Slashdot Mirror
First Cloned Human Embryo
Human cloning, or at least the production of human embryos, is no longer hypothetical; a company called Advanced Cell Technology claims to have successfully done just that. DivideX0 writes: "The Scientific American has this article. Note the research was conducted in the U.S. although there are bills pending in Washington that will ban this research." There's also a story at MSNBC. Update: 11/25 16:07 GMT by T : Here's ACT's press release as well.
And i wonderr what defects theis cloned embryo has... It's a known fact that cloned DNA is weaker and ages faster than the actual original DNA.
Hey, this is my sig, if you don't like it, STOP READING MY POSTS!
I spose they got these stem cells from non-federal government funded labs, as those have a restriction against this type of thing I think.
Thanks,
Travis
forkspoon@hotmail.com
The human embryo will get patented if I know american researchers....
Sad sad sad
Sadly, the public have this fun and harmless view of cloning, as brought forth by some movies such as Multiplicity. The dangers of birth defects and other pregnancy problems are still very high. Acceptable to test animals, but not to humans and human babies. Now would be a good time for a film to be made detailing the hazards of cloning.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Can you tell me any biological difference between clones and twins? (besides the fact that they were done at the same time)
Identical twins are the same person at birth who have different events in life that alter their personalities and responses to shape a new individual.
This doesn't frighten me at all. No 'soul' bullshit, because if there are souls, then it's a new one in the clone, not the same one. This has a lot of potential for good, and I don't know of much that doesn't have it for bad too. So let's all relax and think before we cry 'OH DEAR GOD SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN'.
put on this stuff for a while until some proper legislation can happen.
It'll be a lot harder to fix all the legal and moral problems if they just start going ahead and cloning/selecting embryos as much as they like.
What are the politicians waiting for? Some massive backlash? They have to stop this stuff right *now* and stop and think about the moral implications of what is being done, and legislate for it.
To answer your question, someone else here said that clones so far are weaker and age faster. This looks like a big difference, if this is indeed true (and I suspect it is: I have read this elsewhere).
Read this (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011123/tc/bizcl oning_dc_1.html) story [yahoo.com].
Eye, says I.
identical twins are the splitting of the same egg. That's the same person.
As for the gene defects, how are we supposed to fix it without studying it? Performing this stuff is unethical on humans, but is it really any more ethical to do it on animals?
This is of course one of the first human cloning successes (that we've been told about). Let's remember that there are bound to be mishaps in early development, but at present methods and reliability have improved greatly with cows. More human successes can't be too far off.
sig
I followed the last time Congress debates cloning. Most of the people saying things knew nothing of the science or other facts involved in this; regardless of whether or not they have the right to meddle in these affairs, they certainly had no idea what they were talking about.
Yes. Let the informed, inventive, and concerned people directly involved with this determine what goes on in cloning. Not Congress.
... to produce humans/soldiers just like they did in Judge Dredd. Pretty scary idea, eh?
Cloned sheep is the only reason Al Gore got more than 1 vote. It is also the only reason that Windows enjoys more of a market share than the OS on the Coleco Adam.
Unfortunately it looks like the debate in the US senate is going to be very one sided, and the senate will vote like the house did and pass a bill banning cloning research in broad strokes...including the research that was just announced, which is not meant to clone entire human beings, but an effort to conduct stem cell research to produce transplantable organs by taking dna from a patient and cloning compatible organ cells, to reduce the risk of rejection.
The long term plan for this company is to be able to use a synthetic process and skip the reproductive cells altogether, but to get there there needs to be intense research on how the stem cell process works, so that a organ specific process can be developed, which doesn't run the ethical risk of creating a whole person if some cells were quickly stolen from the lab and placed in a womb.
I find it somewhat ironic that so much research goes on with materials that have the potential to kill large amounts of human life...but research with the potential to create human life is so strongly opposed.
-jef
I can't see gigantic problems arising from cloning per se - after all, as is already pointed out, identical twins are more or less the same biologically. The real problem is the gigantic risk of birth defects and other problems pregnancies is extremely high. Further, quite a lot of mothers who have lost children feel that by cloning they'll be able to "regain" those that they lost, even when the child is older. Can you imagine being a child that is expected to be identical to another child that came before? That'd be horrible for the poor kid; not only that, but the mother who wanted to have her child cloned may not realise that she'd have to try as many as forty times to get a living child, and furthermore even then the child may have strange genetic ailments and other problems. The problem is not the thing in and of itself; let's face it, despite what movies tell you, having a clone of yourself is pretty much a worthless thing in (nearly) all cases. (Excepting, of course, for the obvious applications in espionage and related fields where the identity ambiguity is useful.) Dave Dave
------
http://cooltech.org
If it ain't cool, it ain't coolt
It seems to me that this doctor's intentions are very misguided. He essentially, from watching Meet the Press, wants to use these cloned eggs to create personalized stem cells for any human in need of a new organ. In other words, create a new human life, and then destroy it for someone else's use. This reminds me way too much of scifi body part harvesting farms. Think about it for a minute.
This issue is hot. I think the government will continue to get more and more pressure to allow stem-cell research to go forward (with new, uh, material) based on successes like this.
I'm having trouble making up my mind on stem-cell research.
then where are the links TO these facts?
It sounds like what they're doing here is therapeutic cloning, which doesn't really equate with identical twins. When you have identical twins, you don't harvest cells from one of them for the other. In this way, what they've done truly is new.
While everyone is whinning over the issues surrounding human cloning, look back a bit at human history. Everything we've done has cost lives for the sake of progress. This is no different, it must be done and at least somewhere it will be.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
I mean if they can anally probe us and impregnate us, performing vivisections isn't that much worse.
Why should research be banned that could allow you to "grow" a new heart (or liver or whatever) if yours breaks somewhere down the line? If this research ONLY allowed people to get heart transplants without waiting on infinitely long waiting lists for someone to die, imagine the benefit to medicine.
If the U.S. bans this research, it will simply move to other countries. Imagine having to live in China or Russia for a while to get your heart transplant because saving your life this way in the U.S. is illegal.
In my opinion, the U.S. should ban cloning an entire human for whatever purpose, as this could be used for some very evil things. But banning research is stupid.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of cloned me's.
The dangers of birth defects and other pregnancy problems are still very high.
What about women over 35?
How about Downs syndrome?
Are you proposing pre-natal genetic testing? Forbidding women over 35 from reproductive acts?
Just watch... they'll be cloning high-intelligence life forms next, like SHEEP! Now they've cloned a human it's just an inevitable cloned sheep will follow, then what will we do? It will be anarchy I tell you!
for the Attack Of The Clones!
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
...to get rid of the M$ monopoly. Clone Bill Gates! Make five or ten Billies from him, wait twenty years and watch them pushing each other out of the market.
Anyway, you know any discussion about this is just going to devolve into the age-old abortion flame-fest within a few minutes. Get the popcorn ready.
if you knew anything about genetics, you'd know intelligence hasnt been isolated to gene. or even close their to. same with things like "athletisism." stop reading anne rynd novels. please.
It's a shame Michael Shermer's article on ethics isn't online. Shermer finds most objections to cloning to be variations on "that's God's provenance and we shouldn't go there" which he finds absurd. "If God meant us to fly, we'd have wings" and such. Very thought-provoking, whether you agree with him or not.
If you find cloning interesting, I recommend getting the back issue.
The difference between a clone and a twin is that one of them has been artificially produced in a lab.
That's what it boils down to. The problem isn't in having a couple of identical humans running around, the ethical problem is should human beings artificially engineer human beings.
Don't start with your "potential for good" bullshit. We've seen that literally hundreds of times. This time, the point at stake is so crucial for human ethics that we should actually take the time to bother tho think of the ethical consequences beforehand.
There is absolutely no reason to panic.
If you can get your representative to draw a distinction between therapeutic cloning (make young healthy cells to repair damage in the host) and reproductive (make a baby), hats off to ya. Want to go for the jackpot? Explain it to the satisfaction of the religious right. I agree with your position, but adopting it would lose a congressman votes among the enormous "no attention for an argument longer than a bumper sticker" constituency.
As for the posts which talk about the weaker DNA and shortened life of clones, RTFA! There's a difference between cloned embyonic cells and cloned adult cells. But try explaining that to Slashdot. Much cleverer to say "Three thumbs up for cloning!" or the like and move on to other matters.
There was just a recent Slashdot article on the degree to which we inherit "intelligence" (actually it was on IQ, not intelligence, but it's still somewhat relevant) from our parents. Conclusion: IQ is very much hereditary.
Hey, look at their press release first... They basically say that they published their studies about cloning humans. However this imho this does NOT mean they have already cloned someone.
From their Press release: November 25, 2001 - Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (ACT) today announced publication of its research on human somatic cell nuclear transfer and parthenogenesis. The report, published in today's Journal of Regenerative Medicine, provides the first proof that reprogrammed human cells can supply tissue for transplantation.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!!
...we should all probably watch this. It has a very enlightening view of cloning, and what can go wrong. Parts is parts, you know.
Ben
According to the Scientific American article (which you should read now), the company, Advanced Cell Technology, is not pursuing research on reproductive cloning. What they are pursuing is research on therapeutic cloning. Without going into details (go read the article), what this will eventually allow researchers to do is grow organs, tissues, etc. from the intended receipient's own stem cells. The stem cells are created using cloning. If this becomes reality, the benefits will be huge. It's called "regenerative medicine" (quoting their CEO) for a reason.
Reproductive cloning is more difficult. While the first stage is the same - insert new DNA into egg, prompt the start of division - reproductive cloning has many more steps required to create a baby. First of all, as far as I know, babies can't be grown in vitro, so you have to implant the cloned egg into a mother. There is massive potential for danger here, not only to the growing embryo but also to the mother. Furthermore, there are issues that have yet to be resolved, such as the possibility that cloned DNA is already "aged," leading to shorter life for the cloned person or animal. Neither of these absolutely critical issues is even touched by this research. Reproductive cloning is a long, long way off.
On the other hand, it appears therapeutic cloning is making much progress. I for one am excited by the possibilites, and I think that any legislative reaction to this research is purely reactive and would ignore the facts. I see no ethical problems with this research whatsoever, and neither did the ethical board overseeing this research.
-SymphonicMan
> There won't be any trouble claiming "prior art" though, will there?
. _. _._._._._.
Actually, I found some prior art. Take a look at this patent:
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
UNIV6321385: Process for self-replicating cells used in the creation of a larger self-aware cell cluster
Inventor(s): God, Douglas Adams, Buddha, A cabbage named Ralph
No Image
Applicant/Assignee: God, Douglas Adams, Buddha, A cabbage named Ralph Incorporated
other patents from this consortium. (approx. aleph-1)
News, Profiles, Stocks and More about this company
Issued/Filed Dates: Beginning of universe
Application Number: UNIV1999000416241
IPC Class: H04N 7/10;
Class: 725/140; 725/152; 380/227; 380/241; 380/242;
Field of Search: 348/460,461,465,468 725/131,32,132,139,140-141,151,152-153 380/227,242,10,20,241 H04N 710
Priority Number(s): Jan. 19, 1995 UNIV1995000006092
Abstract:
It's all very complicated. Trust me. I know what I'm doing. What could possibly go wrong?
And Chinese students will get the techniques down while studying in US universities. Then all this misguided christian mythology crapola that the US congress seems to think is the will of the voting masses of idiots will simply make it difficult for the poor to take advantage of this technology because tickets to Shanghai or Taipei won't be covered by their HMOs if they're even lucky enough to have HMOs.
But for the relatively upwardly mobile individuals who can buy plane tickets and all that, it will still be available no matter what 70 percent of the dumb ass right honorable senators think is the RIGHT thing to do.
I for one, have wanted to be cloned since I first learned of the technique as a child. This particular string of code aint goin' nowhere and I'll do everything I can to make it so. I want to be cloned for therapeutic and reproductive purposes and even for entertainment purposes. And for those who don't like it, tough shit.
No functioning brain = not a person.
Pardon my cynicism, please, but no wonder congress is banning this kind of research.
They have a monopoly on the first part of that statement and can't stand the competition.
How/if a clone has/gets a soul
This question will probably be left to the determination of the legal profession...talk about the blind leading the blind.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
It should be a great concern to everyone when governments try to curtail any sort of research, as science is neither innately evil, nor is it innately beneficial. It is only the way that the science is applied that it turns to be one or the other. The cloning of humans is filled with perils, but not allowing science to progress down a particular avenue is a much more serious problem. This is science with the potential to save millions of lives. How many people will we be dooming by not pursuing it? This is a stark contrast the development of nuclear weapons, which was science developed for the expressed use of killing millions. That presented a much graver problem to our society, and yet nuclear weapons could be argued to have stopped any other world wars from happening which is an incredibly positive situation.
The real problem here isn't that this science is harmful, god knows it is much less so than most other things under development or in production, but that it goes against the moral grain of those in power. The paradox is that while we can accept those inventions that kill life, those that create life are far more scarey to a great many more people. We should have more faith in ourselves, and our ability to regulate this industry to the extent that it will not become harmful to society. Its a great opportunity for science and it should not be precluded.
"SELFNESS" by Gregory Benford
...However, my limited knowledge about the human embryo tells me that one of the first things that happens with a fertilized egg is the multiplying cells form three layers: One for the nerves and skin and bones, and one for muscles and the heart, and one for the digestive system and other internal organs.
Would scientists not be able to modify the "top" layer of pre-nerve, skin and bone cells either to completely remove that layer, or to just effectively prevent the moral implications of a brain forming? Naturally, it's more complicated than that, but it would seem a relatively broad set of basic genes to be able to disable and still have the other cells develop to the point where they may be used to save lives while avoiding more nagging moral issues. Because the cells are so early in development, one could experiment with any mammal or even most animals to get the same results one would with a human.
There's still the issue with the telomeres and generational cell aging though - anyone in a biology feild have any news on research into that?
Ryan Fenton
The original publication by the authors describing their methods and partially also their motivation is available for free. You can get it here.
I wonder what the longterm-effects of cloning are. /.-ers oppinion on this one.
They plan to use human cloning for people who for any reason can't get children the natural way.
But according to the evolution theory defects are supossed to ocure but some might be usefull but other defects like infertillity are likely not to be passed on to offspring. By cloning these 'bad' properties are being passed on. I am no Genetics specialists and I don't know if the 'gene for infertillity' is a dominant one. Authorising cloning should automaticly authorise the manipulation of DNA to correct certain 'bad clusters' in DNA.
Just my $0.02, I'dd like to see other
This is fairly typical for any cloning experiment. Frankly, six cells aren't a whole lot, and going from a six-celled embryo to a 100-celled one that can actually produce stem cells is no easy feat. It'll still be quite a long time before this can be used at all.
Clones made in labs always seem to die early. The trick doesn't seem to be so much how to make them, but how to keep them alive.
Plus, we don't know that organs grown from cloned stem-cells wouldn't have a shorter lifetime than regular ones, as clones tend to do - keep in mind that Dolly the sheep died very young.
Ceci n'est pas une sig
Random side thought: I can just see the efforts to implement copy protection in the world of clones. The DMCA and the rest. And the ethical debates involved.
feh
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Why? Because it *will* happen regardless of legality. Let's be realistic - there are too many countries that could easily become havens for cloning research for laws to have any effect. Instead, what would happen is that the researchers would create a clone out in the middle of the Pacific or something, and would in essence, own the clone. They could do *anything* they wanted to without anyone to prevent it. Ergo, what we need instead of bans is extremely strict ethical oversight of the cloning process and research. That's the only chance the soon-to-exist clones will have for getting to lead a halfway normal (or human) life.
2. genetic imprinting. Fertilized zygotes have DNA contributions from two parents, whilst cloned embryos only from one parent. DNA is often covalently modified (e.g., methylation) in a process called imprinting, where the modified allele is silenced. Modifying these silenced alleles often has deleterious consequences.
3. Telomere length. Chromosomal ends are maintained by special DNA structures called telomeres. The lengths of telomeres are often different between different cell types, and usually reflects the state of differentiation of the cells. Telomeres are known to affect life span and this is probably one of the main reasons why cloned animals have poor life spans.
There are just some factors that I can think of off-hand, I'm sure there are many others. Just because organisms have identical DNA sequences do not mean that they will develop identically, even if you do not take environmental effects into consideration.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for cloning and stem cell research, but it is prudent to think through ethical concerns before plunging ahead.
NO CARRIER
Hey! Clones are people two!
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
However, I fail to see how reproductive cloning "has a lot of potential for good". Instead of one kid, you get identical twins. Sweet! If you wanted two kids, you could have just had another kid.
Well, the obvious frightening moral dilemma is the parents who want to "resurrect" their 13 year old child, just killed in a car crash, by bringing his embryonic clone (that they made 13 years ago) out of cryogenic statis. Without proper legal restrictions, this is a reality that we may face in the coming years.
I'm all for cloning research, but I think that the moral implications of practicing human cloning techniques outside of the laboratory are mind boggling. I think we should know the science, but not use it (at least in this fashion). Similarly, I think we should know how to build fission bombs, but I don't think we should actually build them.
Nader is not brilliant. He has not thought through his ideas at all. Or else he would realize that he is fighting passionately to give the powerful more power and create a fascist superstate. He has no idea what he is talking about on anything, and almost all the public realized this and rejected him.
Did you actually read the article? They are NOT trying to clone humans. They are using an individuals DNA to generate stem cells which they can then use to replace tissue, nerve cells, even organs with. Cloning is only mentioned because people FEAR that this research COULD be used to eventually clone humans. Please read the article before posting.
And I'd really like to read the article so could the karma whores please post a mirror?
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Many people don't realize how all this relates to each other. I actually hear people talk about farming human clones as odd as that sounds.
What this is about is simply cloning a human embryonic stem cell, so that it can be used to grow human organs. Not human beings. That is all that anyone is trying to do. No one is attempting to use human beings are organ containers.
What I really want to see is if they used DNA from an adult human or another embryo. I have heard that the biggest hurdle is going to be using adult DNA so this could or could not be the holy grail...
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
We already are. Some of us are trying to get out of it.
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
Gataga looked at similar problems, although more about designer children than clones.
Oh, by the way, 50% failure is average. In-Vitro usually requires 2-4 embryos implanted at once. Often, neither will catch (usually at least one will).
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
And everyone thought the name for episode II was stupid!
As for me, I really don't care if it's just a stem cell and will not be allowed to be a human. Who are we to make, and take, life at our own will? If it's OK to do this, what keeps us from killing every other person on earth that doesn't do what we say? It just isn't right. Plus, our president has already given other ways to get stem cells. As with my standings with abortion, I believe this is hightly unethical and not moral.
In my opinion, the U.S. should ban cloning an entire human for whatever purpose, as this could be used for some very evil things.
And so could normal child-rearing.
If you clone a human and bring the cloned baby to term, you have... a human baby, like any other.
Why not sidestep most of the debate arguments, and just rewrite parenthood laws to define parents as people who directly caused a child to come into existence? This will cover cloning and any other technologies that come up that could cause humans to be born in any but the old-fashioned way. It would declare clones human ("duh"), and would ensure that responsibility for these humans would be placed somewhere.
This doesn't even have to touch the abortion issue (the question of where in the line between zygote and baby a child becomes a human under the law). That can be left for the courts to fight out.
There is some evidence, though not conclusive, that telomeres may be linked to aging.
I overlooked the amount of corporate tie-ins and commercial nonsense that Episode I had, but actually cloning humans as an advertising ploy for Episode II Attack of the Clones, now that's just going too far.
I mean, Lucas using KFC and Pepsi is one thing. Cloning embryos is another.
J. Morgan
In thoery cloning would result in animals with slightly shorter chromosomes, and thus possibly age sooner. However now that we have been able to study the cloned animals there IS NO ACCELERATED AGING. It is believed that the cloned fetus produces telomerease in its cells and from what we can tell, turns back the clock on aging. Secondly the more recent cloning trials have led to a 80% success rate, which is far better then the dreadfully low rate with dolly and other earlier clones. While you may object still to even 80%, natural birth itself is full of failures. All cloning has to do before it is medically ethical for humans is to match the failure rate of normal reproduction. To get a better understanding of why cloning and stem cells is important, you need to realize where these medical breakthroughs will lead us. Simply put, stem cells/theraputic cloning can slow down and even reverse aging. Now aging is not as inevitable as you might think, for the most part aging is caused by your chromosomes getting progessively smaller every time your cells divide. The older you are, the shorter your chromosomes are. When the telomeres(ends of the chromosomes) reach a certain point the cell engages into a dormant stage where it stops dividng and alters its behavior, causing you to get old. The reason the cells stop dividing is because if they don't the telomeres get too short and your chromosomes can unravel, become massively mutated, and then become horrible cancer. MOST of your cells stop at the right time and simply age naturally, the other cells become mutated and cancerous and you die. In addition to some of your cells becoming cancerous with old age, your immune system which plays a HUGE part in stopping cancer and tumours also wears out and begins to shut down. Aging would be slowed down by inserting into your body healthy stem cells which would move around your body and fix up anything that is beginning to wear out, this would include keeping the immune system in working order. Having a healthy immune system, living and eating healthy, and making use of the latest in cancer treatments means you have an excellent chance of preventing cancer from killing you. Now the big question is how do we get a supply of stem cells. Prefferably we would extract a small amount of marrow from your bones, and then remove the stem cells from the marrow. After genetically engineering them to increase their resistance to cancer, and decreasing the rate at which they age a culture of them would be kept, from which you would get periodic injections. However reversing the aging of the stem cells may not work very well, and they also may have mutated over time. If this proceedure for harvesting stem cells fails to work, inserting your DNA into a surrogate egg and then growing it in vitro to subsequently harvest would be a viable alternative. Because stem cells are sooo powerful and have so much promise, we need to keep our options open as for how we can create stem cells. Just because aging has occured ever since animals have existed doesn't mean it has to be mandatory.
It's not old. Stem Cell research in the past has involved embryos that were created in the old-fashioned egg-and-sperm-in-test-tube way. Generally in infertility clinics. That involves creating a "new" human life (or at least, a new combination of DNA that could become a unique human), then turning it into stem cells. The stem cells in question will then contain this DNA, which might cause the body to reject them if they're implanted into a recipient.
This technique involves creating a cloned cell, from an individual's own DNA. There's no conception, no unique DNA (essentially, the embryo is as unique a "life" as the cells in my big toe). And the stem cells derived from it can be implanted into the donor without the worry of rejection.
This is really the future of stem cell research. Bush's proposed solution is to prevent the use of existing (non-cloned, leftover from fertility research) embryos for stem cell research (instead the leftovers will be destroyed in an incinerator.)
Unfortunately, there's no Federal law on the creation of cloned embryos, and no real notion of whether a cloned embryo has special rights as a unique person-- it is after all, the donor's DNA, which has been activated and made to divide.
that it is not a Bin Laden embryo..
does noone remember 'Parts: The Clonus Horror'???
But really, I think this is great, and I pity the legislators that can't tell the difference between bad (sometimes TERRIBLE) Hollywood visions of horror and evil, and real-life scientific purposes and benefits. I guess that happens to people raised in an environment of blind, unquestioning religious faith, trained to believe in fairy tails and some sca-a-a-ary man in the clouds that loves you but makes it hard not to get sent to some land pain and (literally) hellfire. I just find most near-sighted, child-like religions have 'moralities' that are anything but moral.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
I often wonder why such a diverse group of people immediately think of the potential "horrors" dictated by popular media instead of the potential benefits. Whether you like it or not, people are going to find some country to clone humans in. People seem to want to "fix" this with laws, but as you probably realize, laws, regardless of the detterent still don't completely inhibit people from committing crimes.
People seem to be worried about several thing:
1) A race of slave clones.
2) The "frankensteins".
3) Body farms.
Cloning as COULD be defined in statutes could be so broad as to harm legitimate, "ethical", and benefical research into everything from stem cell research to other genetic research. Basically, laws may be too restrictive, and likely to be ignored by "rogue" or motivated scientists. What I've always said governments should do instead is to grant the same rights to clones as they do to regular humans. This would solve the people's three "horrors" from above, since their would be firm rights, and standards in which the scientific community would have to follow.
> There won't be any trouble claiming "prior art" though, will there?
UNIV6321385: Process for self-replicating cells used in the creation of a larger self-aware cell cluster
Inventor(s): God, Douglas Adams, Buddha, A cabbage named Ralph
No Image
Applicant/Assignee: Carl Sagan Institute.
Other patents from this institute (approx. billions and billions)
News, Profiles, Stocks and More about this institute
Issued/Filed Dates: Beginning of universe
Application Number: UNIV1999000416241
IPC Class: H04N 7/10;
Class: 725/140; 725/152; 380/227; 380/241; 380/242;
Field of Search: 348/460,461,465,468 725/131,32,132,139,140-141,151,152-153 380/227,242,10,20,241 H04N 710
Priority Number(s): Jan. 15, 2010 UNIV1995000006092
Abstract:
It's all very complicated. Trust me. I know what I'm doing. What could possibly go wrong?
I'd like to see either a total ban or a complete lack of restriction. The hypocritical prunes in public office don't deserve to extend their lives beyond the public they ostensibly serve, not a single one. Except maybe Tom Campbell, but he's not in public office anymore and certainly isn't hypocritical.
Are you red-baiting? The only things wrong with Russia is that it's cold and has gangs. It's indistinguishable from Chicago except the media hegemony doesn't control what software you can write.-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
You're citing old, old data. Much has come forth since Dolly.
1. Children created through IVF turn out plenty normal. You're confusing embryos *created* in vivo with those *brought to term* in vivo. There's still no substitute for a human womb---these artificial embryos would need to be implanted into a regular ol' uterus to become children.
2. You have genes from both of your parents. The genome in the embryo is the same as the genome you had *as* an embryo. The only difference is, the first step---that of recombination---has already been done.
3. Wasn't the telomere question still up in the air? I thought most clones animals had normal lifespans, and it wasn't even shown conclusively that Dolly was aging prematurely.
Please try to keep up-to-date. These questions were all answered months ago.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The problem is that only the rich megacorps can afford to run these farms, so you still have the same old problem, of this technology not helping the traditional family farm. And if it does become affordable to independant farmers, the megacorps will just sell organs at below-cost for a while to run themout of business.
That is why I am against cloning.
You know we've had help in this. I know not many will believe this but these things that are happening are the result of human ingenuity/stupidity *and* extra terrestrial beings "influencing" us.
Many alleged abductees claim to have seen they're hybrid offspring from the ET cloning techniques. Yes yes yes no one believes this crap... but hey if MSNBC printed it you all would.
why is this published in the Journal of Regenerative Medicine? And not one of the big impact journals like Nature or Science?
Hell *I've* got a paper in Nature - and its a lot less 'groundbreaking' than cloning humans...
But we will never know if the original survived.
He could be a clone already.
So many of the comments on the thread come from two discrete sides: those who feel that cloning is awful, approaching the topic from a long-term ethical standpoint, and those who feel that we must not stand in the way of scientific research and progress.
It seems to me that those who are in favor of this stem-cell research and so forth should really take a look at the long term effects of what could happen. Not necessarily a zombie race or something, but what major changes in our society will result from these new scientific/medical methods. Now I don't think it's unsafe to say that an embryonic stem cell is going to do you any harm, but furthering research in this area will certainly advance research in other related fields, and it's asinine for anyone to deny that human cloning will not be furthered by further research into stem cells.
We know exactly what will happen, the scientists in a few years will run out of things to research in stem cells, and focus energy on the challenge of cloning humans and things.
One must recognize the linkage between these objects, and notice that any changes in one will most certainly effect change in the other. Furthermore, we must scrutinize any new work that we do that involves these issues since they have the ability to vastly change the future, and we must decide if it is for better or for worse. I also don't think that we can ignore the feelings of religious groups or incite bigotry as a few others have, since as fellow humans, their beliefs are just as valid as ours, and it is their world, too. Certainly there are questiosn that a religion can answer only with faith, but there are just as many that one might pose to an unbeliever and yet he could not answer them at all.
Now I can create a super human race of mini me's
and take over the world.
Suppose their research costs were around $10M or so..name the price. It doesn't matter.
Does that mean the cloned person is only worth $10M?
How much am I worth?
How much are you worth?
Can I buy a clone for $10M? If so, what can I do with it? It's mine, right? I bought it. Can I make it work dangerous jobs for me? Like operating a nuclear reactor? I bought it. It's mine. Why pay a human to do that job, when I can buy a clone to do it. Then I don't have to mess with insurance or lawsuits or worker's comp....
Oh yeah - do they come with black skin? I don't currently have a nuclear reactor, but I do have 125 acres of prime kentucky farmland where I could grow some kickass cotton. If they came with black skin they wouldn't sunburn so bad, and I could get more work of out each unit.
Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel, Brave New World, is still an eerily prescient view of what can happen when a society gives over too much control to its government, allowing it to ban whatever types of knowledge it finds troublesome, control industry, and silence dissenting voices.
The book also mentions cloning.
Andrew Wiles
a**n + b**n != c**n for n > 2
You can try, but it will not be denied. For good or ill, treading into this minefield of ethical issues will continue, like it or not. I, for one, am cautious but I am convinced (through a personal, perhaps idealistic viewpoint) that such research will ultimately benefit us all. Those who wish to discontinue this research are usually ignorant, either through circumstance or a desire to remain so, through ethics or otherwise; science will continue. Pending bills or to make it illegal merely satisfy those who sleep better at night knowing it's so; you cannot stop it.
Look at the postal service to see how much of an improvement it would be if the Federal Government added all of Microsoft's monopoly power to its own much more vast monopoly power.
...is good enough bio-technology for me.
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
I was just addressing a hypothetical question with further speculation. This is why I used phrases like: "Without proper legal restrictions, this is a reality that we may face in the coming years." I know that we are not currently cloning or trying to clone humans, but we will be at a point where the science is possible. Human cloning is a reality that we will face in our generation and we best be prepared for what it means.
Turn off your flame engines, they're headed in the wrong direction.
Anyone see the creepy corelation to the fact that this is all happening during the production of the next Star Wars flick? Attack of the Clones, indeed.
May the force be with you, and your look-alike.
Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.
I'm so tired of us looking at "can we do it" and ignoring the "should we do it" factor. I'm a Christian and so not surprisingly I'm not for something that God intended to be one of the purposes of marriage... namely reproduction.
I'm an EE student and I'm for science, but I'm for science we actually think through and decide if we *should* not just if we *can* !!
Anyways, that's my $0.02 on it :)
Perhaps he is in the back pockt of the drug pushers? That would be a plausible explanation for him wanting to increase drug abuse.
He would take imaginary ideas seriously?
would end corporate personhood
It doesn't even exist. Corporations do not even have a vote. The main reason so many business are organized as corporations is to protect them from frivolous lawsuits... and Nader wants to build a museum to celebrate frivolous lawsuits!
support a free, diverse and uncensored media in part by using antitrust actions to break up these emerging media monopolies (I find all these media mergers particularly disturbing), etc.
The media is more diverse and free than ever. There are no media monopolies. Also, Nader does not want a "free" media: he wants to clobber certain companies that he thinks (or at least claims) are monopolies in order to censor their views. In his fascist mind, he just can't handle the fact that a company like CBS, one voice out of thousands, is rather popular: and he wants to censor it to deal with its popularity. (never mind that CBS's market share is dwindling on its own as there is an explosion of alternative media voices). He also has little problems with ideas like those of Noam Chomsky in which all media control and speech is turned over to a single government organ. Call it Big Brother. Big Brother is Nader's best pal.
There are things I don't like too, like requiring the breakup of any firm with more than 10% market share unless it makes a compelling case every five years in a public regulatory proceeding.
Nader does not practice what he preaches: he invests and makes a lot of money off of firms with 90% share. I guess he does not like this idea either. Do you like his idea of "Stalinizing" the Fortune 500 by annexing them all to the federal government?
We're talking the dark age of genetics here, Lucas. Scientists playing God. Desperate to get into the genetic soldier business.
Dr Wendy Smith
SeaQuest DSV
Is it scientists playing God that's so dangerous? or why they are playing God in the first place?
Please pardon my non-technical speak:
What's the big deal with cloning humans?
Humans have been making new humans ever since intercourse was invented. A lot of women have died when giving birth, and a large number of babies have died in the birth giving process. In the early days, there were also a large number of birth defects in newborns because of problems in delivery. Lucky for us, this nasty habit of dying mothers and children, as well as the problem of defection has gone a way for a large part.
Why? Scientists figured things out.
So, what I say to those who feel that cloning is far too risky is the following: I'm sure they'll figure it all out in due time and make it just as risky as "natural reproduction".
Additionally, I have yet to see why reproduction through cloning is any more unethical than reproduction through intercourse. Reproduction is reproduction. I don't see us being opposed to other species that reproduce in other fashions (see: Plants; see: single-celled creatures). Also, note that in Huxley's Brave New World, the social problem really wasn't with cloning, or really even the fact that the government raised all of the cloned children; the problem was that the people weren't happy, and had to take drugs to stay emotionally alive! (I would assume that people wouldn't put a system like that into place?)
So, what is so unnatural about cloning in the end? Just because we are only familiar with the ideas of the "gene pool" and the male+female=baby equation, we can't be ignorant to new approaches to old systems. Plus, natural selection still applies (i.e., self-reproducing aeombae would be long-extinct if they could not survive).
Cloning is just human evolution happening under our eyes. I'm sure things will work out fine with everything. People won't make slave races, because as far as I know, all people, including clones, are treated as equal humans. Slavery, as far as I know, is prohibited in most countries, so unless some dope repeals constitutions, etc., slavery will NOT exist. (A previous poster related back to the days of slavery and I must say that it was quite an ignorant post).
So I ask in conclusion: what's the big deal?
This sig provides no comical value.
(No wonder Jews get so much crap -- they, apparently, wiped out half the Middle East on God's orders!)
Hey, I didn't know we had KKK representatives on Slashdot! Have you lynched any people lately because you don't like the colour of their skin? Burned down any black churches?
Hey, I know a good drycleaner who can get those semen stains out of your white sheet.
Is where me and the five younger Ahfoos come and kick in your fucking skull asswipe.
From now on the company Advanced Cell Technology adds face recognition to guarantee cloning without terrorists.
This way they will not meet Bin to make Ben Laden.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I dont want to sound like a bible-beater or anything, but doesn't this seem like a sign that we're getting closer and closer to the single world government and the mark of the beast stuff?
if you've watched the X-Files you realize that the DOD special projects division has been cloning since the 1940's
primate dna is not considered human
If we ban cloning does that mean monocellular life will be against the law? Cloning is something readily done in nature, your entire body is constructed of cloned cells. They've all got your DNA and act just like the other versions of themselves.
What cloning won't do:
1. Allow you to make a clone of someone and replace them in society with an exact replica. A clone of me made tomorrow would still take a normal amount of time to grow up and may or may not be anything like me. Genetically we'd be identical but unless he traveled back in time to live my life for me he probably wouldn't end up anything like me.
2. Allow me to create an army of super clone warriors to take over the world. Said soldiers would have to be gestated and raised like a normal army of soldiers.
What cloning embryos WOULD allow:
1. Do gene mapping and stem cell research with a very large subject base with little genetic discrepency. Every wonder why fruit flies and a few simple plants have been used for the past whatever years for biological experimentation? There's little genetic diversity and they're plentiful.
2. Figure out how to regenerate cells by cloning them so you can repair almost any part of the body damaged by just about anything. There's not a whole lot of a chance for rejection when you're your own oragan donor.
Cloning research doesn't require an embryo to be gestated. Then of course there are those holding to the notion that life begins as an embryo and all that jazz. That is just picking at straws because you don't have enough understanding of the process to make a logical argument against it. If you want to save a baby stop jacking off and ovulating but don't harrass somebody trying to make you and your kids have a better life.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Well, i say i sit both side of the political land mines that are being buried lately. While cloning will be wonderful to medical science and the many people it *could* help, i fear that this may turn in the future. Now we've seen many doomsday predictions in famous pieces of work, for example the way Arther C. Clarke outlines at the end of the "Rama" series of books about a race that geneticlly modified themselves out of existance...Strived to perfect themselves so much that a defect slipped in and wiped them out...Can this be the final future of mankind? Fine that Cloning/Genetic Modifcation must take place to solve some medical conditions, but restrictions must be placed on it and make sure it doesnt get out of hand. Anyway thats just my 2 cents ;)
"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
or they'll probably slap me with the DMCA when doing the wild thing with my gf :(
Not to pick nits here, but only the protagonist had a problem with society. Children had sex in school and everybody took lots of drugs and everybody was happy. Period.
Humans are an Animal Species
Cloning Animal Species is Inhumane
Animal Activists should be protesting
This is a case of Animal Cruelty
PETA wants to save Primates from Extinction
This is why the Human Genome Project was created , if you watch the X-Files the plan is clear, create clones w/ super-human attributes to be used as soldiers in the military.
Oh sure, they don't "create" people...YET. Well in a couple of years research has probably gone so far that we have factorys where people are created after ones wishes. I'm sure B.G and they guys right now are thinking -"Wow, mini me taking over the company when I pass on, that would RULE!, hey why not make a whole bunch, an elite crew of world dominators, YEAH!".
I'm a clone.
we are all clones !
...these researchers better watch out. Crazed anti abortion zealots have bombed clinics before. I personally hope that they can use this research for the good of Humanity. I admit to being biased having one cousin suffering from a degenerative brain disorder going from "normal" at the age of six to degenerating to a bed ridden shell of a human being who can't even make a bowel movement without assistance now in his early forties. He can barely speak coherently now and is getting progressively worse. Another cousin has MS. If this research can rid the world of these afflictions then go right ahead clone as many embryos as you need for therapeutic research. After all they aren't trying to grow people, just healthy cells with the same genetic "signature" as the host. The real trick I would think is in resequencing out the problems in the new cells, but that's what the Human Genome Project is for.
Yeah, human race is the image of some god and all other animal races are their slaves and act as a handy resource pool (nevermind a food source).
Shit, I'm tired of this fucking judo-christian-muslim "humans are an uber-race" -attitude. Conscious species should act like it.
______________
OTTERS RULE.
Human cloning has been a dream for over a hundred years in known human history. It may have been the dream for many years before for their own selfish reasons. There have been several movies, tv shows, editorials, columns, e-zines, etc. that have discussed or otherwise included the topic of human cloning. Many rules were set up there specific to the cloning issue, almost like the basic principles for robots that Asimov created decades ago. It resurfaced in several films including bicentennial man and robocop in one form or another. The same may hold true for human cloning. The 6th day rule and killing a clone is legal. If you kill your own clone it's suicide. Basically just about everything in sci-fi gets replicated in one way or another. Look how many Trekkies went out and became scientists ;)
Nowadays, there are many instances when parents conceive a child just to give their other child bone marrow. I see nobody wining about that. Nor do I see a reason why they should.
Human cloning, like any other technology has good and bad in it. There is no good or bad technology, in fact, technology does not have consciousness (someone else said that, not me).
And one more thing, if someone wants to get in early to try this technology on themselves, for the love of God, let them. There are people out there who are desperate to try anything (i.e. they are dying, quite literally I might add). Be not fooled, however, many of them are doing as much if not more research (especially in this era of the Internet) than the doctors that are treating them. They realize risks involved and should be made part of decision process.
Christians love death. Jesus Christ is a soul-eater, and the more people science kills, the better Jesus likes it. So why would he or his followers approve of science that would actually improve life?
It's called Windows.
I don't inherently oppose reproductive cloning, though I'd be pretty suspicious of the reason for doing it. The first principle (as in Gregory Benford's article in Reason) is that a cloned human being is entirely human, every bit as much as an identical twin. (Or anyone else.) If the reason for doing the cloning is compatible with that first principle, then fine.
But what I vehemently oppose is producing 50 or 100 deformed babies for every healthy clone, or even for the first healthy clone.
Before it is proper to even consider any arguments about why a particular cloning should be done, those doing the clones must:
1) Demonstrate that they can clone orangutangs with a rate of birth defects comparable to natural births, and show that those orangutangs live out a normal life span without significantly more health problems than normally produced orangutangs.
2) Having done this, demonstrate that they can take their results with organgutangs and, on the first attempt, achieve the same results with chimpanzees and gorillas.
Then, and only then, is it appropriate to attempt reproductive cloning of human beings.
Goddamnit. If Spain had been a republic in 1492, the senate would have banned intercontinental exploration. If the ignorant, church-educated masses had been present when Thomas Edison played the first phonograph recording, they would've had that devil-machine destroyed and burned Edison as the heretic he was. Bush would've denounced Alexander Bell's original telephone call as "morally wrong", a dangerous technology that could destroy the transportation industry and turn us into a nation of faceless voices. And a big FUCK YOU goes out to every news media corporation that finds the need to quote THE VATICAN on scientific issues. I always love to hear from the biggest contributor to overpopulation, poverty, and starvation on Earth, their opinions on technology that will someday save my live are completely valid. If the Pope had his way, we'd still be stuck in medieval Europe, dying of the plague, praying to one of his gods to save us.
This is not about embryos dying, or human organ factories, or even cloning. This is about the technology of life, the most powerful tool humans will ever wield. This is about cheap housing 'grown' from spores. This is about an end to all disease, discomfort, and hunger. This is about a manufacturing method so cheap it will be an antidote to the great ratrace/commercialism parasite. This is about living in a perfect, healthy, happy body, the greatest gift a person could ever receive. This is the harbinger of a revolution in the way we live forever. The government should be working to educate people on this technology, they should be helping to make it safe, and guide/regulate it where necessary. Instead they're scrambling to create a roadblock. If the USGov prevented auto manufacturers from installing airbags in vehicles, and your spouse's neck was snapped in a car accident, would you be pissed? Thank you Bush, for allowing me the likely possibility of dying of heart disease or cancer. Thank you, religious people, for promoting death universally. Not only have you managed to kill thousands of people at once in the biggest terrorist attack ever, you've managed to kill millions in the past and the future through your staunch resistance to technology, the enemy of all self-righteous know-nothings. I hope you all die first.
However, most relegions rely on ignorance anyway so I doubt that this development will affect them in anyway.
Well, really, religion relies on both ignorance AND stupidity to control people. (What did you think it was for, keeping the peace? Yeah, "thou shalt not kill" -- unless, of course, it's in the name of God. Duh. I mean, God can't kill people himself, nope, he didn't create the Universe... --hello, wake the FSCK UP!)</end religious commentary> =)
Everyday lots of people die because there are no donor organs available.
I think the number is around 8,000-per-day. I mean, think of how many people could be SAVED.
And even if there is a donor organ it is uncertain whether the transplantation will succeed.
Not to mention transplantees have to spend the rest of their life taking tons of drugs to inhibit rejection and having constant check-ups to make sure the organ isn't being rejected. If it's the same organ, only cloned, the body thinks it's the original organ and is nice and happy with it. Imagine, no more people needing to rely on the misfortune of others in order to save their lives. It can't be very nice wishing someone you don't know dies so you can live..
Anyway, that's all I'm gonna say. I could go on and on forever on how stupid it is to not want this research to occur, including pointing out the hypocrasy of Dubya and the sorry state the United States' scientific institutions are in. We don't do this, some other, smarter, less IGNORANT country will.
[insert witty comment here]