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!
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
I'm no bible thumper. (Quite the opposite, actually)
;)
;)
But I'm a moral person, or at least, I try to be, and I find the amount of experimentation on the actual human building blocks of life to be outstripping what anyone in the public expects or even realises what can be done.
Already you can select a child that won't have a certain genetic disease - how long is it before you can select a child that has higher intelligence? Greater athleticism? Both?
Most people don't even realise that the above level of selection is not only possible, but there are people out there researching as hard as they can to try and *do* it - to be the first company to genetically engineer a "better" human.
And what will we call these new children? Gods?
And what will they call us?
Unevolved Humans? Not much better than intelligent monkeys?
And how do you suppose *they* will treat us? Wrath of Khan anyone?
This all really, really scares me, and I'm sorry if expressing my fears is considered 'trolling'
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.
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.
Actually, the birth rate in the U.S. and in much of the 'first world' is below replacement level (and in some places, is precipitously low -- Italy for one).
Population increases will continue for a couple of decades due to inertia, imigration, and lengthening lifespan, but if the trends continue, the population will decline.
Of course, this isn't all rosy news, as it means a world with many old people and few children -- in some countries the median age may well approach 60!
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
"SELFNESS" by Gregory Benford
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
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.
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.