Posted by
timothy
on from the no-two-cats-are-alike dept.
bbsguru writes "When Texas A&M researchers announced the first Cloned Kitty about a year ago, everyone expected to see a Multiplicity-style pair of cats by now. Not so! The clone is genetically identical, but in many other ways totally a different cat. This
CNN Story has details."
Impossible to...
by
e8johan
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This pretty much shows that it will be impossible to use cloning (as we know it today) to raise the dead.
However a human teleporter and a little sniffing on the transmission line would probably do the trick. However, the two individuals would not be exposed to the same surroundings and diverge pretty soon.
Re:Impossible to...
by
KDan
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Depends what you mean by raising the dead. If you mean "oh, make a clone of John, educate it, let it grow up to John's age, and you have John again", then obviously that's never going to work, and there was never really any doubt about that. Unless you can reproduce the exact environment of John's life, down to the quark configuration of the entire universe (every little bit can alter events), it's impossible to get John again through that method.
However, another much better method is this: Make a clone of John, keep its brain blank as you grow it (maybe in an accelerated fashion) to John's size, and then transfer John's thoughts to that clone. Of course that requires very advanced brain knowledge to "read" and "write" a brain - assuming that's even possible.
But that would give you immortality (so long as you keep your brain safe).
Daniel
-- Carpe Diem
Re:Impossible to...
by
everflow
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
transfer John's thoughts to that clone. Of course that requires very advanced brain knowledge to "read" and "write" a brain
no - its not possible. its not like your brain is a matrix and you can read/write it like a harddisc. its more that neurons grow and connect themselve depending on what input/output you do. example: if you were raised up in absolute darkness your eye-neurons and your optic-relevant brainareas (mainly located in the metencephalon) will never develop and degenerate... so a better thougt would be to implant ones brain in his double...
but the important question remains - how and where are our memorys located. it is still unknown (though some motion-memory were located in the cerebellum). so it is possible that our whole body represents our experience - hence maybe a braintransplantation would not do the trick either.
everyone except the scientists. However people expecting clones to remember the stuff from the original, really make me wonder how we manage to get any technology at all.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Nobody was expecting the same memories; they were, however, expecting the same behavior patterns.
I admit I was surprised. More and more behavioral aspects of an organism are being defined by genetics these days. Look at how identical twins raised in different environments exhibit similar behavioral patterns, down to the occupations they choose. Nature vs. nurture's an ongoing battle, but over the past few years it's seemed that nature would win.
Nature vs. Nurture
by
DJPenguin
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's the old Nature vs. Nurture debate - I would imagine these cats were treated differently, and this could account for differences in behaviour.
It might however have been a different story if both cats had been cloned before birth to make them identical twins. The older cat in the article would have had to change it's behaviour when the new one came along.
It just goes to show the genetics doesn't define "who we are".
Re:Nature vs. Nurture
by
Billly+Gates
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
But its not personality.
The coats are different colors. How is this possible?
I know when they cloaned dolly, the clone experienced premature aging. The theory is that when each cell divides it stores the information about the division internally. After so many divides the cells began to not regenerate as much and this causes aging. Perhaps something similiar happened and caused the hairs to not display in full colors due to false information stored from the other cat that was implanted in the egg cell of the clone.
Anyway this is a mystery and alot more research is needed on this.
Actually, the reason that these coats don't look entirely alike is probably entirely genetic. Although, you're correct, it's not predictable or controllable.
When a female cat is conceived, it begins to grow, duplicating its cells. Each of these cells, however, has two copies of the x-chromosome. Only one of these is useful. So, in a random pattern, the cells will switch off one of the chromosomes by forming Barr bodies that surround it. It's a well understood process called Lyonization for anybody interested in looking into it. However, this only happens for females.
One might then ask whether a male cat's clone would look identical. My guess is again that it would not, although Lyonization would not be an adequate explanation. However, I believe that they would look much more similar than any two cloned calico cats (which are all female and whose coats are formed by this mechanism).
why on earth would you expect a carbon copy ?
by
psycho_tinman
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Its been established that nature plays a lesser role than nurture in the personality of a human.. obviously, the same must apply to animals as well..
No matter even if you clone an Einstein, they're not going to pop out spouting theorems, it just doesnt work that way.. from a purely research oriented perspective, though, it might be interesting to have an Einstein clone, simply to see how he may use his innate talents along ANOTHER field of science (or maybe not even a science, he might have been a GREAT musician, for all we know)..
For any person, most things we do are not innate but rather taught.. Would Mozart have started composing from the age of 4 if he hadnt had parents who encouraged him ? I doubt it.. With a clone, the only thing you CAN get is the potential to achieve the same things as the "original" (I hate using that term, but whatever)..
So, finally, in typical Slashdot-style, let me ask.. Is this really news ? (yeah, it is, it probably helped correct a lot of peoples misconceptions about the cloning process, which is GREAT, but it should have been obvious from the start)
Re:why on earth would you expect a carbon copy ?
by
Jace+of+Fuse!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The question isn't if nuture has some role, because it obviously does. The question is, does nature ALSO have some role, as well. How much does each have? Does genetics effect one's behavior at all. Can you inherit violent or criminal tendacies? (i.e. if your father was a violent man, will you be a violent man even if you've never met him?)
As far as I know there is no clear cut answer. I've literally watched two "experts" go back and forth on the topic for very long periods of time.
--
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I don't get it
by
peterpi
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I am genetically identical today to how I was yesterday, but I expect I'll do loads of different stuff.
Yes, but what are the similarities?
by
shamir_k
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Even the coat pattern of the two cats is different!! Then what exactly are the similarities. I have heard stories of human twins leading very similar lives. Genese definitely do have a big effect on personality and behaviour. So the interesting question is : what are the similarities between two cats with the same DNA, but very different environments (and ages). Could shed some new and interesting light on the old nurture vs. nature arguements. Even for humans .
Re:Yes, but what are the similarities?
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have heard stories of human twins leading very similar lives. Genese definitely do have a big effect on personality and behaviour.
I'm glad that your detailed anecdotal study has reached such enlightening conclusions.
Twins are usually raised in the same home, under the same circumstances, by the same parents. Even then, there are usually marked differences once you get to know them. (Sure, they look mostly the same, but they're not identical.) I don't think your research properly separates environmental and genetic effects.
For identical twins raised independently, there is certainly a strong correlation betweent their susceptibilities to certain diseases, just as we would expect. Though there might be some similarities in temperament, the correlation isn't much bettter than between two random individuals. (I lump most mental illnesses under diseases, not temperament.)
Psychologists (and legions of statisticians) have made careers of studies of identical twins. Just because you've heard about cases where twins are similar, doesn't mean that dissimilar cases don't exist. There's a confirmation bias at work, because similar behaviour supports our subconscious belief that people who look alike ought to be alike.
-- ~Idarubicin
The follow-on research
by
hussar
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What will be interesting is the follow-on research to determine why the two cats (or any two cloned cats) are not the same. Using clones, they have removed the DNA as a variable. The differences that resulted must therefore be due to other factors. What the other factors are and how they effect the end result should then become the central question.
My guess is that the end analysis will be that these other factors are too many and too widely variable to be consistently controlled.
After all, clones won't be a boring copies of their originals.
I would appreciate, though if somebody here can explain why doesn't same genetic pattern produce same phisycal characteristics. It's obvious that behaviour is influenced by some other factors, as well but phisycal differences seem ilogical. Thanks.
Re:It's all good
by
IncarnationTwo
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Simple explanation could be: diet.
Basicly your body is composed of materials you have eaten. If you eat different things, your body must build itself with different materials. I hardly would call it a suprise if a clone of a white haired person is cloned and the clone turns out to be brunette, if the brunette can not gain the needed resources (titanium if I remember right.) to grow white hair.
And again, I am not suprised at all if a person who actively pursues sports and eats healthy is thin and the other who eats in McDonalds and watches tv is not, wether or not they have the same genes.
--
In dream society, people could be given the ability to mod replies. In real life, it would be disaster.
Re:It's all good
by
halny
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't see anything illogical about this. Try baking three cakes using the same recipe. Chances of them being *identical* are rather small.
It would be theoretically possible to estimate information capacity of DNA molecue (after all it isn't infinite). I don't know how big it would be, but I don't know why would anyone believe DNA could store information about everything.
so - what's the truth about identical twins
by
gollangana
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can understand that the coats would have different patterns. Surely the exact progression of cell division in the womb must be fairly chaotic. This does however raise the question, do identical twins actually have identical fingerprints? It works wonders in (mostly) crappy literature but is it true?
people apparently left out the "nurture" part of the equation entirely.
It seems to me an incredible stretch that people actually believed their pet's behavior/personality was hard-coded in the DNA.... but maybe that's just my studied-the-hard-sciences-all-my-life bias.
Behaviors are very complex things... both genetic tendency and environmental interaction play important roles. Even in psychiatric disorders that have strong genetic links (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) having both parents (or an identical twin) afflicted will only buy the child or sibling a 50-60% chance (give or take 10%) of developing the disorder.
Yes, genes are the building blocks of our bodies... but you have to give nurture its chance at bat.
-- Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Re:As expected really
by
obidobi
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Identical twins
To a standard DNA analysis, they would be indistinguishable. Yet the parents of twins can usually tell them apart by subtle visual cues, and, while their fingerprints are generally similar, they are not identical.
Has anyone read the book "Cyteen" by Cherryh. I'm not going to prostitute myself for any particular bookstore, so you can do your own lookup wherever you want. It was published about ten years and addresses nature vs. nurture amongst other things very well.
It features cloned humans who are brought up being indoctrinated via programmed learning, the so called "azi". It also features a human clone of a genius who is carefully raised in an almost identical environment (similar family, etc), producing another genius, but one who is similar but subtly different. Like the cats described above, it is very difficult to clone behaviour.
I reread the book this Christmas because of the Raelians and Clonaid. The book was quite prophetic. The author isn't a scientist (I think she teaches history) but she seems to have done one of the best writups wince Huxley's "Brave New World".
Scientists and the Public missing the point
by
Nemus
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Alot of the general public, and unfortunately alot of companys and independent scientists as well, have forgotten what the true purpose and logical extension of cloning is.
Of course there will always be infertile couple who will want use this method to have babies, someday maybe, but otherwise we don't really need cloning to duplicate life forms. We already have a method. Its called sex. And while some arguments can be made for cloning endangered or extinct animals, until we could make a clone that was capable of reproduction, would there really be anything besides a novelty interest in this? I mean sure, yay, you've got a zoo with a thousand pandas. Unfortunately they'll all be dead in x number of years, and you'll have to clone a thousand more. Rather pointless.
The true purpose of cloning is, and should remain, complete and utter mastery of genetics and medical science. This is why the whole stem cell thing is so important, and should not be constarined in the way it is (For those who object to it on moral grounds saying it encourages abortions, it doesn't. The abortion doctor who made sales pitches like that to pregant women would be shot on principle.)
Stem Cell research and the race to human cloning are, objectively, two leaves on the same branch. Both should be refined and mastered to the point where the dream of human immortality is no longer a dream. This should be all about pushing genetics and microbiology to their absolute limits, not trying to make a Bob mark II or Fluffy 3.0 . Cloning a human just for the hell of it though, or trying to bring back to life a dead child or loved one or pet out of hopes for a "replacement" is irresponsible both scientifically, and morally.
So what would be "legitimate" applications of these technologies. Obviously, and one that was a main topic of debate during the stem cell controversy in congress, was the cloning of indivual organs, like hearts and livers. This way, instead of someone having to wait for months or years for a vital heart or liver transplant, a compatible one could be made up on the spot. And, since research into these fields will also yield advances in fields like neurological medicine, the possibility of new arms or legs, or even new eyes or audial organs becomes a possibility.
However, I do disprove of the notion that some people seem to think that we'll be planting out minds into "blank slate" bodies, sometime in the distant future. Thats not just ultra-late term abortion, thats essentially murder, unless something was done to the brain to keep it only restricted to base biological functions, and not the development of a psyche, and even that would be just weird.
And, for the record, I am pro-life, so no flames from pro-lifers on the stem cell stuff like last time.
-- Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
Does this suprise anyone?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
If so, you really need to read up!
Try Chaos Theory 101, for starters. All snowflakes use the same "water algorithm" (otherwise known as physics) - and there's no messing around with all of the complication of dna/rna/protein synthesis/hormones/organs/etc - but have you ever seen two of those that look the same?
I highly recommend Wolfram's 'A New Kind of Science.' Mix in some many-worlds quantum theory, and you're good to go.
[anonymous poster rating... 0 : Coward]
Real octopussy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
We have a tabby. He has well-defined stripes of black/brown/dark-red and patches of white and all that. The cool thing is that if you look at any of the hair he sheds, it usually goes through about 4-5 different colors from root to tip
What I'm wondering is, does this mean that a time-lapsed movie of your tabby will show it's stipes changing color, like those mental jellyfish do? (except much quicker in the jellyfish case)
Once scientists develop the technology to support gestation in an artificial womb, the will have the abillity to measure and control that environment. Which should lead to lots of interesting theories regarding agressiveness (social standing, intelligence, etc.) as a product of womb temperature (pH, noise level, etc.) Get a good handle on that, and we'll be well on our way to creating clone subhumans to enslave. Not that anyone would do that, of course.
-- Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.
Re:Look at the photo!
by
dughat
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Not remembering much of my genetics, does this mean:
All clones from this cell would be these two colors?
Clones from a different cell might well be two, and only two, different colors?
There is no way to clone a calico to get another calico?
This was one of the big questions when Dolly the sheep was created. Dolly was also supposed to test whether a clone is as genetically "old" as the donor. Both answers were lost in the media hype, and will most likely be lost with Cc the cat as well.
It appears that:
1. Yes. All clones from one cell will have the same two colors.
2. Yes/No. All clones from a tan patch will be white/tan. All clones from a black patch will be white/black. The white fur isn't sex linked and will always be present.
3. Yes. Apparantly, you can't get a calico clone for the same reason you can't find a male calico - it takes the random on/off of 2 X-chromosomes to form the colors.
The uniform X chromosome deactivation would happen with female clones from any animal, it's just visually obvious on a calico cat. I'm curious if it would have any effect on a human.
Not that surprising...
by
TheWhaleShark
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's always been surmised that genetics does not determine behavior. DNA just makes a slate; something else actually writes on that slate. Why people act the way they do has always been a mystery of science, and now it's obvious that genetics doesn't hold the answer (though I would say it was always obvious).
What interests me the most is that the two cats are different colors. Perhaps pigmentation and coloration also have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. That certainly warrants further investigation. I do recall hearing that the Human Genome project has yet to find a gene that codes for skin pigmentation; it may truly be a superficial thing.
I also have to echo the sentiment that genetics really shouldn't be used to bring back your dead kitty, or your dead grandmother for that matter. Stem cell research and cloning would best be used in treating nasty diseases and degenerative conditions, as well as regrowing of lost tissues and/or organs.
-- "It never got weird enough for me." - HST (RIP)
Re:Look at the photo!
by
Sgt+York
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Interesting.
If it holds up, that would imply that there are changes at the sequence level associated with the formation of Barr bodies. The Barr structure should be destroyed during the donor DNA preparation, and if the information is conserved, the information may be in the sequence.
Of course, one X had to be inactivated regardless, so you'd have to know which one was in a Barr body in the donor in order to know the circumstance was duplicated.
You could establish it by cloning CC several times; If >>50% of her "offspring" had the same coat, that would suggest a conserved change.
--
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Actually... No
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I think you are confusing breeding with cloning. In breeding, two cats give half of their genes to combine into one set of genes. It would then make sense to say one gene is active and the other gene counterpart is inactive. In cloning, the genes come from the same donor so it is not possible for the clone to have an active gene while the original have not.
The reason why the cats have different fur patterns is the same reason why identical twins do not have identical fingerprints even though they have identical DNA. Don't believe me? Check your twin friends' DNA and compare their fingerprints. The DNA only provides the general blueprint, the cell has some leeway on the implementation... much like our manufacturing industries.:-)
X inactivation is just about the coolest thing since sliced white bread.
I'm still confused on why X inactivation seems to only be happening on one specific X chromosome - this implies that whichever inactivation that happened to the original cell that was cloned has remained through the entire developmental process.
From what I've read in the past, this should actually cause some problems when we start doing more cloning in the future. There are definitely animals/people out there who only survive because they are mosaic for certain X-linked disorders. Think about all those haemophiliacs (an X linked trait).
But I guess one could select a cell to clone which had the X without the defect.
The other issue I see here pertains to imprinting - there are genes for which the paternal copy is always silenced (turned off) while the maternal is expressed. When this system breaks down, the organism either dies or has severe problems. (Angelman's Syndrome and so on). I think that the lack of tortoiseshell pattern implies that these genes will remain imprinted allowing survival.
I guess I'm convinced that you would have to lose random X inactivation so you could maintain imprinted genes. The next thing to think about is what kind of genes are on the X chromosome and how do they affect the organism as a whole.
But, then there is this nice science article from Jaenisch's lab http://www.wi.mit.edu/nap/2000/nap_press_00_d pxina ct.html
Mitochondrial DNA not the same in clones
by
bmcent1
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
IANAB, I think I'm correct on this point. (Someone else in the know please elaborate.) A major point most people overlook when they talk about cloning is mitochondrial DNA.
Mammalian cloning so far has only used the DNA extracted from the nucleus of the doner (original ?) animal. There is also a whole bunch of mitochondrial DNA that is floating around in the cells of that doner that they don't get and use. Further more, the egg that the DNA is inserted into contains its original mitrochondrial DNA.
So, while the nuclear DNA may be a match, the mitochondrial DNA is not... Its not a perfect copy.
--
"Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."
Anyone who knows a set of identical twins should have been able to predict this out of the box.
I know two sets.. and both of them were raised in identical environments, however each is quite distinct from their sibling in a million ways.
*sigh*
How could _any_ rational person think that a clone of your old dog would know you and know the old tricks when it was born? They said it TWICE in the article, which makes me think someone somewhere thinks this is possible.
Maeryk
-- Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Ok, so an identical genetic copy of a cat won't have the same environmental characteristics (what some would consider the "soul" of the cat), but what questions does this raise about our physical appearance?
I was under the impression that an identical genetic makeup would be physically (as in the characteristics, e.g. hair colour) would be the same as it is the genes that make that decision. After reading the artical, this is now not possible...
So, if it was just a delusion that genes decide our hair colour etc., what is it that does actually decides this? I understand that the genetic makeup can contain a gene makeup from a previous generation, that is not taken physically in its current incarnation...Does this mean that there is another randomness added to the choice? That not all genes are used, but a random choice of the "available" genes (similar to the random choice when me and my misses gets together to make a little todler) and creates the physical characteristics as such...Or does it involve slightly more complex algorithms whereby the random choice of genes is repeated throughout the growth period (hair changes colour after all, eyes can too) to create a rather more unique model?
This latter ramble seems to make sense if you consider someone that has a genetic makeup that gives it the possibility to develop some horrible disease, but doesn't develop it early in its life, but later...It just so happens that on x date, my internal random gene choice has selected x, y and z genes that, unfortunately for me, has started the chain reaction to cancer(or whatever)...Or is it just one choice of random genes that chooses cancer, maybe it is a sequence of choices that leads to the full-blown illness?
Wow, so from a simple makeup code, we can develop into an infinite (or near as dammit to be of any import) number of possibilites...So, is genetic research really worth pursuing? I mean, if you change a gene to remove the possibility of disease x, are you not running the risk of creating a (possibly)more dangerous disease y, and in doing so, through natural reproduction, replicate this to a point where you kill humanity...?All in the name of achieving what? A faster route to a "naturally perfect" human? Nature will eventually choose our best destiny, whether be extince or "perfected." We could even end up making things longer, especially as now, as far as I can tell, we have no idea how our physical characteristics are chosen...
Another thought: Our first gene choice in life is made, then, through life other choices are made, but this doesn't necessarily mean that we would change instantly hair colour, merely that a taint will arrive. If that same choice is made repeatedly, then sure your hair will gradually change...
Re:Pseudo Immortaltiy
by
Rothron+the+Wise
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You say that transferring could work - but how is transferring different to a copy-and-delete? (I guess, again, it depends on whether one believes in some unique un-copyable property of physical particles).
I've always imagined that any teleportation device, at least any device I'd ever set my foot in, would work in one of two ways:
1: Quantum entanglement of some weird matter at both locations and transferring my entire quantum state between them.
2: The wormhole thing.
Both methods does not include storying or copying information and could conceivable preserve my... let's call it "selfness". At least the 2. method should be pretty safe as it's not really teleportation in the classical sense, but more of a spacetime shortcut.
I don't believe in a soul personally, but I accept the fact that the philosophy of it all is pretty hairy. It's a difficult paradox. I'm only the sum of my "components" so what's the part that cannot be reconstructed? Is my conciousness somehow linked to my the quantum states of the particles making up my brain, or perhaps conciousness itself is merely an illusion? It sure doesn't feel like it.
-- A witty.sig proves nothing
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
unitron
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"Yes, and we all know that cat's colouring and markings change as they age too, right?"
I'm pretty sure that a calico starts out that way and stays that way, at least ours did.
Considering that only female cats can be calicos and that cloning a female calico got another female but not a calico, doing some more cloning of the original and of the clones might lead to some discoveries of previously inknown or even unsuspected stuff about cloning in particular and genetics and DNA in general.
--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Re:Look at the photo!
by
goodmanj
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
A quibble regarding the excellent post above: The poster says "The other X chromosome is completely inactive", but actually, the deactivated X chromosome reactivates in the ovaries, so that the eggs all end up with functioning X chromosomes.
The really interesting thing about this is that while Cc is genetically a calico, she looks exactly like a white-patched gray tabby. In all probability, she is the only calico cat on the planet with no orange spots.
Even more interesting, she is probably the only gray cat on the planet who can mate with a gray or black male and give birth to orange kittens!
For a "perfectly normal" cat, Cc is actually a pretty strange critter.
As I understand it, the issue isn't as simple as nature vs. nurture. They're finding (like they find in sooo many other things) that it's not a dipolar situation, but a continuum.
Genetics is just the starting point for an organism... the baseline... the nature part. But before you get to the nurture (psychological issues and rearing... the nurture), you have this incredibly complex process of gene activation and suppression. What activates genes? Protiens. And what are the chances that two identical organisms (even maturing in the same womb) are going to have identical interactions with identical protiens at the molecular level? About as rare as you can imagine.
So the issue is the organisms interaction with the environment. And what is that, nature or nurture? Well, it's neither... and it's both.
And legal ramifications.
by
RatBastard
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There are also legal issues that have to be addressed.
Is a clone a full citizen?
Is a clone even legally a human being?
Is a clone a child of the donor, or the donor's parents (as it is basically a time-delayed twin)?
Does a clone have any rights?
Can a clone inherit your stuff?
Now, siome of you are going Duh, Rat! Of course clones are people!, but until we make a full an legal decision on this all bets are off.
Slashdot Mirror
This pretty much shows that it will be impossible to use cloning (as we know it today) to raise the dead.
However a human teleporter and a little sniffing on the transmission line would probably do the trick. However, the two individuals would not be exposed to the same surroundings and diverge pretty soon.
everyone except the scientists.
However people expecting clones to remember the stuff from the original, really make me wonder how we manage to get any technology at all.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's the old Nature vs. Nurture debate - I would imagine these cats were treated differently, and this could account for differences in behaviour.
It might however have been a different story if both cats had been cloned before birth to make them identical twins. The older cat in the article would have had to change it's behaviour when the new one came along.
It just goes to show the genetics doesn't define "who we are".
Its been established that nature plays a lesser role than nurture in the personality of a human.. obviously, the same must apply to animals as well..
No matter even if you clone an Einstein, they're not going to pop out spouting theorems, it just doesnt work that way.. from a purely research oriented perspective, though, it might be interesting to have an Einstein clone, simply to see how he may use his innate talents along ANOTHER field of science (or maybe not even a science, he might have been a GREAT musician, for all we know)..
For any person, most things we do are not innate but rather taught.. Would Mozart have started composing from the age of 4 if he hadnt had parents who encouraged him ? I doubt it.. With a clone, the only thing you CAN get is the potential to achieve the same things as the "original" (I hate using that term, but whatever)..
So, finally, in typical Slashdot-style, let me ask.. Is this really news ? (yeah, it is, it probably helped correct a lot of peoples misconceptions about the cloning process, which is GREAT, but it should have been obvious from the start)
I am genetically identical today to how I was yesterday, but I expect I'll do loads of different stuff.
Even the coat pattern of the two cats is different!! Then what exactly are the similarities. I have heard stories of human twins leading very similar lives. Genese definitely do have a big effect on personality and behaviour. So the interesting question is : what are the similarities between two cats with the same DNA, but very different environments (and ages). Could shed some new and interesting light on the old nurture vs. nature arguements. Even for humans .
more about me
What will be interesting is the follow-on research to determine why the two cats (or any two cloned cats) are not the same. Using clones, they have removed the DNA as a variable. The differences that resulted must therefore be due to other factors. What the other factors are and how they effect the end result should then become the central question.
My guess is that the end analysis will be that these other factors are too many and too widely variable to be consistently controlled.
Bureaucracy loves company.
After all, clones won't be a boring copies of their originals.
I would appreciate, though if somebody here can explain why doesn't same genetic pattern produce same phisycal characteristics. It's obvious that behaviour is influenced by some other factors, as well but phisycal differences seem ilogical. Thanks.
I can understand that the coats would have different patterns. Surely the exact progression of cell division in the womb must be fairly chaotic.
This does however raise the question, do identical twins actually have identical fingerprints? It works wonders in (mostly) crappy literature but is it true?
people apparently left out the "nurture" part of the equation entirely.
It seems to me an incredible stretch that people actually believed their pet's behavior/personality was hard-coded in the DNA.... but maybe that's just my studied-the-hard-sciences-all-my-life bias.
Behaviors are very complex things... both genetic tendency and environmental interaction play important roles. Even in psychiatric disorders that have strong genetic links (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder) having both parents (or an identical twin) afflicted will only buy the child or sibling a 50-60% chance (give or take 10%) of developing the disorder.
Yes, genes are the building blocks of our bodies... but you have to give nurture its chance at bat.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Identical twins
To a standard DNA analysis, they would be indistinguishable. Yet the parents of twins can usually tell them apart by subtle visual cues, and, while their fingerprints are generally similar, they are not identical.
It features cloned humans who are brought up being indoctrinated via programmed learning, the so called "azi". It also features a human clone of a genius who is carefully raised in an almost identical environment (similar family, etc), producing another genius, but one who is similar but subtly different. Like the cats described above, it is very difficult to clone behaviour.
I reread the book this Christmas because of the Raelians and Clonaid. The book was quite prophetic. The author isn't a scientist (I think she teaches history) but she seems to have done one of the best writups wince Huxley's "Brave New World".
Of course there will always be infertile couple who will want use this method to have babies, someday maybe, but otherwise we don't really need cloning to duplicate life forms. We already have a method. Its called sex. And while some arguments can be made for cloning endangered or extinct animals, until we could make a clone that was capable of reproduction, would there really be anything besides a novelty interest in this? I mean sure, yay, you've got a zoo with a thousand pandas. Unfortunately they'll all be dead in x number of years, and you'll have to clone a thousand more. Rather pointless.
The true purpose of cloning is, and should remain, complete and utter mastery of genetics and medical science. This is why the whole stem cell thing is so important, and should not be constarined in the way it is (For those who object to it on moral grounds saying it encourages abortions, it doesn't. The abortion doctor who made sales pitches like that to pregant women would be shot on principle.)
Stem Cell research and the race to human cloning are, objectively, two leaves on the same branch. Both should be refined and mastered to the point where the dream of human immortality is no longer a dream. This should be all about pushing genetics and microbiology to their absolute limits, not trying to make a Bob mark II or Fluffy 3.0 . Cloning a human just for the hell of it though, or trying to bring back to life a dead child or loved one or pet out of hopes for a "replacement" is irresponsible both scientifically, and morally.
So what would be "legitimate" applications of these technologies. Obviously, and one that was a main topic of debate during the stem cell controversy in congress, was the cloning of indivual organs, like hearts and livers. This way, instead of someone having to wait for months or years for a vital heart or liver transplant, a compatible one could be made up on the spot. And, since research into these fields will also yield advances in fields like neurological medicine, the possibility of new arms or legs, or even new eyes or audial organs becomes a possibility.
However, I do disprove of the notion that some people seem to think that we'll be planting out minds into "blank slate" bodies, sometime in the distant future. Thats not just ultra-late term abortion, thats essentially murder, unless something was done to the brain to keep it only restricted to base biological functions, and not the development of a psyche, and even that would be just weird.
And, for the record, I am pro-life, so no flames from pro-lifers on the stem cell stuff like last time.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
If so, you really need to read up!
Try Chaos Theory 101, for starters. All snowflakes use the same "water algorithm" (otherwise known as physics) - and there's no messing around with all of the complication of dna/rna/protein synthesis/hormones/organs/etc - but have you ever seen two of those that look the same?
I highly recommend Wolfram's 'A New Kind of Science.' Mix in some many-worlds quantum theory, and you're good to go.
[anonymous poster rating... 0 : Coward]
We have a tabby. He has well-defined stripes of black/brown/dark-red and patches of white and all that. The cool thing is that if you look at any of the hair he sheds, it usually goes through about 4-5 different colors from root to tip
What I'm wondering is, does this mean that a time-lapsed movie of your tabby will show it's stipes changing color, like those mental jellyfish do? (except much quicker in the jellyfish case)
Once scientists develop the technology to support gestation in an artificial womb, the will have the abillity to measure and control that environment. Which should lead to lots of interesting theories regarding agressiveness (social standing, intelligence, etc.) as a product of womb temperature (pH, noise level, etc.) Get a good handle on that, and we'll be well on our way to creating clone subhumans to enslave. Not that anyone would do that, of course.
Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.
This was one of the big questions when Dolly the sheep was created. Dolly was also supposed to test whether a clone is as genetically "old" as the donor. Both answers were lost in the media hype, and will most likely be lost with Cc the cat as well.
It appears that:
1. Yes. All clones from one cell will have the same two colors.
2. Yes/No. All clones from a tan patch will be white/tan. All clones from a black patch will be white/black. The white fur isn't sex linked and will always be present.
3. Yes. Apparantly, you can't get a calico clone for the same reason you can't find a male calico - it takes the random on/off of 2 X-chromosomes to form the colors.
The uniform X chromosome deactivation would happen with female clones from any animal, it's just visually obvious on a calico cat. I'm curious if it would have any effect on a human.
It's always been surmised that genetics does not determine behavior. DNA just makes a slate; something else actually writes on that slate. Why people act the way they do has always been a mystery of science, and now it's obvious that genetics doesn't hold the answer (though I would say it was always obvious).
What interests me the most is that the two cats are different colors. Perhaps pigmentation and coloration also have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. That certainly warrants further investigation. I do recall hearing that the Human Genome project has yet to find a gene that codes for skin pigmentation; it may truly be a superficial thing.
I also have to echo the sentiment that genetics really shouldn't be used to bring back your dead kitty, or your dead grandmother for that matter. Stem cell research and cloning would best be used in treating nasty diseases and degenerative conditions, as well as regrowing of lost tissues and/or organs.
"It never got weird enough for me." - HST (RIP)
If it holds up, that would imply that there are changes at the sequence level associated with the formation of Barr bodies. The Barr structure should be destroyed during the donor DNA preparation, and if the information is conserved, the information may be in the sequence.
Of course, one X had to be inactivated regardless, so you'd have to know which one was in a Barr body in the donor in order to know the circumstance was duplicated.
You could establish it by cloning CC several times; If >>50% of her "offspring" had the same coat, that would suggest a conserved change.
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
I think you are confusing breeding with cloning. In breeding, two cats give half of their genes to combine into one set of genes. It would then make sense to say one gene is active and the other gene counterpart is inactive. In cloning, the genes come from the same donor so it is not possible for the clone to have an active gene while the original have not.
:-)
The reason why the cats have different fur patterns is the same reason why identical twins do not have identical fingerprints even though they have identical DNA. Don't believe me? Check your twin friends' DNA and compare their fingerprints. The DNA only provides the general blueprint, the cell has some leeway on the implementation... much like our manufacturing industries.
X inactivation is just about the coolest thing since sliced white bread.
d pxina ct.html
I'm still confused on why X inactivation seems to only be happening on one specific X chromosome - this implies that whichever inactivation that happened to the original cell that was cloned has remained through the entire developmental process.
From what I've read in the past, this should actually cause some problems when we start doing more cloning in the future. There are definitely animals/people out there who only survive because they are mosaic for certain X-linked disorders. Think about all those haemophiliacs (an X linked trait).
But I guess one could select a cell to clone which had the X without the defect.
The other issue I see here pertains to imprinting - there are genes for which the paternal copy is always silenced (turned off) while the maternal is expressed. When this system breaks down, the organism either dies or has severe problems. (Angelman's Syndrome and so on). I think that the lack of tortoiseshell pattern implies that these genes will remain imprinted allowing survival.
I guess I'm convinced that you would have to lose random X inactivation so you could maintain imprinted genes. The next thing to think about is what kind of genes are on the X chromosome and how do they affect the organism as a whole.
But, then there is this nice science article from Jaenisch's lab
http://www.wi.mit.edu/nap/2000/nap_press_00_
IANAB, I think I'm correct on this point. (Someone else in the know please elaborate.) A major point most people overlook when they talk about cloning is mitochondrial DNA. Mammalian cloning so far has only used the DNA extracted from the nucleus of the doner (original ?) animal. There is also a whole bunch of mitochondrial DNA that is floating around in the cells of that doner that they don't get and use. Further more, the egg that the DNA is inserted into contains its original mitrochondrial DNA. So, while the nuclear DNA may be a match, the mitochondrial DNA is not... Its not a perfect copy.
"Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."
Anyone who knows a set of identical twins should have been able to predict this out of the box.
I know two sets.. and both of them were raised in identical environments, however each is quite distinct from their sibling in a million ways.
*sigh*
How could _any_ rational person think that a clone of your old dog would know you and know the old tricks when it was born? They said it TWICE in the article, which makes me think someone somewhere thinks this is possible.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
I was under the impression that an identical genetic makeup would be physically (as in the characteristics, e.g. hair colour) would be the same as it is the genes that make that decision. After reading the artical, this is now not possible...
So, if it was just a delusion that genes decide our hair colour etc., what is it that does actually decides this? I understand that the genetic makeup can contain a gene makeup from a previous generation, that is not taken physically in its current incarnation...Does this mean that there is another randomness added to the choice? That not all genes are used, but a random choice of the "available" genes (similar to the random choice when me and my misses gets together to make a little todler) and creates the physical characteristics as such...Or does it involve slightly more complex algorithms whereby the random choice of genes is repeated throughout the growth period (hair changes colour after all, eyes can too) to create a rather more unique model?
This latter ramble seems to make sense if you consider someone that has a genetic makeup that gives it the possibility to develop some horrible disease, but doesn't develop it early in its life, but later...It just so happens that on x date, my internal random gene choice has selected x, y and z genes that, unfortunately for me, has started the chain reaction to cancer(or whatever)...Or is it just one choice of random genes that chooses cancer, maybe it is a sequence of choices that leads to the full-blown illness?
Wow, so from a simple makeup code, we can develop into an infinite (or near as dammit to be of any import) number of possibilites...So, is genetic research really worth pursuing? I mean, if you change a gene to remove the possibility of disease x, are you not running the risk of creating a (possibly)more dangerous disease y, and in doing so, through natural reproduction, replicate this to a point where you kill humanity...?All in the name of achieving what? A faster route to a "naturally perfect" human? Nature will eventually choose our best destiny, whether be extince or "perfected." We could even end up making things longer, especially as now, as far as I can tell, we have no idea how our physical characteristics are chosen...
Another thought: Our first gene choice in life is made, then, through life other choices are made, but this doesn't necessarily mean that we would change instantly hair colour, merely that a taint will arrive. If that same choice is made repeatedly, then sure your hair will gradually change...
You say that transferring could work - but how is transferring different to a copy-and-delete? (I guess, again, it depends on whether one believes in some unique un-copyable property of physical particles).
I've always imagined that any teleportation device, at least any device I'd ever set my foot in, would work in one of two ways:
1: Quantum entanglement of some weird matter at both locations and transferring my entire quantum state between them.
2: The wormhole thing.
Both methods does not include storying or copying information and could conceivable preserve my... let's call it "selfness". At least the 2. method should be pretty safe as it's not really teleportation in the classical sense, but more of a spacetime shortcut.
I don't believe in a soul personally, but I accept the fact that the philosophy of it all is pretty hairy. It's a difficult paradox. I'm only the sum of my "components" so what's the part that cannot be reconstructed? Is my conciousness somehow linked to my the quantum states of the particles making up my brain, or perhaps conciousness itself is merely an illusion?
It sure doesn't feel like it.
A witty
I'm pretty sure that a calico starts out that way and stays that way, at least ours did.
Considering that only female cats can be calicos and that cloning a female calico got another female but not a calico, doing some more cloning of the original and of the clones might lead to some discoveries of previously inknown or even unsuspected stuff about cloning in particular and genetics and DNA in general.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The really interesting thing about this is that while Cc is genetically a calico, she looks exactly like a white-patched gray tabby. In all probability, she is the only calico cat on the planet with no orange spots.
Even more interesting, she is probably the only gray cat on the planet who can mate with a gray or black male and give birth to orange kittens!
For a "perfectly normal" cat, Cc is actually a pretty strange critter.
As I understand it, the issue isn't as simple as nature vs. nurture. They're finding (like they find in sooo many other things) that it's not a dipolar situation, but a continuum.
Genetics is just the starting point for an organism... the baseline... the nature part. But before you get to the nurture (psychological issues and rearing... the nurture), you have this incredibly complex process of gene activation and suppression. What activates genes? Protiens. And what are the chances that two identical organisms (even maturing in the same womb) are going to have identical interactions with identical protiens at the molecular level? About as rare as you can imagine.
So the issue is the organisms interaction with the environment. And what is that, nature or nurture? Well, it's neither... and it's both.
- Is a clone a full citizen?
- Is a clone even legally a human being?
- Is a clone a child of the donor, or the donor's parents (as it is basically a time-delayed twin)?
- Does a clone have any rights?
- Can a clone inherit your stuff?
Now, siome of you are going Duh, Rat! Of course clones are people!, but until we make a full an legal decision on this all bets are off.Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.