects they have now. Mice can't even be cloned yet properly without a high percentage of them suddenly becoming morbidly obese upon reaching what would be the human equivalent of about 30. There are also many other problems such as developmental disabilities and other "random" effects. Basically, take the mouse chromasome, munge up some random DNA and lets see if it works.

It's also pretty immoral to clone an entire human being just for their organs or for slavery. What do you do with them when they're no longer useful? Kill them? Might as well kill ageing migrant farm workers or old people in general. Lets get rid of all the handicapped and sick and retarded people while we're at it.

Re:Best to hold off until the bugs are worked out.

[GungaDan]

It's very easy, really. When you get your clone, just make sure that the switch is set to "good" and not "evil."

Re:Best to hold off until the bugs are worked out.

[dasmegabyte]

I agree. We should kill aging migrant farm workers and old people. Save me the embarrasment of having to talk to my Gran whenever she calls. Logan's Run had it right.

Oh, and by the way...</joke>

Cheaper just to buy the half-height non-clone

[table and chair]

People have run the numbers... given failure rates and the cost of maintaining a cloning laboratory, it would be far cheaper to go to Rwanda and buy a child at the slave market if you're looking for cheap labor. About $50 US is the going rate. No, I'm not kidding.

Anyway, maybe we should all get worked up about that instead of about some theoretical clone-threat...

jeez

[streetlawyer]

I wanna have a brainless clone

well I hope you'll at least *dress* him differently.

Massively redundant, I know, but mine was the best execution of this extremely obvious joke.

clones in the comics

[denshi]

Narbonic has a lot to say about clones this week:

"Mom originally grew me with the intention of harvesting organs from me when hers began to fail."
"Really? What happened?"
Oh, by the time my organs had fully matured, I was 18, I'd moved out, and I had a rifle."

Imperial Earth

[Sensei_knight]

Excellent book by clark. Great example of one of the bonuses to cloning. Cloning yourself would be an excllent way to create peers and family that think so much alike that very little needs to be said to fully communicate.

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[Prior Restraint]

Twins are the same age (give or take a few minutes). Clones aren't.

What if I produce two clones at once?

Re:Mini Me

[hex1848]

and while your at it get one of those "laser beams" and drill a hole to the earths core. but seriously, id love having a tiny person following me around.. I might not be have any talent, no looks, and cant sing, but a midget following me around could just make me famous... ask kid rock

How Cloning laws should be - by itzy

[itzdandy]

there should be laws against full embryo cloning, as in no clones shal be made for the point of them developing into a complete human.

we should allow the cloning of parts of humans, human tissue, in all essence, anything but a human brain. the technology would improve to the point of being usefull in the medical field.

this way we aren't "playing god" but we still make advancements for our own survival.

here is a question for you. Where would man be without medicines? would we have died out or would we have better immune systems? We need to choose our path for the future, not half-a*s*s* it and live somewhere in the middle. Medical Technology or Nature, take your pick.

btw, i like the technology part :-)

Re:And why not?

[dR.fuZZo]

Twins are not clones. They're not always even identical.

Twins are the result of either: a) Two eggs were released this month, and both of them are now impregnated, or b) (more rare), one egg is impregnated and then splits, resulting in identical twins. HOWEVER: From the moment they split, twins develop differently, live differently.

And (b) is fundamentally different from a clone how exactly? Oh, I forgot, the donor's soul is cut in half and the clone gets half grafted into it. Whereas with identical twins, God has enough time to order out for a new one and have it wired down to the womb.

I support a ban on cloning for now, until the majority of the US matures enough to handle the technology they're getting themselves into.

If we did that for every tech, we'd still be living in the Stone Age.

Think we abused Napster?

No, I think the record companies abused the public with their price-fixing. Using Napster was just the public's way of saying, "fuck you too."

Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children.

Ok, so would these be KKK scientists doing the cloning, or would KKK couples have to pay some dough for the procedure? I'm betting most of them are too poor and too stupid for this to be much of a problem for quite awhile...

I see the creation of an underclass...

[Junior J. Junior III]

If cloning is illegal, then you've got illegal people to deal with. A clone will probably not be allowed to have rights or citizenship, or seek legal protections against human rights violations, and thus will be completely unable to participate in civilization or society. If enough of these illegals are created, we'll see a permanent underclass without any rights.

This is wrong. We must be sure that if we do make human cloning illegal that we punish the cloners, not the clones. The clones are innocent.

Cloning of an organ will not be allowed.

[ParticleGirl]

According to the bill: "A person shall be considered to have engaged in a human cloning procedure for purposes of subsection (a) if the person transfers the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed.

somatic cell
Function: noun
Date: 1888
: one of the cells of the body that compose the tissues, organs, and
parts of that individual other than the germ cells

ANY human cell cannot be used in a cloning procedure. This means stem cell OR any specialized cell. No organs.

Not all clones have been born

[ParticleGirl]

I kind of see this as though it could be a positive step in the way of promoting the idea that fetuses are not people. Once they have been brought to term, theoretically these people should have the same rights as any identical twin, with or without medical complications. The idea of importing frozen fetuses that have been created through cloning overseas is, I think, what the government is scared of. Such distinctions are not, however, made in the bill, and they're precicely the distinctions policitians like to avoid. So we'll see.

more:

[ParticleGirl]

The bill is online. This isn't just "dangerous copies of humans"... there is research into alternatives for people who are unable to have children any other way. "It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a human cloning procedure with the intent of implanting the resulting cellular product into a uterus." This is current research that will not go forward, funding or no funding. "A person shall be considered to have engaged in a human cloning procedure for purposes of subsection (a) if the person transfers the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed." This will be interesting.

just like the moon landing

[NixterAg]

The whole issue is currently nothing more than a race by a bunch of scientists to do it first. To pretend that any of these people are actually doing it in the name of science is quite ridiculous.

They are all doing it for personal gain...after all...it would make quite the news headline wouldn't it?

Re:Cuban bio-tech ?

[Nakoruru]

I take extreme exception to that. I happen to live in a city in Arkansas (Jonesboro) where a fairly significant part of the economy is based on health care. You would be as well off here as anywhere else in America. Its very rude to just drop names like that. I have lots of complaints about Arkansas, but health care certainly is not one of them.

There go my hopes...

[jpm242]

of ordering my Nathalie Portman clone from www.clone-a-babe.com

Re:Will cloning of an organ be allowed?

[glebite]

If you did have that clone made in a country where cloning was legal, you might still have to have some proof of guardianship - taking children across borders is often questioned. Otherwise, your parental units might still have legal guardianship even though the clone was spawned from you.

All sorts of legal messiness will ensue no doubt resulting in some very rich lawyers.

But yes, if they were suspicious (as they may be with people coming from cloning-allowable countries) perform a DNA analysis.

I hope some reader (in the bio-field) could tell us if DNA from a clone could be distinguished in ALL cases from the DNA of a child...

Phone George Lucas Quick!

[glebite]

I guess with no clones, Episode II will have to be re-written? (Again?)

Re:Phone George Lucas Quick!

[dachshund]

I guess with no clones, Episode II will have to be re-written?

It does strike me that Congress may have been watching too many sci-fi flics. Or at least, the bad ones with Arnie.

Will cloning of an organ be allowed?

[glebite]

I know this falls under the stem-cell research, but does the proposed law concern the cloning of a whole human, or parts? If it only applies to a human, at what percentage of a cloned human could be allowed to be cloned?

Only organs? Skin? Eyes? Bone marrow? Blood? Nerve cells? Deformed or not, a clone might still have viable nerve cells...

Just asking...

Re:Will cloning of an organ be allowed?

[aratas]

I'm asking this in ignorance, but is it even possible/feasible to clone only "part" of a person? I'm not talking about transplants, but actually just growing an eye, for instance... And wasn't the Genome project pretty much a failure? What makes us think this is anywhere near possible for us in our lifetimes?

Re:Will cloning of an organ be allowed?

[dachshund]

Actually we will probably be able to get all the stem cells (and other cells for that matter) we might need from our own fat so no need for clones in that respect.

It's not certain that this is actually true. Scientists aren't sure that they'll be able to get the same results from fat stem-cells (which may not be completely undifferentiated, as far as I understand.) That's why they want to continue embryo research; they're not simply out to get their jollies playing with baby Timmy.

It should also be pointed out that the UK and private companies are plunging ahead with this research, and that the embryos used in stem-cell research (leftovers from fertilization clinics) will now simply be incinerated instead.

Re:Will cloning of an organ be allowed?

[astapleton]

Knowing most Congressional outpourings, they don't regulate aspects of our lives that would benefit from regulation while they DO regulate (or outright forbid) a broad spectrum of useful and relativley safe areas in order to appeal to groups of people who are most capable of putting the financial and political squeeze...besides, I really like the idea of using cloned parts and partial systems for drug testing and medical experimentation. Animal rights activists would be out of a job if a human nervous system took the brunt of a new neurological treatment test instead of someone's potential pet.

Re:Will cloning of an organ be allowed?

[Conare]

Actually we will probably be able to get all the stem cells (and other cells for that matter) we might need from our own fat so no need for clones in that respect.

Slavery Returns!

[Fujisawa Sensei]

This just reaks of pro-slavery legislation and court cases where slaves were not granted rights.

I can see the Surpreem Court throwing this crap right out.

But then again considering the way the Court has been going recently, they would probably rule in favor of it.

My point exactly!

[Sindri]

My point exactly!
The lawmakers should be making laws protecting the cloned individuals from possible harmfull intent of the cloner(scientist). And making shure all clones are adopted by good families at birth. The law alredy states in most countries that cloned humans have the same right as other humans. And so does the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Sindri Traustason
"It takes two to lie, one to lie and one to listen"

Violation of human rights of cloned individuals

[Sindri]

All this law does is make cloned individuals second class citizens. Anti cloning laws are a clear violation of cloned peoples rights.
The laws should have been about insuring that cloned people have the same human rights as other people and making sure cloned children have parents and an ordinary life.

Sindri Traustason
"It takes two to lie, one to lie and one to listen"

Getting sick of small minded (scared) people.

[Eldonv]

Things like this make me wonder what the world would be like without legislation (or small minded people) holding back and banning new technologies.

Robots are better than clones

[Vassily Overveight]

I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

Taking this semi-seriously, smart robots capable of performing menial tasks will be along before human cloning becomes possible and acceptable, IMO. I'd rather rely on a robot than a lazy slob like myself anyway.

If infertile people are cloned

[T1girl]

...won't their clones be infertile, too? If a person with a faulty heart is cloned for spare parts, won't the clone have the same faulty heart?

Re:If infertile people are cloned

[Drakantus]

If it's hereditary- yes. However, if you wreck your liver because of drinking that isn't hereditary, and you could get it replaced from your own clone. Also- even if you have a bad heart due to your genetic makeup, it's still probably better to have a 10year old bad heart than a 60 year old one.

You got to be kidding!

[techdiver]

Let me start by saying I am a Roman Catholic by birth not by choice, and I do not practice my religion, however I do believe in God. I am sure most of us on SlashDot think that human cloning is really COOL, but I don't think anyone of us has really stop to study all the consequences of this. Let me acknowledge that I think the benefits of cloning human organs is great and perhaps should be allowed, however cloning a human being I think is another story. We leave in a world full of prejudice towards African Americans, Browns, Yellows, Hispanics, Asians, Women, the Disable, and even GEEKS (I am in the Hispanic - Brown - GEEK classification). By allowing human cloning we are one more layer of prejudice into the system. Now people not only be segregated by color, race, culture, sex, but also by the way they were procreated. Yes we will save countless lives, but really would you like to leave forever. Death to some extent is the well deserve reward after good years of service. Not to mention the over-population problem that cloning will generate. Will there be space left for us to leave. Will there be room for all of us. Am I alone here?

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[BlowCat]

Does that mean twins would not be allowed into the US?

If you have a passenger ticket you should be Ok. But if somebody imports you this would be contraband.

Don't care if there's a god!!!!

[singe_69]

Blasphemy!!! You'll code for WinCE in hell for that!!!! A serious thought (on-topic) though, if people try to create clones as "Servants" and the clones "Are people too" then what stops them from telling you to F.O. and emancipating themselves?

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[update()]

Twins are the result of either two eggs being fertalized in the same month..

These are fraternal twins, not identical.

...or the rarer case of the egg being fertalized and split.

And these are clones. (Genetically identical individuals produced asexually from a common precursor.)

Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

One Word Reply

[nick_davison]

There's a simple one word reply that really needs to be given to all the claims of technophobia on this one. Considering the harm this [one word] has already done with gene patents, is it such a bad thing we hold back until the laws manage to catch up with the technology?

Anyway, that one word: Monsanto

Send in the Clones

[ackthpt]

I can see it now, an army of CmdrTaco clones moderating slashdot. Talk about multitasking...

--

Re:food

[excesspwr]

"We should genetically engineer the 'new' human race to be vegitarian "

What are you mad?! Who will save the carrots and imitation crab?!

I thought identical twins were clones

[Hairy_Potter]

at least, whichever one split off was a clone of the other.

Does that mean twins would not be allowed into the US?

Another case of technophobes not understanding what they're legislating against.

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[mirabilos]

They are not exactly identical except for the
DNS, which unfortunately also happens to be
true for clones.
The difference is, that cloning is an affront
to the psyche and there is nothing like an ego
in the clone, whereas two egos populate the
ovum at the time between joining of the sperm
and splitting. (Sorry for my bad English)
So where comes the ego of the clone from?

--

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[dachshund]

They can be. One of the techniques in the process being regulated is "artificial twinning" in which an embryo is cloned several times. The resulting embryos can be carried to term at the same time or at different times (just like with common household in vitro fertilization.)

Re:I thought identical twins were clones

[Macrobat]

Twins are the same age (give or take a few minutes). Clones aren't.

*Gasp!* That means their astrological signs will be off! Then their genetic dispositions won't match the personality that Mother Sky intended for them! Oh, the horrors!

Whoa

[drDugan]

Cloning is such a huge and complex issue. Its pretty clear that random posts on Slashdot won't begin to encompass all the complexities.

One thing to think about:
The question, "Should we because we can?" becomes more and more relavent as the rate at which technology is developed. Most of the time is is less an issue of "Should this be done?" but rather "Lets see if we can do this and see what happens!"

I think that politicians are the LAST people who are qualified to make decisions in the realms of ethics OR science.

Re:I remember when "Test Tube Babies" were the ene

[maxwells_deamon]

I (and my wife) have been through the fertility treatments/experiments and eventually we adopted. I am all for research and helping other people through this slow agony.

However, I do not see how cloning could fundamentally help anyone conceive and/or carry a child to term. If I am missing something here, please let me know.

Unless they fundamentally change the way cloning is done. Other methods have less risk, less cost, and controversy.

Better methods of obtaining a fetus exist. Maybe this is because I do not think that a child has to have my genes in him/her in order to be valuable.

PS: I remember sitting in room waiting to see a doctor. We noticed that we had been trying for longer than he had been out of med school (diploma on the wall). When he came in, he told us he had looked at the tests and everything was normal and he was sure we would be pregnant within two years.

fork()

[HaeMaker]

I keep trying to get my brain to make the fork() system call, but, so far... no luck.

Taco says

[Xuther]

I shall call him mini-taco

Mini-mower?

[Arethan]

>And as soon as we get really good with the
>genetic engineering, I want my own half height
>clone to mow my lawn.

Wouldn't this also require a smaller lawn mower?
I can imagine it now, the half-height is pushing the mower up-hill, and then topples under the weight of the mower and is run over producing...really itty bitty copies of you...more or less...

So if you solve that problem with a smaller lawn-mower, then wouldn't it then take twice as long for you to mow your lawn? So basically, you'd just be wasting twice as much time as your already are, but since there are two of you, you'd be doing it twice as fast, so you're really not gaining anything by cloning. So let's just call the whole thing off and eat pizza.

Re:Mini-mower?

[gstoddart]

You obviously never had to mow the lawn as a kid.

Re:Mini-mower?

[CACSlave]

I can imagine it now, the half-height is pushing the mower up-hill, and then topples under the weight of the mower and is run over producing...really itty bitty copies of you. and we know from Army of Darkness how that would turn out. ...my fair lady. ha!

youre all wrong.

[gagganator]

its a known fact that all half height clones want to please their parents. go watch austin powers

mini-me.

[gagganator]

i think you underestimate the human desire for mini-mes.

This is All Backwards

[jesseraf]

Often when I hear people's reasons for banning cloning, I hear claims that clones would be considered sub-human etc.
What they fail to realize is that no matter what you ban, people will do it anyways. So what I claim is that instead of bringing out the ban stick they should be bringing out laws which provide the same rights to clones as regular humans.

Forget the clone mowing, how about

[(H)elix1]

one of those Toro iMow "people free" mowers do it for you? $899, and legal in the states....

DNA

[modemboy]

I hope that cloning does someday become widespread, just for the elimination of DNA evidence. With thousands of people with the same DNA the courts will soon have to disregard DNA evidence. Which is good because it's a flawed science that courts believe to be infallible.

Playing God

[rppp01]

Also, another reason for this 'ban', is because of the religious hold on this nation. If we successfully clone someone, and that clone shows that it can think and act for itself (which it will be able to do), then those religious zealots wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Mini Me

[GeneOff]

... You complete me!

Re:Mini Me

[GeneOff]

You must pay me ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

Scott E.

Grandfather Clause?

[JohnPerkins]

History:
WWII. Nazis. Hitler's 'super men.' How bad would it have been had they had human cloning?

Grandfather Clause:
What if you are not a clone, but your father or mother is? Would regulations governing clones apply to you? Would those regulations apply to people with a certain 'clone percentage' in their family trees? And why am I thinking about laws from the 1800s defining people as black who have a certain portion of black ancestors?

Fiction:
It's been a long time since i've read about it, but I seem to recall a Superman storyline talking about Krypton having clone banks, clashes over clone rights, etc.. I'm not sure, but I think this was before Dolly the sheep.

The genie will either stay in or out of the bottle- there won't be peeking.

Re:What have we here?

[RareHeintz]

Thanks, but I didn't need that pointed out - I can quote much of the Bill of Rights from memory, including that bit. Further, I never said that phrase was in the Constitution - I'm not sure why you think that I do, but I suggest you start reading posts before you respond to them.

The passage you mention is generally taken to mean that Congress is not allowed to legislate based on a purely religious perspective (which some of the Honorable nitwits here appear to be doing), which would be tantamount to either establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I'm not sure what else you think "separation of church and state" means.

Did you really need that explained? OK,
- B
--

Re:What have we here?

[RareHeintz]

Separation of church and state doesn't mean... that some laws should not be motivated by religious beliefs.

Great. So where do you draw the line? Maybe most of us can agree that "thou shalt not kill" is a fine guideline, but what other religious dicta do you think should be codified as the law of the land? Stoning adulterers? Not speaking ill of some Congressman's favorite church?

Call me nutz, but I just don't buy into the idea that the laws that I have to follow should be based on someone else's religion.

And religion is a valid basis for moral values.

Bollocks. Looking at the evidence both historically and in my day-to-day experience, I don't see any indication that believers in one or another religion are any nicer, more honest, less bloodthirsty, or more fit to govern than believers in some other religion or non-believers.

Further, I don't at all understand how a set of collectively agreed-upon myths is supposed to represents a basis for morality, especially when the myths can promote anything at all, from turning the other cheek to the use of Zyklon-B on "undesirables".

--

Re:What have we here?

[RareHeintz]

Competing ideas are great. Using the government to coerce my obedience to the ideals of some religous pinhead who doesn't understand that not everyone believes as he does, though, is not OK.

It's a pluralistic society, Jack. Get used to it.

--

Re:What have we here?

[RareHeintz]

Perhaps you're unclear on the concept: the idea of that clause in the first amendment is to keep religious people in power from forcing others to hew to their beliefs. They have absolute freedom of conscience in their private lives, but in their public roles they must not push their beliefs on the rest of us.

Is that so hard to understand?

--

What have we here?

[RareHeintz]

``There is no need for this technology to ever be used with humans,'' said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

Utter ignorance. A ten-second news search turned up one great application here.

``it's morally wrong and reprehensible for anybody to consider the cloning of a human being,'' said House sponsor Dave Weldon, R-Fla

Regardless of any possible benefit to medical science?

And in another article about the GOP reaching out to Catholics, the real roots of the opposition become clear: Cloning is lumped in with abortion and the "homosexual agenda" as things that all good Xians should oppose. It's as if they'd never heard of the separation of the church and state...

Canada looks better and better...

OK,
- B
--

One CmdrTaco is too much....

[V50]

This is just a conspiracy so CmdrTaco's horrible grammar and spelling mistakes won't take over the world...

Though I don't think we have to worry about CowboyNeal being cloned... He's already DVD Player, My Favorite Linux Distro, a backscratcher, a God, a Browser and Intel's new chip... Not to mention a Kitchen Sink....

--Volrath50

Spare Organs

[__aakpxi9117]

Spare body parts can already be grown without the need to clone a human. Just look at the mouse with an ear on it's back...

Statements like 'I want a clone so it'll do my work while I'm in Hawaii' are quite idiotic. You only clone the physical appearance, not the mind. Think of having a clone of yourself about the same as adopting a child that looks like you. Do your children do your job while you vacation? None that I've seen. They will mow your lawn, but somehow, the frustration involved in rasing a kid that looks like you, just doesn't seem worth it to me. And personally, I'm glad to see that stupid ideas are being outlawed! There's absolutely no good reason to make a human clone, other than a novelty, and I'll stand by that.

Re:Spare Organs

[__aakpxi9117]

We have the technology to grow hearts in jars, just as we have the technology to grow clones. I never said it was easy or cheap.

Re:Spare Organs

[__aakpxi9117]

Well thanks for the informative and insightful post. That was useful.

I can say for a fact that, after getting sample cells from one organ, we can grow the rest of the organ in labratories. It's common pratice with simple things like fat, skin, cartilage, and very often bone marrow.

Growing complex organs has been done, but it is not pratical currently.

(Saying, "No you're wrong" does not constitute an arguement)

Re:Spare Organs

[__aakpxi9117]

I think of lung cancer like AIDS. No cure is need because it was the choice of the individual ro put themselves at considerable risk.

Really Really bad...

[Firewheels]

Personally I don't care if there's a god or not: I want clones. I wanna grow spare hearts in a vat. I wanna have a brainless clone in a tube in case I blow out my liver drinking whiskey. And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

Can we moderate slashdot stories? (-2, Troll) sounds good to me.

Evil Technology?

[Vortran]

I'm not sure banning technology or the pursuit of knowledge is the answer. I also don't think technology is inherently good or evil. People can do good or evil and use technology to achieve their imperatives. The point you make about identical twins is moot as it holds for clones as well. As soon as the clone begins to develop, it does so independent of its host. Clones and identical twins are, genetically speaking, exactly the same thing.

Do humans really suck that much (KKK vs. the Greens - let the clone wars begin!)?

Remember that if you make something illegal, only the lawless will pursue it. In this case, that means you put technology right into the wrong hands from the getgo - where it arguably already is. You then however, remove it from the "right" hands by making it illegal.

As a society we are NOT ethically mature enough to deal with the moral ramifications of human cloning. However, the ancillary technology could be enormously valuable. I would like to someday have 2 eyes that work so that I can see in stereo (all those 3D movies and sims!) and have depth perception. I only have one eye that works due to my biological mother having ruebella (German measles) during pregnancy. I would sure like it if someone could grow me a new eye and optic nerve. I'd also like to be able to hear normally. I'm half deaf for the same reason.

If a normal body could be grown for me and I could somehow retain my mind in it, I think I would welcome that. We'll never get there tho if technology is stifled.

Re:Evil Technology?

[Angry Toad]

I read plenty of SF. I also work in biotech. It's one thing to put it in a book, but it's an utterly different supertanker full of gigantic fish to do it for real. That takes time, money, and lots of research that still needs to be done and will probably take several decades at least.

Re:Evil Technology?

[Angry Toad]

"If a normal body could be grown for me and I could somehow retain my mind in it, I think I would welcome that."

There's the problem with cloning. We cannot (and will not be able to in the forseeable future) "clone" particular body parts. Your clone will be a unique individual just as much as any single identical twin is (and they _are_ clones by all meaningful standards).

To clone a person is to create another unique person who just happens to have your DNA. Are you going to cut off their head to get their body?

I can see lots of bad reasons for doing human cloning. I'm stumped as far as thinking of any good ones. Not that this will stop a few fat rich bastards of course - that's only a matter of time and money.

Kids are better

[baptiste]

And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

I've already got these - they're called kids. Sure they bitch alot about doing it - but imagine a mini you being told to do chores - which would be worse? Kids or Clones?

You "Clone, mow the yard"
Clone "Hell no! You never did it when you were a kid - I KNOW it!"

Plus kids are more fun to make!

Besides - I don't think I could stand to deal with a clone of me on a daily basis - that and my wife would probably lose it since I drive her nuts already LOL

--

So you want clones?

[mikethegeek]

So you want genetically engineered "perfect" people to be made? That is, "perfect" people in the eyes of the test tube jockey who creates him/her?

Do you want to live in a world where you are a slave or second class citizen because you are a "natural" human, not a perfect clone?

That WILL happen if cloning happens. I'm far from perfect, though I'm a very talented Systems Engineer. But a cloner could easily create superhumans who would not only take my job, but eventually relegate me and everyone else of natural birth to subjugation.

Remember the Star Trek TOS episode "Space Seed"?

As Spock said "superior ability breeds superior ambition"

Half Height Cindy Crawford

[somethingwicked]

I thought the point of having half-height clones was for them to all be female: Crawford, Heidi Klum, Britney, whatever your preference...

What about baby Jesus?

[highway]

Does this mean that the whole clone jesus thing is going to be stopped? This is going to crush all those relegious people that were counting on the second coming.
--highway

Re:I remember when "Test Tube Babies" were the ene

[MeltyMan]

I agree. However, most people aren't as smart as we are. How about the people that are artificially inseminated with multiple embrios, hoping for one to implant, only to find that ALL SEVEN have implanted. They then go on to dis-allow reduction to one, citing religious beliefs. They then go on to fuck up SEVEN lives. This is most obviously an isolated incident, yet I feel it can bring up many ties to cloning due to it's foundation on Ignorance and Hypocricy. Which is what the lawmakers are trying to do, as well as people who would do the things we are hypothesizing here. I agree with the poster above, that regulation may be necesary, but not an ignorant all-encompasing ban.

Oh, by the way, when was the last time a law was actually gotten rid of?

Ridiculous

[r13]

That post sure wasn't flamebait or anything...

Seriously though, have you ever really thought about what you're asking for when you say those things? Firstly, since the clone will be its own sentient being, it'll want rights. Think you can take their rights away after a few of your clones put the smack down on YOU and make you THEIR slave? Right, I'm sure you'll be able to command them around. I mean your mind and rights are superior to theirs, right? I guess we'll also just assume that they WANT us to take their organs whenever we need them.. Talk about opening a can of whoop! Also, what about the overpopulation of our already crowded planet? Sure, it's not bad enough already, lets have two or three clones each as well! That'll make things SO much better.

Why don't you wake up from your self-obsorption before you post this crap.

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[nanojath]

You've hit the issues but I think you're missing the point. Here's the breakdown: make no assumptions about my personal political beliefs, this is just the way it is down here in the USA.

1) Our Republican-controlled Congress does see this as an abortion-related issue. Under their mandate from the religious right (an absolutely essential component of their political victories) they are obligated, as they cannot yet sucessfully ban abortion (due to the composition of the Supreme Court), to take a stance against any issue that seems to suggest that it is okay to utilize human embryos or fetuses for any other purpose than coming to term in a human uterus and being born. This is exactly the point of the Weldon quote you list. You're talking about destroying hundreds of botched embryos in the pursuit of a single "perfect" copy - that's too much like abortion for Republicans to support.

2) Although I think the oh-so-enlightened intellectuals who make Slashdot what it is overemphasize the religious angle on this, there is little question that many Christians will object to human cloning on "playing God" grounds. The Republican Christian Right core mentioned above would almost certainly fall into this category. Their view is that the only right way of creating another human being is for a married couple to have sex. There is plenty of disoute on the degree to which science can/should intervene. But supporting cloning is bound to get these people on a politician's bad side.

3) I for one think the issue of rights is a genuine and valid concern that justifies a moratorium on actually cloning human beings. These issues of cloning for "parts" or for research are sticky and there are a lot of shades of grey. I'm not an advocate of recriminalizing abortion but I admit I find the prospect of clone factories mass-producing fetuses to harvest undifferentiated cells and fetal organ cells unnerving and I'm not sure if I support it. THis brings up a huge ethical issue that's around the corner: most of the sci-fi applications of cloning would require an artificial womb, something we're still pretty far off from. But if we succeed in acheiving this technology, technically almost any embryo/fetus at any stage of development could be brought to term regardless of when it exits the womb (or if indeed it was ever in a womb). Pro-choicers don't care to talk about it much but the legality of abortion is silently but heavily invested in the fact that the aborted embryo/fetus is not viable outside the womb (this enforces the belief that the embryo/fetus is a part of the pregnant woman's body, not an autonomous being, and consequently making abortion illegal violates her civil right to control her own body). The further we push the viability of premature births and artificial gestation, the closer we come to a big can of worms. Not allowing cloning, which simply maintains the status-quo and so is much smaller and less wormy, is just a safer political stance. Sorry this took a while but I think it's a pretty fair picture of what's going on.

Reality check

[nanojath]

I don't particularly support this legislation...

A lot of the protest here downplays the fact that there are serious ethical issues involved with the "whimsical" (but not outside the realm of reality) applications that CmdrTaco mentions. And trying to gloss these issues is what's going to get this kind of legislation passed.

This being said - get real. There has not been a single day (I said not one, zero, nada, not one sinlge solitary day) since commerce was invented that human beings have not been traded as commodities (we call it slavery in these parts). There are people being sold as slaves right now. Nothing about cloning is going to change this ethical situation in the world, except to possibly provide a new justification for exploitation ("ahh, he's just a damn clone anyway").

On the other hand, cloning could become totally legal and commonplace and CmdrTaco still couldn't afford to keep a brainless body on life support for several decades on the off chance he ends up needing an organ transplant. Only the ultrawealthy will benefit from any of these types of uses. We may all benefit from tissue cloning but that isn't really procribed by this sort of legislation.

Honesty is great and everything...

[KupekKupoppo]

...but did you really want to mention your clone would be brainless, Taco?

-k. :)

damnit I need a clone!!!

[deran9ed]

To post for me when I oversleep and miss posting on /. articles.

blackbox themes

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[dachshund]

And yet they take no steps to prevent the massive-overcreation of embryos inherent in the in-vitro fertilization process (and their subsequent destruction.) Because that makes families... And their constituents would decapitate them if they made it harder for nice, hardworking people to have lots of babies.

Re:Gotta love governments who don't understand tec

[dachshund]

Although I am arguing on a slippery slope here, if cloning *DOES* get approved somewhere for humans, what rights would a clone have?

They'd be human beings. The only right they wouldn't have, apparently, is the right to enter the United States!

Watch that one go down in legal flames if it's ever tested...

Re:And why not?

[dachshund]

Twins are the result of either: a) Two eggs were released this month, and both of them are now impregnated, or b) (more rare), one egg is impregnated and then splits, resulting in identical twins. HOWEVER: From the moment they split, twins develop differently, live differently.

And identical twins are different from clones... how exactly? Cloned embryos will "develop differently, live differently" just like identical twins.

Now, there's evidence that cloning techniques have some serious bugs in them, and cloned embryos have genetic flaws... But that's a whole 'nother story.

food

[sidnix]

what really excites me the most is the prospect of cloning only parts of animals for food. can a vegan be angry if we eat a chicken breast grown in a vat? is it even a chicken? once the technology is in place, a lot of extinction problems can perhaps be solved, too. but i'm really just in it for the guilt-free eating.

Re:food

[glenebob]

but i'm really just in it for the guilt-free eating.

*Chuckle* You feel guilty eating chickens? The human body has a biological need to consume animal tissue... Or rather, animal tissue satisfies a biological need.

The answer is cloning... We should genetically engineer the 'new' human race to be vegitarian :-)
--
Damn it Jim, that's my sphincter, not a jelly donut!!!

What about DNA evidence in court.

[crudmonky]

If I have 500 clones running around, all looking the same with the same DNA, how do you identify which one committed a crime? There would be some wierd ass identity issues.

Human cloning

[Nykon]

I think cloning whole humans could get very sticky, and only asking for problems. Soon enough they will fight for their own rights and what a mess we will be in,lol I am defintly all about cloning individual organs though. It would be a breakthrough in medicine so we won't have so many people deing after being on waiting lists for years waiting for transplants.

Identical Twins, please note.

[abumarie]

You have been declared illegal. Therefore per government order, you must pull straws. It is the responsibility of the twin pulling the shorter straw to distroy themself.

Clones...

[GendaB]

It was decide in the House today by a close 53 to 47 vote that all identical children would be destroyed on the basis that they were indeed "Godless" clones. It was discussed and fnially decided that identical twins, triplets, and so on would be resolved as a single child by the luck of whichever infant was fortunate enough to be that first one to make it out, all subsequent siblings would be destroyed as a public service, in the fervent attempt to prevent the possible birth of the Antichrist inside a souless clone.

When asked about his feelings on this issue President Bush was quoted as saying "It's about time we had good solid Christian laws protecting us against the atrocities of a monstrous technology run amok! If that means we gotta toast an identical twin or two, well dang, constant vigilance is just the price we gotta pay for being a God fearing nation! Ya gotta break eggs to make an omelet! Cloning is a sin against the All Mighty, and I'll gladly smoke the first sucker who tries it on this soil!"

In a related story, 96% of all livestock and 99.9999999% of all vegetable and grain foodstock has been destroyed today, because they were produced from the ungodly technology of cloning. Widespread starvation and panic food buying is expected, however the nation's religious leaders are reported as pleased with the overall outcome. One was even quoted as suggesting this may be the start of the second coming... Halleluiah!!!

Congress wasting time and money!

[babymac]

Yesterday we had congress trying to pass a law making "assault on a fetus" a crime. Today we have them trying to ban research into cloning.

I don't know about you, but I am sick to death of congress wasting their time on worthless shit like debating prayer in schools, the posting of the Ten Commandments, flag burning, late term abortions, etc. As far as I'm concerned they are wasting all of our taxpayer dollars on worthless, unconstitutional law-making (The CDA ring a bell?). The futility of their efforts is disgusting and insult to all of our freedoms. It reminds me of watching an autistic person bash their head into a wall. Execpt in this case they're not beating their heads into a wall...they're beating into the Constitution. What's really scary is that someday they might just knock it down...

When are our so-called leaders going to wake up and realize that the majority of this country does NOT share their "values?"

Speaking as a liberal white person I can honestly say this: The only thing that gives me hope for the future is the fact that white people are becoming the minority in the USA.

The sooner we get these angry white bozos out of office, the better off we will all be.

Why not outlaw matter transference devices?

[OG Loki]

Congress takes another bold step in outlawing human cloning. Isn't this similar to their law that SDI should be implemented as soon as technically feasible? Human cloning is not, despite the hype, in our near future. Currently science has cloned what, a couple of sheep? The success rate for cloning is less than 1%. Most "failed" clones cause the death of their hosts (mothers?). Where is the Commander, or Bill Gates for that matter, going to find 100 women to host their clones? "Ladies, the job is as follows, we're going to harvest eggs from your ovaries, strip out all of the genetic material in these eggs, implant new genetic material, pump you full of immuno-suppressants, reimplant the eggs. 30 of you will die during the pregnancy, 30 more during child birth, 30 will miscarry and never be able to have kids again, 9 will give birth to ill formed short lived freaks, and perhaps one will give birth to a Private Taco, his navel will be the size of a grapefruit, and he will most likely hit puberty and old age at the same time." Please Congress save us from this brave new world!!! Until some one can grow mammals from zygote through infant without a living host, I wouldn't start shopping for matching outfits.

The KKK?

[OG Loki]

"Just wait until the KKK can begin brewing their own perfect children." Does anyone actually believe that a bunch of ignorant Pabst-Blue-Ribbon swilling morons have the money and means to produce human clones? Have you seen these people? They're hardly a menace to society.

"Bibliography" of a cloning paper

[Faust7]

This article reminded me of a research paper I did for AP English back in '98. Thought I'd share the bibliography. Can you spot the fake entries? :) (What can I say? Meeting the 20-source requirement was hard using our cruddy library.)

Al-Ali, Nizar. "Debate Opens Wide Theological Issues." Inter Press Service English News Wire 23 Jan. 1998: B8.

Barrshaye, Catherine. "Old Suspicions to New Light." Time 13 June 1997: 18.

Cullis, Christopher. "Entering the Clone Zone." The World & I 1 Oct. 1997: 145.

Danzer, George. "Seafood by the Ton." Newsweek 5 Apr. 1997: 103.

Fenster, Rupert. "From One Cell." Time 21 Dec. 1997: 75.

Gardener, Micci. "An Army of Clones." Public Science 12 Jan. 1998: 109.

Gates, Howard. "Genetic Hopes." Current Issues 14 Jan. 1998: 84.

Hyland, David. "Frog Clones Aid Cancer Research." University Wire 6 Oct. 1997: n. pag.

Krauthammer, Charles. "Of Headless Mice and Men." Time 19 Jan. 1998: 76.

Lemonick, Michael. "Science: Cloning Classics." Public Science 8 Nov. 1993: 70.

Orthel, Victon. "Organically Grown Vegetables." Scientific American 5 Feb. 1998: 46.

Pasky, Gertrude. "The Furnace of Life: The Scientist?" The World & I 9 Nov. 1993: 53.

Post, Stephen. "Thoughts on Cloning People." Global Science 1 Oct. 1997: 160.

Rapier, John. "The Costs of Clones." Maclean's 11 Nov. 1997: 33.

Robicheaux, Gina. "Human Cloning Confronts Congress." Capitol Report 26 Jan. 1998: n. pag.

Ruhlzenstein, Dietrich. "All Creatures Great and Cloned." Mother Earth 25 Oct. 1997: 132.

Trenemen, Ann. "Send in the Clones." Independent 22 Jan. 1998: 16.

Wallace, Bruce. "Special Report: The Dolly Debate." Maclean's 10 Mar. 1997: 54.

Whitney, Verno. "A Clone of a Clone?" Time 19 Aug. 1997: 46.

Wills, Christopher. "A Sheep in Sheep's Clothing." Discover Magazine 1 Jan. 1998: 22.

Re:"Bibliography" of a cloning paper

[Faust7]

Oh yeah, got an A+ on the paper too. In fact, the one source she questioned was real. :)

Common Sense

[isa-kuruption]

Not cloning humans (yet?) is common sense and far from ignorance as some people may be thinking.

The technology, for one, isn't perfected yet. Everyone yells at Intel for releasing a chip before it's ready, but now you want them to clone a human before it's ready? Babies will be born dead or deformed and then arent going to be wanted and then put into homes or get on welfare. That's all we need.

Secondly, Taco brings up another point by his "midget to mow his grass" idea. This is slavery and THIS is against the law in the U.S. and immoral no matter how you look at it. Sadly, this would be the primary reason for cloning human beings... NOT for medical reasons.

Thirdly, the world already has a serious population problem. You really think it's a good idea to clone MORE people and continue the process of populating the planet? That means more people go hungry and die because someone can't afford to feed them 'cause he gotta worry about his clone.

Finally, everytime a baby is born it inherits certain characteristics from it's mother and father and essentially evolves. Cloning /bin/halt's evolution.



-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
w00t w00t raise da r00f!

Re:Common Sense

[CrackElf]

Well, there are some incorrect assumptions implied by your (and other ppl's) statements.
1) cloning does !include force growing
2) cloning does !include mind transfer

So, what you end up with is a baby with the same genetic makeup as the original.
Spare arms? Not. You would have to wait 15 years for the arm to be mature enough to transplant. Spare Tacos? Not. Mind transfers do not exist. (and one is quite enough).Although it is a prerequisite to many other medical technologies, all this does is create a cute little baby (although your point about evolution is valid, there is already enough inbreeding in royalty and trailer parks :)

Disclaimer IANADoctor

Lawmaking before thinking?

[kalleanka2]

The majority of the public is frightened by the concept of cloning but do most of them really understand what it means?

When gene researchers talk about cloning they generally mean cloning an embryo that will live only a short time. Is this really so bad? Abortions are made every day around the globe and in big numbers.

Just to speculate those cloned embryos might be 1 in 1000 embryos killed. And those few would give us great opportunities to find genetic deceases that is very hard to find in other ways.

Cancer, autoimmune deceases and others are no kid's play and I fear we have lost one of our best possibilities to fight them.

I could agree that cloning people and let them grow up is wrong and should be outlawed.

I will call hir...big me

[Chakat]

And as soon as we get really good with the genetic engineering, I want my own half height clone to mow my lawn.

Everybody knows that the early adopters in a field such as this will obviously be the porno industry. Imagine your own personal Pam Anderson/Robert Redford (back when he was young and handsome)/Pat/whatever to be with. Or, better yet, a giant clone of yourself to do the yard chores.

HCF

[Spanishlnquisition]

Want to know what the Human Cloning Foundation has to say about all of this?

Didn't think so. ;)

--

Half-height clone drives

[Spamalamadingdong]

Cloning yourself to mow the lawn is stupid; would you really want someone with your smarts in a subservient position where they would want to knock you off the top? You'd have to be on guard every minute.

If you want a half-height clone for menial work, you want to start from stock that has very little in the way of intelligence and no gifts in the way of looks either. I suggest you get a sample from Spencer Abraham or Teddy Kennedy and work from there; nobody is going to have the slightest bit of sympathy for copies of either of them, and your lawn will be looking great for the next 50 years.
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!

realdoll.com

[KeizerHein]

they just want to protect their realdoll.com stocks. KH1.0 -- when walking on thin ice you might as well dance

See everyone?

[TrollFeeder]

Trolling, as is now well-known, has been the defining attribute and most worthwhile activity on Slashdot for some time now. The people who were here when it started have either left or fill the ranks of the best trollers for the wave of idiots that followed.

Now, it has a kind of official stamp of approval because CmdrTaco is getting in on the act.

--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house"

Identical twin, or clone, or is there a difference

[tyrannical666]

Gee, how do you tell identical twins and clones appart. Better ban twins too just to make sure

Concerns...

[glenebob]

It's one thing to ban human cloning. It's quite another to ban human clones. A person has no control over his/her own birth, cloned or not. And so banning cloned people just seems utterly rediculous and wrong to me. What would be next, clone reservations?

Let's say Fred and his wife Judy make a clone of Fred, named Bob. Fred and Judy get caught, pay the $1 million fines, and do the prison time. Problem solved :-) So what happens to Bob? Does he get deported? To where?

The artical says that safety (because of the high failure rate in current cloning) was a major concern when considering these laws. Huh? So now we're making laws to ban new technology forever because the technology isn't perfected yet?

I'm not for human cloning. But geez, do we really need to cite completely stupid reasons for banning it? It's not as if there is a shortage of really really good reasons...

And this one...
"There is no need for this technology to ever be used with humans," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Oh, of course, you're right. You have infinite foresight. We believe you. There will never be a good reason to ever ever clone a human. Ever. Whatever dude... That reminds me of mariguana banning. There will never ever be a valid use for pot. Banned. Oh wait, there is a valid use! For cancer patients, glaucoma patients, etc. Oh well, too late. Arrrrggg!!!
--
Damn it Jim, that's my sphincter, not a jelly donut!!!

Of course then we would need...

[kaimiike1970]

For this to really be usefull, we would need brain transplant technology. Which is more frightening then cloning IMHO.

A Taco clone can check his email...

[Lothar 0]

so he can finally look at his TV and watch some subbed anime instead of torturing himself with crappy dubs.

Not the Declaration of Independence

[Lothar 0]

The Supreme Court does not consider the Declaration of Independence when it is rendering verdicts. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Declaration is not a legal document. It is the Constitution that the Supremes consider, and in this case, the 14th Amendment ("due process" clause) would be the one that many of us would use to fight an import ban. It says "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", and this is what a clone would be.

Re:And why not?

[testersuper]

As would clones develop differently.. just as twins do ..

And why not?

[tomstdenis]

There should be clone research done. It is the next branch of genetic science. Why does everyone think your clone will be *you*. Should we outlaw twins now? They are technically clones!

Interesting...

[kypper]

Is it me, or is everyone screaming 'But someone would clone Hitler!' when human clones are mentioned?
We are the choir... yes I am preaching to you... but again, parental guidance, not genes, will dictate the majority of actions/ideas/ethics that an individual has. The only way we could TRUELY clone Hitler is by being able to clone his brain just before he died.
Same with Saddam, and everyone else.
Hence, is a ban on cloning really necessary? We would learn so much more about the human body, and be able to regrow parts so much faster. The 'slave clone' jibe from CmdrTaco aside, this would be really beneficial!
I think these stupid techno-phobes need to understand we'd just be making twins. After that, they're their own person.
Cheers.

Yes, But...Clones in SPACE!!!

[Bandit2069]

I agree anything that puts more people on this planit is a bad thing, like fertility drugs even, you can't make a kid, oh well too bad, adopt, but I digress, I came up with an Idea that would make cloning alright with me... you can clone yourself a fresh body if you agree to go colonize space, lets say mars or a space station, and if you have a kid, at 18 it's off to space for them, really, living in space could probably be made alittle easier with alittle genetic manipulation aslong as they are at it right?