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
Nice.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
They're simply time-shifted identical twins!
-e
Most folk'll never lose a toe, and then again some folk'll...
Clone: Hello! I'm #15
Cute Chick: Well hello hansome! What star sign are you?
Clone: Pyrex
Cute Chick: Ohhh baby!
And things go downhill from there.
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
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.
Just because you deem it unethical doesn't mean I do.
What's so fucking terrifying about it? I'm not being facetious or trolling here. Seriously, what's so bad about it?
I don't see it as any more unnatural than testtube babies which have been aroud for a long time and no one seems to have any problem with it.
Clones WILL grow up to be their own individuals, just like identical twins do. It's not the freakshow the movies portray it as. So... why not?
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"
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
Looks likes its confirmed: slashdotters will finally be able to reproduce. Kinda. Of course, I didn't say anything about getting laid....
throw new CloneNotSupportedException();
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
Eh, no.
Each ovum has an X chromosome. Each spermatozoa has an X xor Y chromosome. The only determiner of sex in baby mammals (and in birds afaik, as well) is which, of set (X,Y) chromosome the fertilizing spermatozoa carries. XX = female, XY = male (okay, this occasionally breaks, creating humans with XXY, XYY, etc combinations. If you want to know more, I highly recommend google.
For a clone, the *only* determiner of sex is the sex of the original cell, which will *always* be the same sex as the original donor.
There is evidence that temperature (as well as the amount of time between coitus and ovulation, and a few other things) affects the likelihood that a particular ovum will be fertilized by X-bearing or Y-bearing sperm in humans, and I suppose a similar thing could happen with chickens, but while I know of many lower animals (amphibians are, I believe, the highest order animals that do this) change sex in response to environmental change, I know of no birds or mammals that do so.
So two people with the same DNA will obvious not be reproducing in the usual way.
There have been experimental techniques involving fusing the genetic material in two ovum, and if this was used to produce offspring that had the same genetic-mother (or genetic-father, if a similar technique could be used for sperm, but that problem is more complex) then what would happen would depend largely on the genetic specifics of the person(s) involved. But the same thing could be done with two ova from a (non cloned) woman, so...
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
Lets see:
Reference to Hitler? Check
Slippery slope fallacy? Check
Utterly unsupported reference to "logic"? Check
You sir, are a troll.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I read an article some time ago that Dolly the sheep had developed arthritis and was suffering from obesity, both of these conditions being extremely rare for her age.
This person that has been created may suffer from intense health problems. I consider this action to be extremely unwise, as it will play into the hands of extremists seeking a ban.
I personally would like to see cloning technology developed, but used on humans only when it is both safe and effective.
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)
All Mammal clones possible so far are FEMALE!
You will never see this fact cited ever in a non-journal article.
You will never see this "fact" because it really isn't a fact.
See this article from way back in 1999 about the first male mouse clone.
"Is the sex of a human baby determined partially by temperature, like in chickens? Could I technically have a female clone?"
Uh, no. What determines the sex of a baby is whether daddy kicks in a Y-chromosome (boy) or an X-chromosome (girl).
Of course a clone doesn't have a daddy, so somebody might imagine doing a little test-tube magic to change the gender of a clone. In fact, a couple of obscure SF writers (Randall Garrett and Isaac Asimov) did just this. They even wrote a song about it. Get out your guitar and sing along with me now, it sounds a little bit like "Home on the Range"
Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With its Y-chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown
Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.
Chorus: Clone, clone of my own,
With your Y-Chromosome changed to X
And when I'm alone
With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.
Oh, give me a clone
Hear my sorrowful moan
A clone that is wholly my own.
And if she's an X
Of the feminine sex
Oh, what fun we will have when we're prone.
(Chorus)
My heart's not of stone,
As I've frequently shown
When alone with my own little X
And after we've dined
I am sure we will find
Better incest than Oedipus Rex.
(Chorus)
Why should such sex vex
Or disturb or perplex
Or induce a disparaging tone.
After all, don't you see
Since we're both of us me
When we're having sex, I'm alone.
(Chorus)
And after I'm done
She will still have her fun
For I'll clone myself twice ere I die.
And this time without fail,
They'll be both of them male
And they'll ravage her by and by.
(Chorus)
(Chorus)
.siggy
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. :(
He suggests that euthanasia will soon be allowed for clones. You think it's improbable.
The article mentions that there's about a 4% chance of deformation. I'm guessing that's a low estimate. The scientist is trying to sell people on the idea, so he's going to say something that sounds good. What if 5 of the next 20 cloned humans are badly deformed?
If we don't "slide down the slippery slope", then those deformed children will be kept alive. Cloning of humans will be discouraged, because of the poor success rate (4% is a poor success rate too, IMNSHO), but it will still happen. Fertility drugs are discouraged for women who are fertile, yet they're abused from time to time too.
In any case, neither option (euthanasia or deformed children) is good. You live in a dream world if you think that guy's worry is implausible. It certainly is worth discussing. I think you, sir, are the troll.
Free unix account: freeshell.org