Slashdot Mirror
First Human Clone Eight Weeks Along
Vegeta99 writes "An Italian researcher is claiming ground-breaking progress, and has successfully cloned a human, and the mother is now 8 weeks pregnant, according to this article. Now how long until I can buy my own clone?" It's worth noting that the Roman medical associations bioethicists denied Dr. Antinori permission to proceed with these experiments last month. So doing the math, Rome was a little late... If the pregnancy continues without miscarriage, the tyke may share a birthday with Marie Curie
This is not going to end well...
"I hope they legalize drugs so you hurry up and fucking die." Charles Bronson (the band, not the man)
All Mammal clones possible so far are FEMALE!
You will never see this fact cited ever in a non-journal article.
I have looked carefully in every news release since the original Dolly wave of press hysteria.
Cloning will never be popular or interesting until telomere ends can be repaired in the zygote to prevent bio-clock failures (aging too fast).
Cloning will also never be popular unless the person paying for the service (a rich white or asian male) can replicate himself, or his son.
You read it here first... In 2002 only female mammals are capable of being cloned.
(maybe they try to reduce rna conflicts from differring mitochondrial dna)
These clones only clone the genes in the chromosomes alone and not the mitochondrial entities (entombed bacteria from billions of years ago in evolution).
It is ever-so-slightly worrying that the doctor in question, Severino Antinori, admitted in a press conference that Dolly, the cloned sheep, was suffering from premature aging. His defence, that the experiments were not conducted well, and that sheep cloning is vastly different to human cloning, does not inspire confidence.
This child (presuming it survives) is nothing more than a guinea pig for Dr. Antinori's ego. Will this child be able to live a normal life? No. Look at Dolly -- how many tests do you think she goes through on a daily basis?
Whilst I am reluctant to encourage animal testing, would it not be better for those in the same field as Dr. Antinori to perfect cloning of non-humans before moving onto humans? It seems the doctor is in a hurry to stake his name in history. If he is not careful, he'll get his wish, but it will appear closer to Josef Mengele than Marie Curie.
I suppose wanting to drive thing to the edge of what's possible is something that is built into human beings, but, in the case of cloning I think this just is irresponsible. Aside from all the ethical stuff (Like in The Boys from Brazil by Ira Levin) chances are that the child won't live long because on DNA level the child is as old as the mother, but there are no definitive conclusions on that. All in all I think it unacceptable to perform such extreme experiments un children (or animals) who don't have a say in their treatment.
If only human beings knew their limits when messing around with technology some of the worst atrocities wouldn't have happened, but some revolutionary things that have enabled to prolong life and welfare on higher age wouldn't be discovered either. Fortunately I am no philosopher, or I would be driven mad when trying to decide whether technology is a blessing or a curse.
Quote from Blade Runner:
Replicants are like any other machine, they are either a benefit or a hazard, if they are a benefit it is not my problem.
You think they would have learned from those damned sheep. The clone's chromosomes are the same as the person they were taken from. Which means they will be born with already damaged and shortened chromosomes. This will mean further complications down the road for the child at a much earlier age, not to mention all the psyche help the kid is gonna need. I know im gonna get hit for this one.... First Post!!!
And why would you be indistinguishable from a clone. Random DNA mutations *do* occur, and the longer you are alive, the more 'copy errors' start showing up in your DNA. So if you look in close enough detail, there will always be differences.
The selection process, for one.
Once the technique is perfected, we'll have a supermarket of acceptable clone sources. Which person do you wish to clone? The smart one or the dumb one? The beautiful one or the plain one? The white one or the black one?
And, given the choice, would you rather have a child the natural way, or a clone of someone with admirable genes?
The problem is that most of the cloned animals already died or suffer from genetical diseases..
Until the chance of creating a kid who will die in (say) 5 years has not been minimised, i think this is very unethical..
How will they explain him, that he was born to die in 5 years? That they knew hi will die, and still made him?
metamoderate!
First of all: I do not believe this is actually true. Antinori really isn't better at cloning then the Roslin Institute, and they usually have a few hundred miscarriages for every successful pregnancy. Presuming Antinori did not have a few hundred women standing by to be impregnated, he really is very lucky to have a 100% success rate.
But anyway: Let's just assume this is an actual clone. Evidence is now coming through showing that dolly isn't quite as healty as we first expected.
Apparently she ages a lot faster, and has a number of diseases. Now imagine that, when the baby is born ('prototype clone'), (s)he starts getting all types of horrible diseases, limbs missing and what have you. That is when Joe Schmoe will understand you just can't copy people like you can copy a CD. Too bad someone has to suffer for it.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
With Dolly the sheep, the 'failure rate' was running at over 150:1 success.
The failure rate was mostly failures to implant, spontaneous abortions as well as some very deformed births; mostly some that died in a few days, and some that were euthanised.
If this translates into humans in the same way, for every successful clone we can expect several deformed, live, births.But there are questions as to whether Dolly is really 'successful'; the sheep is suffering from arthritis at an unusually young age for example. If you accept this as a cloning problem, then the failure rate runs at 100%.
Ignoring the ethics of successful cloning; given this deformation rate, given we do not allow euthenasia of human infants; is this really ethical right now?
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Prison should beckon for all involved.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I think that there is a little more to it than that. As an other poster already pointed out, the close receives the same DNA as the parent. But DNA changes during the course of your life, due to copying errors (amongst others). One of the current theories is that ageing has got something to do with the 'wear and tear' of certain parts within the DNA (repeating 'nonsense' groups). So your clone will have all this at the moment of birth, and AFAIK that's not a good start.
Hey the world survived not being flat, not being the centre of the universe, revolving around the sun instead of the other way around, Darwin, nuclear science, space travel, television, the internet, the turn of the millenium etc. All this despite hords of hysterical people proclaiming it would be the end of the world as we know it. Just because large groups of people all believe the same doesn't make it true.
..). Up until now they were able to hide behind the illusion that humans are somehow different from animals (which from a biological point of view is nonsense, it's just another mammal). Other mammals have been cloned succesfully so from a scientific point of view cloning a human being is not a significant step forward. Of course there are technological problems (most notably the large amount of cloning attempts needed to perform one successful clone) with the procedure but as scientists continue to do research these problems will be resolved eventually.
Cloning is just another technology. What's hard to swallow for religious people is that it shouldn't be possible to do according to their beliefs and being proven wrong might have consequences for the validity of other things they belief (like having a soul, reincarnation, heaven, getting access to 70 virgins if you blow yourself up in a shopping centre,
Technology by itself is not bad. However certain applications of it can certainly be evil. A box of matches can be used to light a candle and it can be used to set fire to a house full of people. Does that make the box of matches evil technology? Of course not! Similarly cloning has a lot of applications where it's use would be beneficial. I, for instance, would love to have a clone of my heart available when my own one needs replacement in a couple of decades (not entirely unlikely given the number of heart deseases in my family). Of course I wouldn't want to kill a full grown living and breading clone of me to obtain that heart but that may very well be unnecessary.
There are religious and ethical people who want to attach full human rights to arbitrarily small clusters of human cells (fertalized eggs, tiny embryo's, etc.). From a scientific point of view this is of course complete nonsense. Based on this they would consider it murder if such tiny clusters of cells are manipulated. However, often the same people eat meat (requires killing of much larger clusters of non human cells) and have no problems with getting rid of annoying insects, which is very inconsistent to say the least.
Jilles
They're simply time-shifted identical twins!
Whould you want to be one?
But apart from that, this 'researcher' is playing with the live of this kid. As said by previous posters, the risks are very big. Would you like to test a 'bullet proof vest' that had bad results when tested on animals? That like the thing that is happening to this child, he might be born, will be subject to all kinds of research for the rest of his life and risks all kind of very serious health problems. I woudn't want to explain that to my child!
Besides, what's the use of it? We'll might some day have 'time-shifted identical twins', so what? The only use there I see are things like a spare president, are a new Bin Laden every year, just in case somebody catches him. And ofcourse it's good for the huge ego of Dr. Antinori.
It's not worth it...
No, that should be reason to "mess with these things". You make it sound like this is some hack mixing DNA in pails in his garage.
Progress in medicine depends on experimentation. We'd still have shamans if people weren't willing to take risks and explore the unknown.
-Kevin
I agree that technology by itself is not bad. However, the process that is followed to develop the technology can be. IMHO Experimenting on humans to refine a new technology is not a good thing.
I think you're fixing things in the wrong direction. If your neighbor can't take care of their 12 cats, you don't go out and buy 10 of your own.
Actually, this is a good argument against the SSSCA. If the SSSCA were passed, every living organism on the planet would be an unlicensed copying device.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It reminds me of a survey once down about drug use. People were asked, "if drugs became legal tomorrow, would you use them?" 90% said no. Then when asked, "If drugs became legal tomorrow, would your neighbor use them?" 70% said yes.
Why are people so eager to believe their fellow human is more likely to do somthing they wouldn't do? Why are people so afraid of the unknown?
Cat
Is the relaxing of moral views really such a good thing? Today we accept cloning. Tomorrow we accept euthanasia of clones who are not healthy. The day after, we accept killing old people who are not healthy. Then we accept killing all people with uncurable diseases. Sure, we have strenuous procedures and laws for all of these, but we're still guilty of clensing the human race. (Rememeber Hitler?)
These are all logical steps. Maybe not within 4 days, 4 years or 4 generations, but they are certainly possible.
The loss of high moral standards is not always a good thing.
Jonas Salk developed technologies which led to a vaccine for polio. With a vaccine you're injecting a weakened version of a dangerous virus into a person to combat that same virus. That to me seems terribly dangerous, yet its now one of the most basic elements of modern health care.
Both Fleming and Salk are examples of people cautiously exploring dangerous areas. I don't know that Antinori (the person responsible for this cloning attempt) did proceed cautiously. The United States, the Vatican and other governments share the blame for this however. They've banned research in the area and by doing so they've ensured that only the more cavalier will carry out investigations. Any suffering which does result from this is the fault of both Antinori and the governments who try to ban the research.
I'm not a biologist or doctor, but it seems to me the proper first steps would be the cloning of individual human cells then clusters of human cells and possibly functional organs. After problems were solved through these steps then it would be time to investigate a human clone, in the mean time perhapas diabetics could be cured with cloned pancreas tissue or people with heart disease aided with cloned heart tissue. We've jumped to the most lucrative possibilities of cloning but skipped over the most therapeutic.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Well, I am not religious and still believe that cloning is a bad idea.
Why? Well, not because it is "evil," but because I fear that it endangers basic democratic principles like human dignity. Think GATTACA, without the happy end. There are also biological consequences of cloning, like the reduction of biodiveristy.
My concern is mostly that everyone is excited about the possiblities of genetic technologies (as am I), but there is no real public discussion about the long-term social and biological consequences of the use of technologies, except the religious concerns that you've mentioned. In other words, one of my major fears is the fact that so many religious arguments are used in the public debates concerning genetic technology, and that valid scientific concerns are silenced alongside with the religious critics.
Exactly. Yet whenever someone criticizes cloning, they are silenced as some religious freak who dimisses technology and wants to halt progress. I am not opposed to the technology that allows cloning, I am opposed to its application for cloning. I am certain that the same technology allows many legitimate medical uses, like the growing of human organs for implantation you've mentioned, and should be used for those.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
What are the chances that an individual with fertility problems won't produce a clone which also has fertility problems. What happens when that infertile clone wants to reproduce? What then? I know this 'should' never happen, but if cloning is allowed, who's to stop it? Then again, who's to say if it is right or wrong until cloning is proved a success or failure?
Saying that cloning is inherently evil would be stupid. But this "doctor" created an embryo that has a great chance of being malformed or suffer genetical diseases. And he seems to have done this for publicity. To use a technology -which effects are not fully understand to this date- in that irresposible way is criminal to me. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years will be (statistically) safe to clone people, but it is not now.
"I think this line is mostly filler"
This might be fatalistic, but if humans are dumb enough to repeat the same damn mistakes and cause our own destruction, so be it. As inhabitants of this planet, humans have been very self-centered and destructive. The sooner humans die, the sooner the planet can heal itself.
I find the doctors arguments weak. "We're doctors, we're not going to hurt anyone." Sure and no doctor has ever done harm. Like being a doctor some how makes a person more ethical, moral, or trust worthy. A title or degree does not grant an individual superiority. I'll stop bitching now. Since eager beaver doctors and scientists aren't going to listen anyways. Rapid progress is not always good. Learning to cherish life and live in the moment is.
This could cause some huge legal problems. Say hypothetically an attractive poor girl decides to sell her genes to a greedy corporation. The corporation then decides to use the DNA to clone her. The clone is raised in a "well adjusted environment," and groomed to be a superstar. The clone now has no rights, since she was purchased, created and programmed (raised) by the company. We now have created exactly what blade runner portrays. How is the creation of slaves any better than all other attempts at slavery throughout the history of humanity?
Technology by itself is not bad.
Yes, because Science and Ethics are two separate domains. One is about Truth, the other about Good. (And art is the third: Beauty).
There are religious and ethical people who want to attach full human rights to arbitrarily small clusters of human cells (fertalized eggs, tiny embryo's, etc.). From a scientific point of view this is of course complete nonsense.
And as all you can do with Science is just count, you cannot get Science to tell you what is better or worse. A big number is not better than a small number. They're all just numbers. 'Better' and 'worse' are value judgements. Science has no business making value judgements. That's the domain of Ethics. Science is a separate domain. So please don't mix arguments about scientific numbers with arguments about ethical value judgements.
I agree with you that we have the ethical problem of at what point an embryo is a 'person'. But being an ethical problem, we can't just count cells -- otherwise we could just compare counts of a cow and a human's cells, and figure that it's better to eat people than it is to eat cows.
So drawing the line, ethically, at a few cells, is not necessarally stupid just because small numbers are 'inferior'. Ethically we're trying to figure out what is Good, and whether at this point in our development, with free markets, universities, tv, wars, the internet, famines, nuclear power, comfortable lifestyles for some, B.F. bombs, diseases, dodgy education, Atheists, Fundamentalists, a youth who don't see any meaning in life, a youth who are drafted to kamikaze missions, globalisation, red China, global warming, medical treatments for many ailments (but not available to all), McDonalds, wind power, etc. etc. etc. -- whether given, basically, the state of the world, good and bad, it is good for humanity to have more technology in this area, or whether, given our track record in other things, we should wait, or proceed with a different focus.
Now I don't suppose the Catholics look at it this way. Their religion says that bunch of cells has a soul. Something which by definition we can't check scientifically. When a person experiences their Soul, an inner illumination or a vision, the only thing science can say is that you brain waves have changes, or that your heart rate has changed. For all you can tell from your instruments, the person could just have food poisoning. Spirituality is simply not accessible to objective measurement. It may exist, it may not... but you can't tell with instruments. But that's another problem -- Science has totally trashed Christianity. Beaten it to a pulp. And while Science was correct to do so in the areas where the Church had said all sorts of nonsence about the age of the Earth, etc. etc., we need to recognise that at a certain point in people's lives, they need something to believe in. At least as a basic moral guide. So we have to be careful not to totally destroy Religion. It helps to hold societies together. The common Myth. A basic bond.
Of course, when you no longer need the Myth, then you should be free to forget it. But just remember that Science cannot tell you what is Good. And to live only by science is to live in a world devoid of values. I could rob and kill you and say it's survival of the fittest etc.
So we can ask questions about Values -- do we value having more technology, or do we value more stability in human affairs? If stability is more valuable right now, can we forsee how cloning may alter things... will it prevent diseases, reducing medical bills, and be used throughout the world? Or will it have negative side effects that destabilise our country? Can we even answer these questions? Are these questions important? Or do we value getting results as quickly as possible, and say, "whatever, just keep doing the science, and we'll probably be ok?"
So the problem isn't that some religious zealots are making ethical complaints -- it's that not enough intelligent and talented thinkers are botherting to make ethical considerations! Including the scientists!
We've generally gone beyond religious dogma, and science has given us many answers. But that doesn't mean science can give all the answers. We've forgotten Ethics because it used to be associated with religion, and also because it doesn't show up on an oscilloscope.
Um, this post is way to long. :(