Goodbye, Dolly

GoodBye Dolly... by tealover · 2003-02-14 08:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Hello Lamb Chops !!!

This is the best thing about cloning. An endless supply of lamb chops !!!

--
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to

Re:GoodBye Dolly... by redgopher · 2003-02-14 08:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Indeed... an endless supply of lambchops would be nice, but I wonder if it will all just taste the same? ;)

--
Insert clever one liner here.
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by Slightly+Askew · 2003-02-14 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative

I believe that would be mutton. Lamb chops are less than 18 months old. Dolly's chops would be, uh, less than desirable at her age.

--
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by Exiler · 2003-02-14 08:14 · Score: 1

But what we need is another pupeteer, not another dressed up sock.

--
Banaaaana!
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by Cruciform · 2003-02-14 08:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Dolly was a double ewe,
An ex ewe, since she's dead,
She'd aged somewhat imperfectly,
But still tastes great with bread.
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by macdaddy357 · 2003-02-14 08:52 · Score: 1

It's a baaaaaaad day for fans of Dolly, and for cloning advocates. Goodbye, Dolly. We will miss ewe.

--
How ya like dat?
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by dacarr · 2003-02-14 09:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Of course. After all, everything tastes more or less like chicken.

--
This sig no verb.
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by Xaoswolf · 2003-02-14 09:15 · Score: 1

what about eve chops. I hear that mental illness adds a special spicyness to the meat.

--
Xaotik Designs
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by AndroidCat · 2003-02-14 09:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep,
And thinks they may be roaming.
They haven't fled,
They just dropped dead,
From imperfections in cloming.
What? It rhymes .. sort of..

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2003-02-14 09:48 · Score: 1

Scientists cloned a little lamb,
and Dolly was her name.
She was looked on by the media,
and give world wide fame.
And though she was a carbon copy,
she was different just the same.
So now she's just a rotting corpse,
and poor cloning was to blame.

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by Chocolate+Teapot · 2003-02-14 12:37 · Score: 1

Dolly was a little lamb,
She looked just like her mother,
But now she's smothered with mint sauce,
Oh well. They'll make another.

--
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by caluml · 2003-02-14 13:15 · Score: 2, Funny

Or is it that chicken tastes like everything else?

Who came first, the taste of chicken, or the taste of other things that happen to taste like chicken?

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by Old+Uncle+Bill · 2003-02-14 13:57 · Score: 1

Maybe the machines didn't know what chicken tastes like...

--
Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Re:GoodBye Dolly... by dacarr · 2003-02-14 13:57 · Score: 1

Two words, sir: Tasty Wheat.

--
This sig no verb.

Oh boy... by Exiler · 2003-02-14 08:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

Anti-cloning zealots are going to have a ball with this. They're going to say there will be a pattern in euthanasia of clones.

--
Banaaaana!

Re:Oh boy... by Bastian · 2003-02-14 08:19 · Score: 1

Unless those anti-cloning zealots are also militant vegans, I'm going to laugh heartily when they start with damning speeches about the euthanasia of sheep.
Re:Oh boy... by GreyPoopon · 2003-02-14 08:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anti-cloning zealots are going to have a ball with this.
Yes, but if the rumors of premature aging are true, they may actually have some science to base their argument on. You see there's this very important substance called telomeres attached to the end of chromosomes. As cells divide, the telomere caps become shorter, and eventually the cells stop dividing and either malfunction or die. It stands to reason that, if you start off with an adult cell, you already have shortened telomeres and will therefore have a reduced lifespan. [Any biology experts should feel free to correct me.]
Rather than terminate Dolly, I'd rather they have experimented with telomerase to see if they could rejuvinate her. Although, I guess that's a little on the unethical and cruel side.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:43 · Score: 2, Funny

President George Bush is visiting an elementary school and enters one of the classes. They are in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asks the President if he would like to lead the class in the discussion of the word, "tragedy." So the illustrious leader asks the class for an example of a "tragedy." One little boy stands up and offers, "If my best friend, who lives next door, is playing in the street and a car comes along and runs him over, that would be a tragedy." "No," says Bush, "that would be an ACCIDENT." A little girl raises her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove off a cliff, killing everyone involved, that would be a tragedy." "I'm afraid not," explains Mr. President. "That's what we would call a GREAT LOSS." The room goes silent. No other children volunteer. President Bush searches the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?" Finally, way in the back of the room, a small boy raises his hand. In a quiet voice he says, "If Air Force One, carrying Mr.Bush and Mrs.Bush, were struck by a missile and blown up to smithereens, by a terrorist like Osam bin Laden, that would be a tragedy." "Fantastic," exclaims Bush, "that's right. And can you tell me WHY that would be a TRAGEDY?" "Well," says the boy, "because it wouldn't be an accident, and it certainly wouldn't be a great loss."
Re:Oh boy... by Moridineas · 2003-02-14 08:48 · Score: 1

Unlike the pro-cloning zealots who would rather play with cloning regardless of the consquences to the cloned?

The truth of the matter is we don't KNOW all the consequences of cloning. There's no reason you have to take such a politicized stand until we do know a bit more.
Re:Oh boy... by macdaddy357 · 2003-02-14 08:57 · Score: 1

Of course clones age prematurely, didn't you see Attack of the Clones? They are fully grown in ten years instead of 21.

--
How ya like dat?
Re:Oh boy... by Milo+Fungus · 2003-02-14 09:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Your telomere explanation was pretty good, except that telomeres aren't just any substance. They're DNA. The end of a chromosome has short repeating sequences of a few base pairs (ex: AATTAATT, etc.) which are not all replicated when a cell duplicates its genome and divides. This presumably acts as a molecular "clock" for the organism to keep track of its "age," but this is pretty controversial and unsubstantiated.

Click here to read more about telomeres. (Why don't more people link to Wiki?)
Even if this telomere function were well-established, it doesn't entirely explain the aging process. It seems that part of the process is due to oxidative damage caused by radical reactions in the mitochondria. But similar reactions happen in chloroplasts and some plants live for millenia!
The exciting thing about biology is that you reach the frontiers of knowledge in the field during your first year of introductory undergraduate coursework. In math you reach the frontiers maybe by your fourth year or in grad school. For physics and chemistry, somewhere in between. Biology is full of unexplained phenomena. If you want to make a great fundamental discovery in one of the hard sciences, then become a biologist. So much is unknown!
Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 09:09 · Score: 3, Funny

If you want to make a great fundamental discovery in one of the hard sciences, then become a biologist. So much is unknown!

There are more chicks too.
Re:Oh boy... by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-02-14 09:13 · Score: 1

Organisms don't have a "clock" to keep track of their age. That's ridiculous. What happens is that natural selection finds a solution that is good enough, not necessarily the optimal solution. After the telomeres reach a certain length, there is simply not enough selective power to make them any longer.

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:Oh boy... by AeternitasXIII · 2003-02-14 09:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

There is good reason those zealots will have a ball with this. Shortly after Dolly was born lots of individuals familiar with the science had already predicted she'd suffer from advanced and premature aging. This has been the primary reason why the scientific community has wanted to forestall human cloning, since even when we get the successful clones they'll have decades hacked off their lives and be prone to numerous diseases seen primarily in geriatrics.

I fully support the use of cloning, both human and animal for whatever reasons, but only when we can first correct this very severe problem that exists in the process. The zealots, however, will use this legitimate ammo to get laws passed in a few years that will take decades, if not longer, to overturn. Thats why I oppose any mandatory bans on cloning research.
Re:Oh boy... by GreyPoopon · 2003-02-14 09:22 · Score: 1

Your telomere explanation was pretty good, except that telomeres aren't just any substance. They're DNA.
Thanks! Yeah, I knew that telomeres were the end pairs found in DNA. I just kept it at a higher level. :-)
If you want to make a great fundamental discovery in one of the hard sciences, then become a biologist
Unfortunately, I'm already halfway through to retirement. However, I've always really enjoyed biology and biochemistry, so if you can find for me a job that pays six figures while letting me pursue a graduate-level education in biology and biochemistry, I'd strongly consider changing my career. :-)
Of course, I haven't seen any flying pigs yet either, but what with genetic manipulation, you never know.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Oh boy... by raretek · 2003-02-14 09:27 · Score: 1

"Anti-cloning zealots are going to have a ball with this"

I'm not a zealot either way on the issue, but I know this, had America listened to the Anti-Nuke zealots back in the 50's and not experimented in the atmosphere with nuclear weapons without fully understanding what they were doing, 15,000 people would not have died from the fallout, and some hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, would not have had the vast increase in disease that occured as a result.

It is a headstrong fool that rushes forward without carefully considering all sides and perspectives of an issue. Logic would dictate that research should be conducted to find out if this is going to be a problem for clones in general, before anyone begins to attack others for their viewpoints.

I mean seriously, with the evidence available, your finding fault with "anti-cloning zealots" is itself, dogmatic zealotry, because you sure as hell don't know if they're wrong.

If you do, then by all means, shine your light that we may all share your insight.

--
Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.
Re:Oh boy... by joshsisk · 2003-02-14 09:31 · Score: 1

(lawsuit for mcdonalds beef fat used in french fries, when they never claimed that they were vegan safe)

As I recall, the lawsuit happened after McDonalds announced they were switching to beef-free cooking oil, then still kept some beef in them... Which _is_ pretty annoying for Hindus and other people who can't eat beef on certain days (or at all) for religious reasons.
Re:Oh boy... by lenski · 2003-02-14 09:46 · Score: 1

I'll have to agree WRT human cloning. It is truly irresponsible to inflict artifically-generated risks on a person with the perfectly ordinary goals and aspirations of a human being.
Cats, cattle and sheep are one thing... Human children are another entirely.
Disclaimer: I would be hesitant even to clone animals until I feel that we have some confidence in the process, as I believe that humans have a responsibility to consider the effects of their actions. Particularly when the subject of the experiment doesn't have any say in it.
Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 10:20 · Score: 4, Informative

Telomeres are repeating sequences of non-protein-coding DNA at the end of a chromosome. Due to an inefficiency involoved in the replication of chromosomes, they become shorter and shorter with each cell division. Eventually, the telomere is depleted and parts of actual genes begin to be cut off. This explains death by old age.

An interesting side note is that cancer cells do not undergo the shortening of telemeres unlike normal cells. As opposed to normal cells which have a finite lifetime, cancer cells are functionally immortal.

A little off topic, but still somewhat interesting.
Re:Oh boy... by drdrs · 2003-02-14 10:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, but if the rumors of premature aging are true, they may actually have some science to base their argument on. You see there's this very important substance called telomeres attached to the end of chromosomes. As cells divide, the telomere caps become shorter, and eventually the cells stop dividing and either malfunction or die. It stands to reason that, if you start off with an adult cell, you already have shortened telomeres and will therefore have a reduced lifespan. [Any biology experts should feel free to correct me.] Rather than terminate Dolly, I'd rather they have experimented with telomerase to see if they could rejuvinate her. Although, I guess that's a little on the unethical and cruel side.
This is almost right but I just can't let it go without comment.

Telomeres are not so much a substance as a sequence of base pairs located at the ends of chromosomes. They're important because the enzymes used to copy these chromosomes during cell divison can't quite go all the way to the end. In theory this means that there must be a maximum number of replications a cell can go thorugh before you start to loose important information off the end of the DNA molecule.

Some people have speculated that this may be an important cause of aging but I've never seen completely convincing research to support this. Cells do have enzymes called telomerases which can reconstitute these terminal sequences but they do shorten with each generation of cells. The whole effect is complicated.

As to using telemerase to treat Dolly - whatever the effect of telemeres is on aging, Dolly died of a "lung infection" so I don't think her chromosomes were directly to blame.

David

--
Please, for the love of God, stay off the dunes.
Re:Oh boy... by GreyPoopon · 2003-02-14 10:46 · Score: 1

Dolly died of a "lung infection" so I don't think her chromosomes were directly to blame.
I get your drift, but you must admit that as the body ages, it's ability to prevent and fight disease diminishes rapidly. Many elderly humans don't die just because their body stops working. They frequently die of something like pneumonia or some other disease because their body was unable to fight it. But you're right -- if they had put Dolly into a sterile bubble, this might not have happened.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Oh boy... by DunbarTheInept · 2003-02-14 11:28 · Score: 1

Natural selection doesn't optimize for long life. It optimizes for making babies. The long-lived old couple that is no longer breeding is actualy detrimental to evolution, as they are using up resources that could have been used by breeders. Horrible as it may sound, us dying after getting old is not a mistake of evolution, it's an actual goal of it.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Oh boy... by nursedave · 2003-02-14 11:44 · Score: 1

I'm not a zealot either way on the issue, but I know this, had America listened to the Anti-Nuke zealots back in the 50's and not
I'm sure you meant to say, America and the USSR, right? We can share this particular blame.

--
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Re:Oh boy... by m1a1 · 2003-02-14 12:22 · Score: 2, Informative

It is my understanding (which doesn't mean too much) that telomeres weren't so much a clock as a failsafe. When chromosomes replicate a little genetic information tends to be lost during this dividing process. Telomeres are "spare" genetic material at the ends of the chromosome, so they get cut off first. When the chromosomes in a certain cell have no telomere left, the cell cannot successfully divide.
Re:Oh boy... by liverkill · 2003-02-14 13:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Just a little point on cellular aging; i believe that the main link between 'aging' and telomeres in mamals is due to the link between the progressive shortening of telomeres and cell senesance.
The telomeric shortening results in the 'Hayflic Limit' where mamalian cells in culture are observed to divide 50-80 times before killing themselfs, telomeric shortening is linked to this process, prehaps providing some sort of timer as to when to kill off the cell in order to prevent conditions such as cancer.
While the telomere exists as a protection against genetic instability arising from CRISIS, I think that ascribing it a role in 'aging' is a bit of a jump. I am much more comfortable with the idea that Telomeres act to help prevent genetic instability due to the problems associated with replication of linear chromasones. While the Telomere acts as a 'molecualr clock' of sorts, it is only really concerned with the cells DNA, aging in other ways (such as progressive modifications in collagen with increased age) is nothing to do with Teleomers.
As to the point on the aging process itself, i would argue that it is entirely independent of telomeric shortening, and that change in telomeric length is *just* a timer indicating the age of the cell/number of divisions to reach its current condition. The aging process is due to a large number of ancillary effects which have no relationship to the telomeres.
And yes, biology (or in this case, not to nitpick, genetics) is one of the places where you find yourself with the cutting edge stuff very early on. Makes for really interesting study, if a bit annoying that no text book you can buy is up to date enough.
Re:Oh boy... by caluml · 2003-02-14 13:20 · Score: 1

lots of individuals familiar with the science had already predicted she'd suffer from advanced and premature aging

I heard this and I wondered about it.
Do they treat the embryoes or whatever? Otherwise I can't see how it's different to a normal birth. Why should the result age more rapidly?

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:Oh boy... by caluml · 2003-02-14 13:23 · Score: 1

Dave, I can get 5 out of the 6 words in your sig - B soviyetski Rossee, yob tvoya mat!

I feel sure I know the 6th.

So go on - In Soviet Russia, what happens to my mother? :)

--
Get your own free personal location tracker
Re:Oh boy... by Forgotten · 2003-02-14 14:05 · Score: 1

Or, become a psychologist, and reach the frontiers of knowledge in your field as the psych 100 syllabus is handed out. ;)
Re:Oh boy... by Forgotten · 2003-02-14 14:10 · Score: 1

It's not quite so cruel as that, since older animals serve a support role and lend the value of experience. This is particularly true for humans, and it's probably why we live so long (for a mammal our size). Human (and prehuman) society and culture is very much a contributing factor in the evolution of the human organism - you really can't separate the one from the other. Heck, you can say the same to a different degree of chimpanzees, or wolves. Life is a continuous thread; generations don't war against each other.
Re:Oh boy... by Forgotten · 2003-02-14 14:34 · Score: 1

Actually "lung infection" (or more generally pulmonary edema) would be the immediate cause of death for a lot of people in hospitals, whether they died of old age, cancer, AIDS and/or another disease, or even acute trauma. It's just one of those signs of systemic failure. I suspect a more detailed analysis of what would have killed Dolly will become available. I'd be surprised if her high effective cellular "age" (for a sheep) wasn't a part of it, but then I guess I'd also be surprised if the explanation was clear.
Re:Oh boy... by AeternitasXIII · 2003-02-14 14:36 · Score: 1

The DNA they use from the parent to seed the host egg are taken straight from mature cells. The egg itself is simply a normal egg from the species (I believe some work in using eggs from other species is being done as well) that has had all its genetic material removed. The defects in the parent DNA from mutations and from the natural aging process (primarily telomere loss), are carried along with the expected genes. In effect the new embryo is given a legacy code base rife with bugs and a timing mechanism set to that of the age of the parent. Its not that the cloned offspring age faster, its that they simply start their aging well ahead of where they should be.

The theory behind this is pretty well developed, since a large number of asexual creatures essentially clone themselves to reproduce in nature. They don't have the issues with the telomeres that cloning in complex animals has, but they are known to have a higher overall rate of mutations transmitted to offspring. It would have been far more unsettling to current theory if Dolly had been born healthy and lived out full life cycle of a normal sheep.
Re:Oh boy... by nursedave · 2003-02-14 15:20 · Score: 1

Yob... yebat... Damn, where is that Rooskey dictionary when I need it? ;)

--
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Re:Oh boy... by the+gnat · 2003-02-14 15:28 · Score: 1

but only when we can first correct this very severe problem that exists in the process.

Okay, I oppose reproductive cloning for other reasons too, but let's start here. How exactly can scientists determine that they've fixed the problem without actually cloning and raising a human, perhaps with disasterous results? It would suck to spend the first 18 years of your life as a medical experiment.
Re:Oh boy... by JebusIsLord · 2003-02-14 18:22 · Score: 1

AFAIK "Hard Sciences" is just another way of saying "Natural Sciences", the study of natural phenomena. This is in contrast of course to the social sciences which study human behaviour.

The characteristics you listed above are inherent in ALL sciences, though they probably are easiest to follow in Physics and hardest to follow in the social disciplens.

--
Jeremy
Re:Oh boy... by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-02-14 19:42 · Score: 1

Natural selection doesn't optimize for long life. It optimizes for making babies. The long-lived old couple that is no longer breeding is actualy detrimental to evolution, as they are using up resources that could have been used by breeders. Horrible as it may sound, us dying after getting old is not a mistake of evolution, it's an actual goal of it.

You're misunderstanding natural selection. Us dying after getting old is not a specific goal of evolution, it's just that letting us get old is a non-goal.

That old adage about the prey "needing" the predators in order to cull the herd of the sick and weak is just BS.

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:Oh boy... by Znork · 2003-02-14 21:51 · Score: 1

Actually, according to some theories, the evolutionary pressure would keep them at a certain length. The existence of telomers (or, rather, the cell divisions reducing them) stops mutated cells from runaway divisions for example. There are indications that cancer cells replenish their telomers with certain enzymes (as do stem cells and reproductive cells). A longer telomer, or replenishing telomer, and you might get several orders of magnitude more cancers instead as cells would now only require a mutation for rapid division to create a cancer since no cell strains would have a natural 'stop'.

Of course, if you're going around cloning things then it might be a good idea to re-set the telomer on the clone cell.
Re:Oh boy... by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-02-15 01:28 · Score: 1

So they're going to sue McDonald's for spiritual degredation, karma loss, or getting thrown into Hell?

Why not sue the dopey, ignorant, savage Gods instead?

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
Re:Oh boy... by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-02-15 01:31 · Score: 1

Anti-cloning zealots are going to have a ball with this.

Actually, balls had nothing to do with it. It was test tubes.

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
Re:Oh boy... by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-02-15 01:37 · Score: 1

Indeed, the organism that bred successfully into their 70's (or 170's or 2525's) would be highly successful in an evolutionary sense.

These are two fighting forces in the dynamic gradient descent of evolution. The benefit of rapidity of successive generations in adapting to changes (both static and dynamic environment i.e. adaptation of your predators or your prey) fights against the evolutionary "wins" of continued reproduction of an individual decade after decade.

Indeed, the past 20 years have seen a skyrocketting in women having babies (or trying) in their late 30's and even thru their 40's. Some succeed, many fail. Those who succeed pass on their "late baby capacity" to future generations.

A dozen generations later, I have no doubt you'll see a capacity for women in their 50's to reproduce without drugs.

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
Re:Oh boy... by Tablizer · 2003-02-15 07:27 · Score: 1

they become shorter and shorter with each cell division. Eventually, the telomere is depleted and parts of actual genes begin to be cut off. This explains death by old age.

while (telomere--) {live();}

You know, this telomere shortening thing might explain why movie sequels suck more than the original :-)

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Oh boy... by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-02-15 10:06 · Score: 1

Indeed, the organism that bred successfully into their 70's (or 170's or 2525's) would be highly successful in an evolutionary sense.

Not necessarily. An organism like that would eventually have hundreds of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, meaning that its own individual contribution to the breeding process would become insignificant.

-a

--
/. users can't
Re:Oh boy... by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-02-15 10:15 · Score: 1

Actually, according to some theories, the evolutionary pressure would keep them at a certain length. The existence of telomers (or, rather, the cell divisions reducing them) stops mutated cells from runaway divisions for example.

I had thought about this, but didn't give it much credance since I didn't know the bit about cancer cells replenishing the telomeres.

Of course, if you're going around cloning things then it might be a good idea to re-set the telomer on the clone cell.

If we have the technology to do that, then it should be pretty easy to verify the above theory on cloned rats, etc.

--
/. users can't
Re:Oh boy... by joshsisk · 2003-02-15 20:16 · Score: 1

Uh, no... They are suing because McDonalds said they were switching to vegetable oil. Then it turned out they lied. At the very least it's false advertising, and there are probably other laws about lying about whats in food, I'd imagine.

It would have been a non-issue had they not publically stated they were switching to vegetable oil, then not done so.
Re:Oh boy... by ckaminski · 2003-02-17 03:34 · Score: 1

And now thanks to all those damn hippy vegans, McDonalds fries now suck. First BK, then Mcy-D's... Guess I'll just have to resort to cooking my own fries in my deep-fat fryolator. The trouble I go through for a good-tasting fry... 3rd degree burns, here I come...

Yes, the above was mostly sarcasm. I don't hate vegans, although I do taunt them with meat every chance I get. ;-)

-Chris
Re:Oh boy... by AeternitasXIII · 2003-02-17 05:42 · Score: 1

The same way we test many medical experiments intended for future human use: animal testing. The mechanisms that control aging are, as far as we know, identical in underlying structure in insects and mammals. The difficulty in translating the results of one to the other is insuring that a treatment for insects can actually be applied systemically to the vastly more complex mammalian body. If you're cloning, you can give yourself a very very high certainty that any systemic treatment has worked across the entire organism simply by applying the treatment to the initial fertilized egg. Any treatment is likely going to involve introduction of genome changes either by retrovirus or even direct application, and as the egg goes into its development cycle it should pass all genome changes down to its produced cells.

Until we reach the point that we have a treatment, we'll continue to experiment on lower order complexity lifeforms and periodically test our methods on animals like sheep or cattle. This leads to the economic side of things, where a successful treatment for cloned livestock will be approved fairly quickly by the FDA, leading to a revenue stream that can support the end run to applying the treatment on humans.
Re:Oh boy... by DunbarTheInept · 2003-02-17 11:50 · Score: 1

But an old person is only useful to survival of the "breeders" so long as that old person's role is one that cannot be done by a younger person. In societies where culture has been slow moving for a long time, people grow older (because the wisdom of old people is very useful to the offspring.) In societies where things changed rapidly, the wisom of old people isn't as useful to the next generation, and as such evolution doesn't have the incentive to make them last.

The good news, though, is that we've reached a point where biological evolotion is so slow compared to technology and science learning, that it doesn't matter much anymore that evolution doesn't "want" us to grow old. Evolution doesn't have time to react to the changes we impose on our world now.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Oh boy... by raretek · 2003-02-20 04:15 · Score: 1

"I'm sure you meant to say, America and the USSR, right? We can share this particular blame."

You are right, the USSR definetly did such things too. I didn't mention it because I am one of those US centric Americans. :)

I want to point out that my point wasn't about blaming America... I was using a mistake that America made to demonstrate the need for well reasoned level headedness when developing new technologies.

Besides, when the commies do something stupid, that's just stupid old communism. When the US does something stupid, its just a grave error in judgement made out of the deepest sense of patriotic conviction that originates in the subcochle area... I think...

--
Show me an effect without cause and then I'll believe in chaos.

Okie, I'll speculate.. by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-02-14 08:11 · Score: 4, Funny

"While one should be cautious about drawing conclusions from a single data point, its interesting to speculate."

It's obviously a sign from above...

Re:Okie, I'll speculate.. by Kaz+Riprock · 2003-02-14 09:54 · Score: 1

No, it was probably a shovel or a hammer from above...maybe they just drugged here instead.

--
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon

Nothing sadder by Cipster · 2003-02-14 08:12 · Score: 5, Funny

There is nothing sadder for a parent than having to burry their clone....
Somehow that just did not sound right.

Re:Nothing sadder by y0bhgu0d · 2003-02-14 10:06 · Score: 1, Informative

i know your post was meant to be funny, but iirc, dolly lived somewhere near twice as long as the sheep she was cloned from. shortly after dolly was born, the clonee died from a weird disease.

Random speculation by grahams · 2003-02-14 08:12 · Score: 1

While one should be cautious about drawing conclusions from a single data point, its interesting to speculate. Isn't that what Slashdot is all about?

Re:Random speculation by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-02-14 08:15 · Score: 1

" Isn't that what Slashdot is all about?"

Depends. Are we talking about Microsoft's involvement in it?
Re:Random speculation by gmuslera · 2003-02-14 08:42 · Score: 1

You can always put this in this light:

"If Dolly was a object oriented desktop, and Microsoft cloned it..."

and be ready to 700+ replies
Re:Random speculation by Big+Mark · 2003-02-14 08:43 · Score: 1

No, we're talking about the GPLd Beowulf-clustered non-platform-dependant future of cloning!

Soon, with every boxed copy of SuSE you'll receive a voucher entitling you to own exactly 1 (one) clone, which does not have to be of yourself, SuSE's customers in the past have been favourites of, among other personalites, Natalie Portman, CowboyNeal and the Goatse Man!

-Mark
Re:Random speculation by Anonymous+DWord · 2003-02-14 09:21 · Score: 1

If Dolly was a object oriented desktop, and Microsoft cloned it...

...It'd get rooted faster than a nekkid sheep in Scotland.

*rimshot*

--
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden

First clone by fudgefactor7 · 2003-02-14 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ya know, it was a good run for the first complex clone (mammal). I bet eventually they get the kinks worked out and cloned everything will be available. But for now, it's like the old addage: "in order to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs."

Re:First clone by interiot · 2003-02-14 08:17 · Score: 4, Informative

The main suspected "kink" are the telomeres, and if we do discover it's a kink, it may be a difficult one to work around. Here's a good article on telomeres and telomerase.
Re:First clone by spiro_killglance · 2003-02-14 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Its more important than that, that fact clones aren't medically identical or as fit as the
orignal, tells us, that there is something we
don't know about genetics. Whatever it is, it
can cause premature aging and auto-immune disease,
that may well mean, that whatever we learn about
why clone are unfit, can produce cure for auto-immune diseases and maybe slow down aging.

Perphap the key to clones failure is methylization, the genes in cells can be selectly
switched on and off by attacting methyl group
to potions of the DNA, how this works, is controlled, and how/if its passed on, is very
important unknown of cell biology. In the same
way over half the DNA is a cell, is made up of
intron sequence that don't code for proteins or gene, however intron a preversed across millions
of years of evolution, human share many of the
same introns as mice. That means introns have to
be doing something important, but unknown. We've
much yet to learn about cellular biology and cloning as much to teach us.
Re:First clone by Gortbusters.org · 2003-02-14 08:50 · Score: 1

Very insightful.. what if there's something missing that we can't reproduce (like a soul). Like the whole debate of when a baby is born, is there any religious implications (maybe the birth process includes getting a "soul" and we can't clone that). Just thinking out loud on the greater scheme of things...

--
--------
Free your mind.
Re:First clone by cheeseSource · 2003-02-14 09:28 · Score: 1

Sorry man no such thing as a soul. It is as it was and as it always will be: we are all just a bag of bones. To stay on topic I'd like to point out that Dolly was a good beginning. It's like programming you can't just pick up a language and go write an OS and expect it to be error/bug free on the first couple of runs. It takes time. It's worth the time too. The only part that's really sad and tormenting is that it will cost animal and probably eventually human lives in the process.

--
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Re:First clone by joshsisk · 2003-02-14 09:37 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is that you think sheep have souls?
Re:First clone by drinkypoo · 2003-02-14 14:56 · Score: 1

And in order to make a M.L.T, you have to kill a sheep. And cut up or or two tomatoes and a head of lettuce.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:First clone by the+gnat · 2003-02-14 14:59 · Score: 1

But for now, it's like the old addage: "in order to make an omlette, you have to break a few eggs."

Ouch. This is exactly why I, as an atheist molecular biologist, remain 100% opposed to human reproductive cloning. More than two thousand years of medical ethics is solidly against medical experimentation on unsuspecting human subjects.
Re:First clone by coopaq · 2003-02-15 04:33 · Score: 1

Ahhhh /.
The place everyone goes and has to look up things
like telomeres, but can give you intricate details on
midichlorians.
-J
Re:First clone by Gortbusters.org · 2003-02-15 17:42 · Score: 1

I'm not excluding the possibility. I think the native americans were more on the money when they realized that we're all organisms tied into one great ecosystem (or even Great Spirit). Just because the Bible implies that only humans has souls does not make that so. I think Buddhists have a concept of souls in non-humans as well.

--
--------
Free your mind.
Re:First clone by joshsisk · 2003-02-15 20:19 · Score: 1

First of all, I don't believe in the bible. Secondly, I don't think sheep or people have souls.

But if something has to have a soul to have life, I'd say Dolly had a soul since she was definitely alive... Even if she had medical problems.

Fiery the Angels fell by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-02-14 08:14 · Score: 4, Funny

This follows on earlier reports that she was prematurely aging, including developing arthritis.

The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy-- um, I mean Dolly.

--

I write in my journal

Re:Fiery the Angels fell by Picass0 · 2003-02-14 08:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Dolly: I... want... more... life, fucker!
Re:Fiery the Angels fell by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2003-02-14 09:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Hmm, she really was an "Electric" Sheep, now wasn't she?

--
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Re:Fiery the Angels fell by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2003-02-14 09:12 · Score: 1

Bastard! Your comment was even funnier than mine, though I doubt as many people will get it.

Touche.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Fiery the Angels fell by unspecified+poltroon · 2003-02-14 09:31 · Score: 1

Get it.
Re:Fiery the Angels fell by circletimessquare · 2003-02-14 10:26 · Score: 1

if only you could have seen the things i've seen with your eyes BAAAAAAH ;-P

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Fiery the Angels fell by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-02-14 10:29 · Score: 1

I've done some... bahahad things.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

No more cloned sheep... by jstrain · 2003-02-14 08:14 · Score: 1

All your clones sheep are belong to us?

Method of Cloing... Inefficient? by LordYUK · 2003-02-14 08:15 · Score: 1

One of the scientists stated that the cloning process used to make Dolly might have been inefficient, and that sheep usually live 10-12 years.

I hope that the people opposed to cloing dont take her untimely death as a reason to stop further research into this field.

I for one cannot wait to see spaarti cylinders everywhere. (That was a Star Wars joke, FYI...)

--
This is my sig. Its pathetic.

Reported as saying... by CommieLib · 2003-02-14 08:15 · Score: 5, Funny

"We had to put her to sleep," they said sheepishly. "She was in shear agony. There was mutton we could do about it."

--
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.

Re:Reported as saying... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:36 · Score: 1, Funny

Ewe can't pull the wool over my eyes. Those puns are horrible!!!!
Re:Reported as saying... by Orne · 2003-02-14 09:11 · Score: 1

You're telling me, they were really baaaad.
Re:Reported as saying... by nathanh · 2003-02-14 19:42 · Score: 1

Though ewethenasia is illegal so Dolly had to commit seweicide.

At least by dubiousmike · 2003-02-14 08:15 · Score: 1, Funny

I'll have my inflatable sheep to remember her by...

Goodbye Dolly.. by grub · 2003-02-14 08:15 · Score: 1

..Hello mint jelly!

--
Trolling is a art,

um... by stinky+wizzleteats · 2003-02-14 08:15 · Score: 1

While one should be cautious about drawing conclusions...

It's a little late to be cautious.

Cloning still in version 0.X by TopShelf · 2003-02-14 08:15 · Score: 1

While one should be cautious about drawing conclusions from a single data point, its interesting to speculate.

Recall, however, that the success rate to at least produce Dolly was only around 1 in 200. This is still an early-stage technology, and there will be many more obstacles along the way. That, in my mind, is the major justification for a ban on human cloning at this time...

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more

Baaaaad news by sboyko · 2003-02-14 08:15 · Score: 2, Funny

It wasn't cloning that got her lungs - it was secondary cigarette smoke from the black sheep of the family.

--
SCO, Microsoft, P2P, what's your hot button?

Re: Baaaaad news by ibbie · 2003-02-14 08:41 · Score: 1

oh that's fine. i like my lamb a bit on the seared side, anyways.

--
The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
Re:Baaaaad news by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 11:12 · Score: 1, Funny

oh sure, always blaming the black sheep.
this is another example of the white sheep trying to keep the black sheep down.

Chops, no... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:16 · Score: 1, Funny

but boy, that ass...

Now that's desirable!

Re:Chops, no... by Big+Mark · 2003-02-14 08:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Only in more, er, "rural" parts of the UK... which Scotland counts as!

Everyone, lock up your sheep, they've become sensitized to the sound of a fly unzipping so sales of velcro-fastened trousers have skyrocketed!

-Mark
Re:Chops, no... by EricV314a · 2003-02-14 09:13 · Score: 3, Funny

In the upper midwest they are referred to as "Montana Blondes"
Re:Chops, no... by Anonymous+DWord · 2003-02-14 09:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Ahh, Scotland - where the men are men, and the sheep are nervous.

--
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Re:Chops, no... by Verteiron · 2003-02-14 09:28 · Score: 1

Velcro, hell. Why do you think Scotsmen wear kilts?

--
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Re:Chops, no... by Spunk · 2003-02-14 10:35 · Score: 1

Um, don't boys wear skirts in France? I mean Scotland.
Re:Chops, no... by zeno_2 · 2003-02-14 11:09 · Score: 1

I thought that was Montana
Re:Chops, no... by fatboyslack · 2003-02-14 11:12 · Score: 1

A couple of jokes... ? Not too off topic. What do you call three sheep tied to a pole in New Zealand/Scotland/Spain/(insert sheep loving country here)? A Leisure Centre. A ventriloquist (sp?) is on holiday in New Zealand, and walks onto a farm. He sees the farmer and they start having a chat. The ventriloquist decides to tell the farmer that he can make animals talk. The farmer looks at the ventriloquist skeptically. The ventriloquist then says, see that horse? I'll make hime talk to you. "How are you?" The horse replies "Good, my owner treats me well, always feeds me and keeps me sheltered." The farmer is astonished. Then the ventriloquist asks the dog, who replies "I always have food, and lots of work to do" The farmer is now dumb struck. Then the ventriloquist asks the Sheep "How are you?" But before the sheep replies the farmer recovers from his shock, and looking a little panicky yells "The sheeps a bloody liar!"

--
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. -- Leo Tolstoy
Re:Chops, no... by steelframe · 2003-02-14 20:00 · Score: 1

Q. Why did the Scots start wearing kilts?
A. Because sheep can hear a zipper a mile away.
Re:Chops, no... by Carnivorous+Carrot · 2003-02-15 01:22 · Score: 1

> I thought that was Montana

Montana, Scottland, Australia, I've heard 'em all. Throughout all cultures, men are universally given to taken an opportunity if they're sure no one will find out.

--
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart

Etiology still pending by Doctor+Beavis · 2003-02-14 08:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Although the shortening of her telomeres is well-publicized, it very well may have had nothing to do with the death. A somewhat more detailed story can be found here [Reuters].

Re:Etiology still pending by jj_johny · 2003-02-14 08:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

But the problem is that they have no idea what really did her in and what they did wrong. I really love the nuts that thinks the first time they try to clone a human it will work perfectly. Ha. About as likely as ... fill the blank... But seriously, it was a stroke of genious to think that when we can't figure out how protiens fold and what most of the junk inside cells do, that we could move some DNA around in a rather clumsy way and voila have a perfect clone. Next thing they are going to start talking about error free coding... yada yada yada. Dolly is dead and we don't have a clue and won't for a long long time. And when we do successful cloning we won't have a clue about what we did right, what we did wrong or what the difference is between the two.
Re:Etiology still pending by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-02-14 10:33 · Score: 1

I just keep thinking about the time I tried to DD an NT partion onto another (identical) computer. It booted up fine, but it seemed to have more cruft than the donor machine. The machine would lock up with Graphics drivers related hangs, the networking would sometimes screw up. The original would behave just fine.
None of it made sense, unless you believe in the theory of cruft.
Maybe when you clone something, you clone all of the cruft from the original, and then add some? I dunno, my US0.02

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Cloned sheep Dolly, found dead at age 6 by Thud457 · 2003-02-14 08:18 · Score: 1

I heard her evil twin did it!

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:Cloned sheep Dolly, found dead at age 6 by Eccles · 2003-02-14 08:30 · Score: 5, Funny

They don't know how many sheep they've actually cloned, you know. They tried counting the sheep, but they fell asleep...

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Life Imitating Art by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · 2003-02-14 08:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Remember, Blade Runner (and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) had such first...

In fact, isn't it a bit ironic that a sheep is prematurely aging, versus the mechanical fake sheep (and title) in Philip K. Dick's novel?

--

IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...

raelian cloning by circletimessquare · 2003-02-14 08:21 · Score: 3, Funny

this is good...

i was all set to make believe i saw ufos so i could join up with the raelians. i don't know how long i could have maintained that lie. but since these are the only folks who will cut off the head of my clone and put my brain in his shell, what can a craven mortal do?

since it looks like all this cloning stuff won't give me unlimited life yet, now i don't have to maintain the charade.

i'm going to tell those raelians the truth and give them a piece of my mind!

oh wait, er...

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

That'll do sheep. by The+Salamander · 2003-02-14 08:22 · Score: 2

That'll do.

Re:That'll do sheep. by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-02-14 10:35 · Score: 1

(In the background we hear the tune of "Sheep may safely graze")

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Average lifespan for a sheep... by akiaki007 · 2003-02-14 08:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

is 10-14 years. Dolly lived to be 6+.

Not to draw any conclusions, but I don't think too many people will be taken back by this, unless of course you were one of the people who helped create Dolly and actually thought that she was completely normal.

Despite the fact I am against cloning, I would like to find out more results to this. What would the avg. lifespan be if there were 100 Dolly's (and I suppose 1,000,000 failed attempts as well). It might be interesting to know, though somewhat dusgusting to get to.

End result - this won't bode too well for cloning simply because Dolly developed this disease only half-way through her life. What will be much more interesting is to follow her child - I believe she gave birth to a female sheep in 1998 - 2 years after Dolly's birth.

--
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV

Re:Average lifespan for a sheep... by astrotek · 2003-02-14 08:40 · Score: 1

The human birth rate is even lower if you take into account "attempts" every time a woman has a period a potential "life" is lost. Every time you beat off, millions of "lives" are lost. Whats your point if they fuck up while trying to make a clone? Thats what happens in humans, the baby aborts itself resulting in a miscarriage.
Re:Average lifespan for a sheep... by frank_adrian314159 · 2003-02-14 08:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

It might be interesting to know, though somewhat dusgusting to get to.
Not to be trollish, but why? It's a frickin' sheep, for God's sake. It's not like it wasn't going to eaten or put into dog food at the end anyway, right? Same for a million of them (or their genetic material which could easily be thrown down a drain or allowed to decompose). It might be a huge amount of effort (with 1,000,000 trials), but how one gets from that to disgusting, I don't see. Don't tell me - you didn't grow up in a farming community, huh?

--
That is all.
Re:Average lifespan for a sheep... by akiaki007 · 2003-02-14 09:16 · Score: 1

The point is, their lost lives were embryo's, not semen or eggs. They were fully feeding embryo's.

Abortion is the only thing that compares to that.

--
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Re:Average lifespan for a sheep... by akiaki007 · 2003-02-14 09:19 · Score: 1

a million dead embry's from failed cloning attempts, in my mind is rather disgusting (goes with the idea that I personally am against cloning, because the entire concept to me is disgusting) - all the "it can be good for humanity" speeches need not be said.

It's the idea of cloning that makes the 1 million dead bodies disgusting. I'm not particularly bothered by the 1 million dead animals - hey, that happens at the slaughter houses everyday anyway.

--
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Re:Average lifespan for a sheep... by bm_luethke · 2003-02-14 19:08 · Score: 1

Well, the problem is that the "errors" would appear to, well, not be quite unpainfull. In the end it is still alive. While I personally beleive we have every right to eat them and use them (I hunt/fish and regulalry eat/wear parts of them, some medical research is also OK) we have a responsibility to be humane. If you can humanely clone the animal - go for it. If you can't there better be a REALLY good reason to submit an animal to torture.

If you grew up in a farming community would you begin butchering the animal alive? beat it to death? at least the one I grew up in no, you tried to, as humanely as possible, kill the animal. While nature can, and is, very violent, we do not have to be. A croc can do no better than to try and eat a wildbeast alive, we are able to do better.

--
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it

A tribute to sheep by LordYUK · 2003-02-14 08:22 · Score: 1

There was a man shipwrecked on an island with only his dog to keep him company. After weeks and weeks of being alone, he finally found some sheep grazing in a field. The man had once heard that if you fsck a sheep it sorta feels like a woman. Being desperate, he started towards the herd. His dog immediate runs up, barks, and they all run away. The man scolds the dog, and decides to try again the following day. Again, he finds the sheep, and as he approaches, his dog again barks and chases them all away. This time the man is really pissed, and kicks the stupid dog. The following day the man decides to try again, only this time when he gets to the field, there is a beautiful woman surrounded by a pack of wolves. Thinking quickly, the man grabs his dog by the tail and uses it as a club to beat off the wolves. Grateful, the woman offers to do anything he wants. Elated, the man replies "here, hold my dog"!

=)

(I have no idea where this joke came from)

--
This is my sig. Its pathetic.

So they couldn't resist by VEGx · 2003-02-14 08:23 · Score: 1

...and ate the sheep! :(

I Know She'll Be Missed by 680x0 · 2003-02-14 08:24 · Score: 1

Sheep are very loving animals. As someone who's raised a few, I can tell you they are wonderful animals to have around. A lot of work, though, especially if you aren't used to farmwork.

Re:I Know She'll Be Missed by Flakeloaf · 2003-02-14 08:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Sheep are very loving animals.

Aye son, ye cannae deny tha'.

--

Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
Re:I Know She'll Be Missed by Cruciform · 2003-02-14 08:36 · Score: 1

I thought shepherds were very loving animals...

Ooooooooh!
Re:I Know She'll Be Missed by BeeShoo · 2003-02-14 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Sheep are very loving animals"

Are you sure you don't want to rephrase that a bit? ;-)
Re:I Know She'll Be Missed by bm_luethke · 2003-02-14 19:15 · Score: 1

You know the sad thing? I pictured a dwarf smoking a pipe saying that and then wondered "why would a dwarf say that?".

--
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it

Bladerunner by theCat · 2003-02-14 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Many of you will recall that replicants had 4 years to live. It was built-in and they knew it and hated it.

I hate it when life immitates art, because some of our art is strange and the really good stuff is damn creepy. Dolly was cloned from a mature sheep, and the theory goes that she basically picked up where her...parent?...left off on the aging timeline. But that's not going to stop many wanna-be immortalists. So when some 80 y.o. geezer elects to have himself cloned the "new" baby will have the genetic signiture of an octagenarian, and probably 10 years to live a life of pain and senility.

This stuff sucks, people. You don't have to be a flaiming Bible thumper or a neoLuddite to be freaking out about Dolly. I think about how giddy everyone is about their personal fsckig immortality and my skin crawls.

Eat well, exercise, love someone with all your heart, have a good time. Have lots of great sex and leave a few really smart, well-adjusted children. Then go off and FUCKING DIE! OK? Just die and leave this earth to the next generation, born in the usual way with their own chance to live their own life their way, as nature had intended. Please!

--
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us

Re:Bladerunner by dissy · 2003-02-14 08:46 · Score: 1, Redundant

> as nature had intended

Just had to comment.

If nature didnt intend for something to happen, it would not be possible.

Things like the laws of physics are 'as nature intended' since they can not be broken.

I would argue the speed of light is another, but as even that is questionable lets leave it be for now.

Nature by definition is "The material world and its phenomena."
http://dictionary.reference.com/searc h?q=nature

This means, if something is able to happen, it instantly is catagorized as natural.

Cloning is natural. It happens, it (mostly) works. It doesnt fully work as we want it to, but either a) give us time, or b) it is indeed unnatural and you dont have to be the one to worry about it being impossible or not.

I cant communicate enough my anger at people who claim this and that is unnatural.

If its unnatural really, it isnt gunna happen in any way, and there is nothing to worry about.

If it is happening right now, _in nature_, it is clearly _natural_.

Please do not confuse "The material world and its phenomena" with "The material world and its phenomena as long as a human had nothing to do with it"

Humans are part of nature, and thus by extention anything we do is of natures doing.

Lets try to be a little more careful about our choices of words, mmmkay?

(Sorry for the rant, and I dont intend for this to sound like a personal attack. You just happened to be the straw on this camels back for the day) :)
Re:Bladerunner by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 09:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean that we SHOULD. I think that there are certain levels of morality that we as humans (and current stewards of Earth) must pay heed to. Cloning in and of itself is not a bad thing. Cloning of organs for human transplants is one aspect of this science that I am particularly for. This can reduce human suffering immeasurably. However, attempting to clone an entire being is at best a dangerous undertaking for which our scientific, religious, political, and legal communities are completely unprepared.

Your statement that "Cloning is natural. It happens, it (mostly) works. It doesnt fully work as we want it to, but either a) give us time, or b) it is indeed unnatural and you dont have to be the one to worry about it being impossible or not." is so far off the mark as to be quite comical. You seem to have confused the natural act of replication via sexual means with replication via asexual means, yet you then state that it is also unnatural and that we shouldn't worry about it.

Replicating via natural means as you state is natural. Replication by any other means is simply getting nature's way and a recipe for disaster. Hell, how can we as a human race undertake to create life when we can't even support the lives of other members of our race? I think that cloning a human is the most selfish act man could ever conceive. Nature thrives on diversity, which I think you would agree is natural. Cloning is an act of similarity, which I think you would have the wisdom to see as something unnatural in the scheme of things.
Re:Bladerunner by theCat · 2003-02-14 09:41 · Score: 1

I choose my words with considerable care. Cellular nuclei moving from mature adult mammalian somatic cells into unfertilized egg cells that have no nuclei of their own is not natural, it is in fact impossible without medical science and a lot of failures in the process, and your pseudo religious nonsense about the manifest destiny of humanity doesn't make it less so.

As for what nature "intends", nature intends (in a Darwinian kind of way) for us to reproduce with variation as it is the invention of novelty and not the promulgation of one genetic line that moves us forward. If our way was some other then we might be aphids and be born already pregnant with clones. For us, sexual union is good, birth is a new expression of chance, and death is part of life. The stuff in between is simply what you make of it.

There is a difference between fantasy and reality, regarding which we seem to have finally lost our grip. And in case you hadn't been paying attention, it is the reality of what we do that becomes history and shapes the future.

--
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Re:Bladerunner by unspecified+poltroon · 2003-02-14 09:56 · Score: 1

4 : the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function -- used in phrases like the call of nature http://www.m-w.com
Re:Bladerunner by dissy · 2003-02-14 10:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sigh, you totally missed my point.

> Cellular nuclei moving from mature adult mammalian
> somatic cells into unfertilized egg cells that
> have no nuclei of their own is not natural, it is
> in fact impossible without medical science

You are correct.
It is impossible without medical science.
Fortunatly medical science is very possible.
This means anything coming FROM medical science is also possible, and thus natural.

Nature is the container of all that we are in.
By the very fact cloning happens, means its playing by the rules of nature.

Just because it requires a human to do it is totally irrelivent.

Humans happen in nature too, thus we are possible (Fortunatly no one has argued that one yet)
Thus, anything we (being of nature) do, is natural as well.

I also find it funny you claim what i say is "pseudo religious nonsense" when in fact its most religons that argue the same point you are making, while science argues the point I am making.
Re:Bladerunner by osgeek · 2003-02-14 10:54 · Score: 1

it is in fact impossible without medical science

Yeah, and it's impossible in humans unless you have a male and a female get together... so what? Is it the technology that troubles you? If I have to fly to Europe to conceive a baby with some baby, is that baby "unnatural" because it wouldn't have happened without technology?

If man does it, it's natural.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:Bladerunner by James+Lewis · 2003-02-14 11:20 · Score: 1

I hear this "nature" arguement all the time and to be honest it really isn't very convincing. I mean basically your arguement is, "This is the way things are, so this is how they should be". Think of all the things that you enjoy, of all the ways your life has been improved, made more enjoyable, and LONGER because people weren't content with the way things are. For better or worse humanity will never be content with the way things are and will always strive to make every aspect of their lives, including the lengths of those lives, better. I think it is quite obvious that we are either going to wipe ourselves out or live forever to spread amung the stars. Anyone sitting around whinning about it will just be pushed to the side, just as people like them have always been pushed to the side. At the vert least we will outlive you.
Re:Bladerunner by DunbarTheInept · 2003-02-14 11:22 · Score: 1
His point can be better explained thusly:
- If a plant grows a poisonous surface on it's leaves, and traps flies on this surface by snapping closed when they land on it, we call that natural.
- If an animal of the mammal kingdom with big buck teeth and a wide flat tail alters his world by chewing down trees and building a dam, we call that natural.
- If a moslty hairless ape with an enlarged brain begins reproducing in a new manner, we don't call that natural.
Why the difference? We *are* nature.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Bladerunner by Cyno · 2003-02-14 12:32 · Score: 1

The difference is, and almost everyone agrees, Humans have a soul, a consciousness, that is capable of interacting with nature in very unnatural ways. Our ability to reason, use logic and take action, changing our environment and the objects around us goes far beyond any other naturally occuring lifeform, that we know of. Because of this we are blessed with the complexities of religion, divinity, etc. We think we're perfect because we're no longer a part of nature, no longer governed by its rules. However, we are still a part the natural order of the universe. As we explore the space outside our planet we learn more and more that we're not divine, we're not perfect. We're just another animal on a big rock, clinging onto it for our very survival.

But we are different.

I don't think you can say any action done by man could be naturally occuring. We are the observer of nature, not a participant, not for a long time, anyway.
Re:Bladerunner by Cyno · 2003-02-14 14:52 · Score: 1

Then tell me, what other animal is self aware and capable of learning more than one language? The soul is simply our ability to be creative, to be conscious, and to be self aware. Or how about show me an animal able to apply force to an object in any of the 3 dimensions at will. Or how about an animal that can design or build an engine, or even understand how or why it works. Show me one of those, then you might be on to something.

Personally I think intelligent life exists out there, somewhere, but we may never find them. Are we even serious about the search? I don't care. There are many species on Earth that are extremely intelligent, but they all fall short of being able to use that intelligence as humans did by forming civilizations and using communication, social status and many other complex concepts to structure and organize itself into something capable of producing microchips and understanding its environment. A single human is not capable of doing this on their own. But what gives us this self awareness or ability to organize into civilization like we have? Or why do we create? Is that the soul? If not, then what is it?

I'm an atheist, btw.
Re:Bladerunner by drinkypoo · 2003-02-14 14:53 · Score: 1

What does the soul have to do with science? It as yet has not been proven. The closest science has come to measuring the soul has been the idea that humans actually do have an aura of sorts, we are surrounded by a cloud of water vapor and we generate an extremely weak EM field.
Also there is nothing which is most easily explained by the existence of a soul. As such it is most probable that there is simply no such thing. It is most likely that consciousness is an illusion; we go to sleep, and our brains do random things. If our memories changed when we slept, we would be an entirely different person because we are the sum of our experiences plus a body.
We are different from other animals because we evolved to have a more complicated brain. Clever animals' curiosity is sometimes rewarded and that means that the behavior is self-reinforcing. We happen to have a well-developed brain in part because we were lucky, and in part because we used it.
So whether or not you think the soul exists and/or it is responsible for our ability to be more destructive than other animals (I don't think it's fair to attribute a soul to mankind but not to other living creatures, by the way. So narrow-minded. where do you draw the line?) it is unnecessary to explain it and thus is silly to even mention.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Bladerunner by the+gnat · 2003-02-14 15:15 · Score: 1

So when some 80 y.o. geezer elects to have himself cloned the "new" baby will have the genetic signiture of an octagenarian

But it won't be the same person. You won't get real immortality this way, the way the bad guy does in the Schwarzenegger pic "The Sixth Day". Perhaps you could make your genetic material last perpetually, but this is just stupid.

Rael was on MSNBC talking about exactly this type of thing, and I was so pissed I threw my remote across the room. There's just no basis in biology for any of that crap.
Re:Bladerunner by SecurityGuy · 2003-02-14 15:32 · Score: 1

I cant communicate enough my anger at people who claim this and that is unnatural.

I can't understand why you let it bother you. It's only natural for them to make such a claim.

You might look into getting a bigger camel.
Re:Bladerunner by Reziac · 2003-02-14 17:07 · Score: 1

Just a good example of how early attempts at any new technology usually don't work very well. But you won't ever REACH any more-refined or more-reliable techniques unless you're willing to try those early, and often doomed, experiments. Then learn from them and try again.

Hell, look at the earliest airplanes. They were downright scary by any standards, and even at best crashed early and often. Does that mean we should have given up all attempts to fly??

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Bladerunner by lastberserker · 2003-02-14 17:19 · Score: 2, Funny

You see, your logic doesn't hold water. Here is why, I would not say better:
Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons.
-- Douglas Adams

--
My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
Re:Bladerunner by lastberserker · 2003-02-14 17:21 · Score: 1

Sorry, I replied to your parent, please, read one level up ~:-)

--
My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
Re:Bladerunner by sjames · 2003-02-15 03:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

The difference is, and almost everyone agrees, Humans have a soul, a consciousness, that is capable of interacting with nature in very unnatural ways.

The conversation is now leaving science and entering natural philosophy or religeon.

Continuing from that point, we cannot know the 'intent' of an anthropomorphised nature. Who is to say that the entire purpose of Darwinian evolution wasn't to create a species that was capable of directing further improvements intelligently? It may even be that the entire purpose of the human race is to create a machine race capable of directing it's own evolution ever more intelligently. Or perhaps to become that machine race itself.
Re:Bladerunner by sjames · 2003-02-15 04:05 · Score: 1

Cool, that means we can wage war, murder, rape, plunder, enslave, and exploit.

That is only true if you believe that natural == good in all cases. Destruction from natural disaster is (by definition) natural, but few consider it wrong to try to minimise it, or consider it right that it does happen.

CLONE HAIKU TIME!!!! by Bastian · 2003-02-14 08:26 · Score: 1

I am a sad clone.
Why do people hate me so?
I am human too.

The sheep was useful,
but reporters stopped coming.
Then we got hungry.

Millions of dollars
of research grants is a lot
to spend for haggis.

The girl is not her
mom, The scientists, just baked
Scientologists.

Re:CLONE HAIKU TIME!!!! by fudgefactor7 · 2003-02-14 08:56 · Score: 1

Dolly the sheep died,
Now we investigate why,
May she(ep) rest in peace.

This lame haiku brought to you by bordom and the numbers 5, 7, and 5...
Re:CLONE HAIKU TIME!!!! by Blob+Pet · 2003-02-14 09:46 · Score: 1

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 little clone
Will be of the opposite sex

Clone, clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X
And when I'm alone
With my little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.

---Issac Asimov

--
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."

Re:GB2AOL by TheDick · 2003-02-14 08:30 · Score: 1

Because I'm trolling on SlashDot with a damn modified nursery rhyme?

Could that be why?

COULD IT?!?!?!

--

What speculation? by tuxlove · 2003-02-14 08:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

While one should be cautious about drawing conclusions from a single data point, its interesting to speculate.

No speculation required. As you age, your DNA deteriorates, no questions asked. If you take that aged DNA and put it into an embryo, when it develops you'll have an organism with a young body and an old roadmap for building it. It's going to exhibit any number of symptoms of old age.

It's agreed by anyone with any credibility on the subject that you would have to grab the DNA of a newborn infant to have any chance of creating a clone that's not going to be screwed up this way.

Re:What speculation? by p3d0 · 2003-02-14 09:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ok, so as long as you're not doing any speculating, then how does regular reproduction work? Re-read everything you just wrote and imagine you're talking about normal sexual reproduction. From that point of view, it's simply 100% incorrect.
Clearly there's more to genetics than you know.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Re:What speculation? by tuxlove · 2003-02-14 10:26 · Score: 1

Ok, so as long as you're not doing any speculating, then how does regular reproduction work? Re-read everything you just wrote and imagine you're talking about normal sexual reproduction. From that point of view, it's simply 100% incorrect.

First of all, the mother's egg contains half of a child's DNA. The eggs are present in the mother's ovary at the time of her birth, and do not replicate. That genetic information isn't subject to replication error and hence doesn't "age". In other words, a female baby is born with all of the eggs she'll ever have, and they already contain the genetic material they need to create a baby.

As for the father's sperm, I have no idea how the DNA in sperm is not "aged" like the father's own DNA. I'm certainly not an expert in that area, but I don't have to know *why* it's that way; I only need to know that it is, which I do happen to know. But the fact remains, the father's and mother's gametes both contain "young" genetic material. When they fuse, the zygote has a full complement of "young" genetic material for a brand new baby.

Clearly there's more to genetics than you know.

You're not one of those Raelian nutcakes who claim they've solved the problem of cloning a baby from old DNA, are you?

There's more to genetics than anybody knows. I have a degree in biology, but don't claim to be an expert. I have taken advanced courses in developmental biology and various areas of genetics, so I think I grasp the general issues here fairly well. My beliefs are based on the research of the more credible scientists, though it's certainly not unknown for scientists to err. However, I think it's unlikely that anyone will ever disprove that DNA from an older person/animal is unsuitable for cloning.
Re:What speculation? by p3d0 · 2003-02-14 12:17 · Score: 1

As for the father's sperm, I have no idea how the DNA in sperm is not "aged" like the father's own DNA. I'm certainly not an expert in that area, but I don't have to know *why* it's that way; I only need to know that it is, which I do happen to know.
It is what? Not aged? Ok, so let's consider how that happened. The testicles' DNA must age, and clearly they are capable of producing "young" DNA for sperm anyway, so again I say there's more to the story than your simplistic "old/young DNA" dichotomy.
(Or, if you want to claim that testicles' DNA doesn't age, then why not clone babies from testicle cells?)

Clearly there's more to genetics than you know.
You're not one of those Raelian nutcakes who claim they've solved the problem of cloning a baby from old DNA, are you?
I'm not claiming I know anything about cloning. I probably know less than you do. I'm just claiming that you don't know enough to say cloning is impossible. Your argument from your first post doesn't hold water, because if that argument were sufficient, then it would also rule out sexual reproduction.
You are speculating. There's nothing wrong with that, unless of course you try to claim that you are not speculating.

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Re:What speculation? by tuxlove · 2003-02-14 13:33 · Score: 1

The testicles' DNA must age, and clearly they are capable of producing "young" DNA for sperm anyway...I'm just claiming that you don't know enough to say cloning is impossible.

I never said it's impossible. It's just not possible to take DNA that is frought with replication errors and expect to create a clone that doesn't have those. Read up on replicative senescence and then come back and see if you still disagree. How "old" testicles produce sperm with "new" DNA is unknown to me. Perhaps it has something to do with telomerase repair. This is actually a hot area of research, because there is good reason to believe that somehow applying telomerase to repair aging DNA may extend an organism's lifespan. It could also have implications for using "old" DNA for truly successful cloning. But certainly, without repairing "old" DNA before using it to create a clone, something nobody yet knows how to do, you're going to get an imperfect copy of the original organism as of the time of its birth; an imperfect copy that, while still young, will suffer from whatever age-related effects one might expect from replicative senescence.
Re:What speculation? by tuxlove · 2003-02-14 13:42 · Score: 1

The error rate must be a lot lower for the generation-to-generation replication of this material than it is for replication of other cells within your body within your lifetime. But "a lot lower" != 0.

Well, okay, if you want to be nitpicky about it, you may be correct. But clearly, whatever errors occur in the creation of the mother's eggs is somehow compensated for, or after N generations all eggs produced by all mothers would suffer from replicative senescence. Not being an expert on this, I can't say exactly how this is managed, but clearly it is or we'd be extinct. That's not to say that mutations caused by replication are necessarily "fixed" in the process (that's actually an important part of evolution), but the DNA's ability to replicate is maintained across generations by a process I am not privy to. I don't actually know if anyone knows how it works. Regardless, whatever process takes place does not take place in the mother's own cells or there would be no replicative senescence, a process we know to exist. Which is why cloning an adult is so problematic.

Dolly this week, Matilda last week by hpulley · 2003-02-14 08:34 · Score: 2, Informative

More than one data point. Dolly is actually the second cloned sheep to die in a week. Matilda, a cloned sheep born in the year 2000 in Australia died last week. Autopsy results were inconclusive. Matilda's passing.

--
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???

Sad news, Dolly the Sheep dead at 6 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 08:36 · Score: 2, Funny

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - the cutting edge cloned mammal Dolly was found dead in her Maine home this morning. There weren't any details. I'm sure we'll all miss her, even if you weren't a fan of her creators' work there's no denying her contribution to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

*Not* Carol Channing? by island_earth · 2003-02-14 08:36 · Score: 1, Funny

Whew. For a second there, I misunderstood that headline. What a relief. Although she is getting on in years... Who2 Profile

The important thing is... by ah.clem · 2003-02-14 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

... that she existed at all. Without this research no one would have known that this was an issue with cloning. Imagine how much more we as humans would know if *all* research was unfettered by government regulation and/or religious superstition.

--
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson

Re:The important thing is... by meehawl · 2003-02-14 08:57 · Score: 1

Imagine how much more we as humans would know if *all* research was unfettered by government regulation and/or religious superstition.

Yeah right on. There are a few people who agree with you. Enjoy the company.

--

Da Blog
Re:The important thing is... by jericho4.0 · 2003-02-14 09:31 · Score: 1

Nice comeback.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Re:The important thing is... by jcr · 2003-02-15 11:04 · Score: 1

Regarding your citations: your analogy is Bullshit. Atrocitites committed by governments is not a counterargument to someone arguing for freedom to conduct research.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:The important thing is... by meehawl · 2003-02-19 13:24 · Score: 1

Atrocitites committed by governments is not a counterargument to someone arguing for freedom to conduct research.

Government by written constitution or by an unwritten agreement between individuated supernerds that THERE SHOULD BE NO LIMITS is still government. Remember kids, government is the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out. Nobody said it had to be Big Government... tiny anarcho-syndicalist research-oriented communes are just as capable of governing their members, and of influencing them towards atrocities, as "typical" Western Nation State top-down Big Governments.

--

Da Blog
Re:The important thing is... by Strigiform · 2003-02-27 03:04 · Score: 1

I think Mike was saying that groups other than governments are also capable of being involved in atrocities. If you look specifically at the eugenics movement, it was a (relatively) popular movement that managed to influence policy in several parts of the world.

Such groups can influence others via offering help (e.g. funding) or threatening to remove resources (e.g. cutting off funding, denying access to a laboratory or library).

'burry' or 'curry'? by sczimme · 2003-02-14 08:39 · Score: 2, Funny

[homer]
Mmmmm... la-a-amb... *drool*
[/homer]

Sorry - I don't know how to spell the 'raaghchchgh' Homer makes at drool time. D'oh.

(Yes, I know 'bury' was misspelled, but 'cury' just wouldn't have worked.)

--
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.

DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by PizzaFace · 2003-02-14 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

If mature animals have "old" DNA, how do their offspring get "young" DNA?

I think of DNA aging as a process of random decay over time, but somehow my old DNA and my wife's old DNA can produce a baby with young DNA.

Does the combination of DNA during sexual reproduction clean up the strands from the parents? Or is something going on in their gonads to clean up their old DNA before packing it into gametes?

There's a biological process here that I haven't heard anyone describe, or even identify. And yes, I want to patent it.

Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by shellac · 2003-02-14 09:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Found here:
Telomeres are found on the ends of chromosomes. They are a small sequence of DNA repeated many times. They act as protective "caps" and help to prevent chromosomal instability and damage. However the telomeres gradually shorten over the lifetime of the organism because they are not fully copied during cell division. The exception to this are germ-line cells, where telomeres are maintained so that full-length telomeres are passed on to the next generation.

Pretty interesting.... I didn't know that myself. Anyhow, don't thank me, thank google.
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by PizzaFace · 2003-02-14 09:27 · Score: 1

Thanks, Google, for saving me the fee of a patent lawyer.
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by TheWhaleShark · 2003-02-14 09:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, it's because your gametes produce "young" DNA.

I'm sure everyone knows that the male and female gametes each produce one half of the genetic material of a single organism. The genetic material produced by the gametes is brand new; it hasn't aged yet, so the telomeres on the individual DNA strands are still intact. They recombine during fertilization and make a fresh, "young" copy of a complete DNA sequence.

--
"It never got weird enough for me." - HST (RIP)
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by imnoteddy · 2003-02-14 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your wife's old DNA does not produce a baby.
DNA from her eggs makes a baby.
All of the cells that develop into eggs are created in the
fetus, and then wait until puberty to develop into eggs.

--
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by AEC216 · 2003-02-14 09:28 · Score: 1

Actually you are pretty on to it. Sex is the ultimate act of genetic healing. Say your deck of cards is missing a few 4's and queens. You meet a nice lady that decides to mate your 'cards' , Sex will refill & reshuffle the deck. (Plus you may have a few cards of the different brand now too.)

--
May I please have my frontal lobotomy if I bring back the ashtrays?
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by Some+Dumbass... · 2003-02-14 10:06 · Score: 3, Funny

There's a biological process here that I haven't heard anyone describe, or even identify. And yes, I want to patent it.

Patent a biological process involved in sexual reproduction?

Can you say "prior art"? :) :) :) :) :)
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by Tablizer · 2003-02-14 21:09 · Score: 1

Patent a biological process involved in sexual reproduction?

Hell no! Hookers will then have to charge more to cover royalty payments.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by Tablizer · 2003-02-14 21:15 · Score: 2, Informative

This is exactly what I wonder too. I don't get how, even if the DNA packaged in the reproductive cells ages very little over time, the human race could survive for so long. There must be something 'cleaning up' the DNA before packaging into reproductive cells.

It is Darwinian evolution. If your reproductive cells go bad, you simply don't reproduce effectively and the messed up genetics cease to continue. (Except on rare occassions the "mistakes" may be beneficial.)

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by liverkill · 2003-02-15 00:41 · Score: 2, Informative

'DNA Aging' is nothing more than progressive telomeric shortening which is counteracted in the germ line by the action of telomerase. In the case of dolly, when she was 2 her telomeres were observed to be 80% of the length of a 'normal' sheep of that age. Not a massive difference, and not something which satisfactoraly explains her early death.
The most important thing to remember about the production of gametes is that they are produced by germ-line cells. Mutation is a way of life and an important evoloutionary mechanism, indeed, mutation is utilised during gamete formation (through events such as Unequal Sister Chromatid Exchange) to create a unique arrangement of genes. There is therefore no need or desire by the species to 'clean up' the dna from these muations.
In fact the lack of a mechanism for dealing with convertion of a methylated Cytosine to Thyamine has been one of the key facts which has been used to detect genes in eukaryotes - CpG islands are found with all the major housekeeping genes and ~40% of the tissue specific genes.
so in short, there is no 'clean up' (known) of the dna in the germ line, there is however a stabilisation of telomeric length (acheved through the action of telomerase) at the higher end of the 5-20kb range, which is now being rapidly charicterised.
Re:DNA Aging, DNA Rejuvenating? by Duds · 2003-02-15 11:30 · Score: 1

Could you demonstrate this prior art? ;)

Time to die by ColGraff · 2003-02-14 08:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Baa, baa, baa!

TRANSLATION:

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Lab rats examined by laboratory technicians. I watched hay pour into my trough like a golden rain of food. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die. Oh, and uh, it's painful to live in fear, isn't it?

--
I'm the stranger...posting to /.

Re:Time to die by moominpapa · 2003-02-14 08:48 · Score: 1

Wish I had mod points to mod this up!

Quit wasting time cloning! by ispepalocacoc · 2003-02-14 08:42 · Score: 2, Funny

This may just be my opinion, but instead of wasting time cloning animals, scientists should be figuring out how to transplant brains into robotic bodies. Being able to live forever as a cyborg is far more important to me then having a clone of myself which will just grow old and pathetic.

--
I Love Alberta Beef

Re:Quit wasting time cloning! by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-02-14 10:45 · Score: 1

Amen to that.
Actually, who needs a body? Upload your psyche to a supercomputer and exist as a digital agent. It's a lot more scaleable. It could be like a digital afterlife, only your decendents can drop by and say "hi", and "where did you bury the treasure Grandpa?"
Plus you could give agents a pretty good network connection, not to mention they could converse with all of the other people already uploaded to the system.
When mankind travels to the stars, you could tarball your soul and ship it over FTP.
Damn, that sounds like a concept for a Science Fiction novel, if it hasn't been done already.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Quit wasting time cloning! by HuguesT · 2003-02-16 15:53 · Score: 1

Some people think consciousness requires quantum effects (read R. Penrose `the emperor's new mind') and that though processes are essentially non-computable phenomena.

If this is true you'll have to wait until the advent of the quantum computer to envisage this transfer as a possibility. This is still a very distant proposition.

re: Goodbye, Dolly by bogie · 2003-02-14 08:45 · Score: 1

I'd wager most /.ers don't even get that joke.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

No. by Eric_Cartman_South_P · 2003-02-14 08:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Anti-cloning zealots are going to have a ball with this.

No. They are going to have mint jelly with this.

Forgive me by Sexy+Commando · 2003-02-14 08:50 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, Sheep Clones YOU.

And nothing funnier than ... by burgburgburg · 2003-02-14 08:51 · Score: 2, Funny

a parent having to bury a clown.

A little song, a little dance
A little seltzer down the pants!

On the euthinasia by theblacksun · 2003-02-14 08:53 · Score: 1

A single case study means nothing. There are endless variables unaccounted for. Any anti-cloning people who use this example as an arguement should try deducing both sides of a quarter from a single coin flip.

--
Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.

I hope... by 10Ghz · 2003-02-14 08:55 · Score: 1

...They remembered to make backup-copies.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.

Re:I hope... by TaoTeCheese · 2003-02-14 09:36 · Score: 2, Funny

They can't. That would be a violation of the DMCA.

Re:OT by Bastian · 2003-02-14 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree that a lot of veggie groups are nuts. . .

but I agree with the McDonald's lawsuit. I'm veggie, and think that McDonald's attempted to decieve vegetarian customers. McDonald's had changed their ingredients list for their friench fries so that any mention of animal products was replaced by 'natural flavors' while leaving the beef products in. A lot of vegetarians and people who don't eat beef for religious reasons were duped into thinking that McDonald's fries were now safe to eat.

I think it's fair for McDonald's to be sensitive to such things.

yeah right by mondoterrifico · 2003-02-14 09:03 · Score: 1

"While one should be cautious about drawing conclusions from a single data point, its interesting to speculate."
This IS slashdot, isn't it? :P

Incept Date by rwiedower · 2003-02-14 09:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Wait a minute...I'm an identical twin who is 24. Does this mean that I should look forward to Carousel soon? Or that I should start harvesting my clone's organ farm...?

Obligatory Simpsons reference by Santos+L.+Halper · 2003-02-14 09:08 · Score: 1

No, the best thing about cloning is being able to clone endless copies of Scratchy and send each copy into an auto-killing machine.

--

"Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee." --Bender

Scotland Surrenders by NickFusion · 2003-02-14 09:08 · Score: 1

I'm sure the Scots will be surprised to hear the sheep they cloned is an American icon.

But hey guys...you can keep the haggis!

--
What were you expecting?

Re: Goodbye, Dolly by filmsmith · 2003-02-14 09:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Hello, Obscurity!

Sheep Farmer Says... by cburley · 2003-02-14 09:15 · Score: 1

Never Trust a Sheep!

--
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.

Not unhappy... by Zelet · 2003-02-14 09:20 · Score: 1

I know this is a science site - but I can't help but be happy that this clone had complications. I would like to see the end to full animal cloning. I think genetic engineering and posilby growing human organs in other creatures is a wonderful science but full animal cloning has nothing more to offer and borders on unethical. Hopefully there will be enought set backs that scientists wont risk the complications on human tests.

--
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)

Re:Not unhappy... by OwlofCreamCheese · 2003-02-14 10:09 · Score: 1

yeah, lets never try and learn anything that might be scary! who cares about progress!

--
-You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.

I propose a new addage by filmsmith · 2003-02-14 09:22 · Score: 1

In order to clone a human, you have to kill a few sheep.

So Long Dolly by HedRat · 2003-02-14 09:24 · Score: 1

I'll never forget the run in I had with Dolly. It could have been ugly but I went to court and it reduced to "Following Too Close".

Mod parent *GROAN* by nlinecomputers · 2003-02-14 09:24 · Score: 1

We've got to get more MOD items to choose from...

--
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.

What about the problems with Genetic Engineering? by NigelJohnstone · 2003-02-14 09:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

What about the risk with Genetic Engineering?

A genetic engineer takes a gene sequence, millions of bases long, changes a few and observes the results.

Imagine a hacker, taking a 10MB binary, disembling it by hand, randomly tinkering with a few bytes here and there, then looking for effects when they run it. Would you consider that app bug free?

if anything the hacker has an advantage, we can't write a DNA person, but we can write a machine code program.

Dolly's problems appeared in the first generation clone. But if no problems were observed after only a few generations of breeding from dolly it would have been declared safe.

In nature though, the changes are slow and small and the testing much much longer, and even then whole species become extinct when some weakness become apparent.

I reckon GE is a much bigger risk than cloning.

"The light that burns twice as brightly... by TelevisioSledgicus · 2003-02-14 09:41 · Score: 1

burns only half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly Roy." Speculation about two bodies sharing the same "soul" "spirit" (what-have-you) have been touched upon only in the various pieces of fiction until now. Did the Dolly clone use up some of Dolly's time on earth? Did the Dolly clone just meet her natural life expectancy, since she was pre-destined for a short life...just the luck of the draw this time around? Simply another lab screw-up in the long list of screwups by the boys in white playing "God"? Or was it a secret sect of the Vatican Secret Police that infiltrated and sabotaged the project? Or ... ?? Or maybe it's just the beginning of a cheap food source, mutton anyone?

Re:What about the problems with Genetic Engineerin by docwardo · 2003-02-14 09:45 · Score: 1

random mutations may be engineered when looking at a protein, but there is very little that is done in a random fashion with genetic engineering. they know what a section of DNA does they then replace that with the dna that does something different.

It's hardly random.

Re:"Dolly the Sheep": Absurd Liberal Myth by jsin · 2003-02-14 09:46 · Score: 1

You forgot to add "I'm a fucking moron".

--

second society

Obligatory Seinfeld quote. by Stonent1 · 2003-02-14 09:58 · Score: 1

MMMM. Gyro...

Attack of the Dollys by Kaz+Riprock · 2003-02-14 09:58 · Score: 1

I've heard that some genetic researchers are attempting to develop methods which would either extend the telomeres or in some other way give a normal aging process to the cloned animals.

If we're to build an army of warriors capable of taking down the Trade Federation, IIRC, we *need* the premature aging so that they are ready to fight in time.

--
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon

Telomeres and their relation to mitosis by fernd1 · 2003-02-14 10:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ok, so every cell in your body goes through a process called mitosis. What Scientists have been doing so far is rip the nucleus out of a fertilized egg and replace it with the nucleus of a cell for the subject that is to be cloned. Well, as it may turn out, that cell has already gone the process of mitosis a number of times and each time its Telomeres(the end strands of DNA on a Chromosome) shorten. The funny thing is, all biological organisms have a way of repoducing already. In higher level organisms, such as mammals, this process is called meosis. Now every organism has number of chromosomes. Each chromosome comes with a homologous pair. When meosis takes place these pairs split in two. The thing about meosis is that we already know that the telomores are intact and don't cause premature aging. So instead of replacing the nucleus of a fertilized egg, why don't we take advantage of the process of meosis and with artifical insemination techinics, cause the subject to produce multiple eggs. The probobility that one set of the pair will end up in specific egg is 50:50. So if you have the subject produce multiple eggs, then it is quite likely that you will end up with an egg with one set of the pair and an egg with the other set. You take DNA from the egg with the other set, and you insert it into a sperm. Of course you would have to replicate it a number of times to have a successful insemination , but that wouldn't be anything we couldn't overcome with modern technology.

Re:Telomeres and their relation to mitosis by GreyPoopon · 2003-02-14 10:42 · Score: 1

So instead of replacing the nucleus of a fertilized egg, why don't we take advantage of the process of meosis and with artifical insemination techinics, cause the subject to produce multiple eggs.
First off, the only cells that undergo meiosis in the human body are the sperm cells and ova. [Again, biology expert correct me if I'm wrong] What you are advocating is just a variation of insemination, except that I think you're proposing to either use two ova or two sperm cells to generate the viable offspring. The most important thing to note is that this isn't cloning. Cloning aims at making a genetic duplicate of the original. The process of meiosis, by design, produces haploid chromosome sets that are *not* identical, neither to each other, nor to the diploid chromosomes of the origin-cells. By using the technique you describe, you might end up with a product that was closer to the original, but definitely not identical. As I read your text more closely, it looks like you're attempting to compensate for this by choosing two of the products of meiosis such that a recombined product would have the same genetic makeup of the original. I'm not sure if this would work because I'm not sure if meiosis actually yields "parts" that could be combined in this manner. To further complicate things, the meiosis process in ova does not actually complete the final division until the egg is penetrated by a sperm, so your technique would be difficult. Perhaps something could be done to the egg that would convince it that it has been penetrated by sperm so that it completes meiosis. This is an interesting thread, though. I'd like to see what others have to say.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:Telomeres and their relation to mitosis by Forgotten · 2003-02-14 14:29 · Score: 1

Meiosis yields entire unpaired chromosomes that are (semi-)randomly reassembled from the organism's pair of that chromosome. The input chromosomes are unzipped and chopped up into bits, floated around shuffled, then put back together. A LOT of the output chromosomes will be nonviable (but estimates vary, and there may be mechanisms that protect certain genes).

So no, you don't get the "original" chromosomes back. And this is really pretty much the point of sexual reproduction - remember that for this to have developed, asexual reproduction (cloning!) was already a solved problem. Considering the enormous cost (the movie tickets alone!) of sexual reproduction to organisms, the benefits have to be pretty incredible - and indeed they're all around you. It's sobering to note that this is the step cloning seeks to skip.
Re:Telomeres and their relation to mitosis by fernd1 · 2003-02-14 17:14 · Score: 1

The chopping to bits that you describe is called recombination or cross over. It is when the two chromosomes of a pair cross over and are recombined at the spot where the crossed over. This does happen quite often, but under an ideal situation, it doesn't. I am sure that there is some way to limit the recombination process. With that in mind, we could, perhaps as technology advances, initiate an artifical meosis process. One in which we control all of the variables. Then all we have to do is select the haploid chromosomes that are identical, and place them in their respective sex cells, one in the egg and one in the sperm, and then let nature take over. The result would be a genetically identical zygote, that when it reaches maturity won't have the telomere problem.
Re:Telomeres and their relation to mitosis by Forgotten · 2003-02-14 17:34 · Score: 1

It is when the two chromosomes of a pair cross over and are recombined at the spot where the crossed over. This does happen quite often, but under an ideal situation, it doesn't.

Well, what I'm saying is that under an ideal situation, it does happen. Mixing and matching alleles is really the entire purpose of sexual reproduction and meiosis. It's going to be hard to remove that characteristic from a system that's entirely designed around the pursuit of it. And you're correct, I did oversimplify in the initial post - it's not really random at all but actually selects genes and their alleles to swap. In other words it's not just complex but directed, and the direction is exactly away from cloning.

Then all we have to do is select the haploid chromosomes that are identical[...]

(laugh) I'm sorry but to me this reads sort of like "then all we have to do is construct a living sheep from spare parts found in any kitchen!". It's a pretty tall order to do what you suggest. Modern gene recombinative work is almost unbelievably crude, and we're decades away from being able to do what you suggest. For perspective, consider that there already modern attempts to harness meiosis, in the form of modern IVF - but it still has about a 10-20% chance of conceiving even a normal meiotic embryo, let alone one that's been monkeyed with. The natural mechanisms to do this stuff work sublimely well (though they also discard many failures) - our attempts aren't even at the stone-tools level yet by comparison.

This is also why I simultaneously fear GMO work and don't worry about it too much. On the one hand viable results are so rare that the chances of creating a monster are slim. On the other, if someone does manage to make some frankenzygote that takes off, it'll have been created without the checks and balances that have necessarily evolved into natural meiotic recombination, but might still take advantage of life's resilience and self propagation to spread far and wide. In many ways that scenario is the worst-case outcome of a success in the methods you describe.
Re:Telomeres and their relation to mitosis by fernd1 · 2003-02-17 11:44 · Score: 1

"then all we have to do is construct a living sheep from spare parts found in any kitchen!".

I realize that current technology is probably not capable of this; however, technology is always advancing. All I am advocating is to look into alternate solutions. The fact that we can clone at all with our current technology is very impressive. But, we need to be looking forward, and trying new things. There might be a chance that our current technology causes premature aging. Your attitude is intolerant (laugh) I am sorry, but if this discussion was 10 years ago, then you would be on the side saying that cloning would never happen. There are two things that can be done to improve our ability to clone.

A. Improve our current techniques, i.e. better initial techniques, or Telomere treatment (suggested to be on the horizon)

B. Scratch our current techniques and start a new.

All I am advocating is an open mind and to try something fresh.

I am lost... by LinuxMacWin · 2003-02-14 10:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

Either you are religious and hence you don't care about cloning.

Or you are an atheist. You might clone a person just like you, but it is you who still gets sick, grows old and eventually dies. You do not get to enjoy that body and everything that goes with it. So how does it matter you got a clone? Is it just the satisfaction of creating a person just like you? But isn't most (not all) of the procreation because of religious reasons!

Clarification (cont'd) by Brown+Eggs · 2003-02-14 10:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

The cells that produce the gametes are "immortalized" cells, constantly producing telomerase (see my Anonymous post a little further up regarding immortalized cells). Because of this, there offspring (the gametes) have the proper telomere length, minus maybe one generation's length. So the sexual reproduction iteself has really no bearing on it, though many of the early cells during development do express telomerase (otherwise you may have cells by the time that you get to your fingertips or other extremeties that are really old! :P) Hope this give a little more clarification on why old parents don't necessarily have "old" DNA in their gametes.

And a moment of silence was observed by drew_kime · 2003-02-14 11:04 · Score: 1

Throughout New Zealand, Wales and West Virginia.

--
Nope, no sig

BladeRunner Quote: by DJ+FirBee · 2003-02-14 11:17 · Score: 1

What ? Aren't their Nerds here. Where is the BladeRunner quote or the Blade Runner joke or whatever ?

What are you waiting for ?

Please ??

This is farging rediculous.

What happens... by ATMAvatar · 2003-02-14 11:22 · Score: 1

...if Microsoft owns the cyborg industry and your body BSODs?

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

WOOOOHOOO!!! by Dolemite_the_Wiz · 2003-02-14 11:26 · Score: 1

Haggis for everyone!!!!

Let's eat!!!

Dolemite

--
Save the World! Use a Quote!

Re:What about the problems with Genetic Engineerin by ATMAvatar · 2003-02-14 11:26 · Score: 1

Imagine a hacker, taking a 10MB binary, disembling it by hand, randomly tinkering with a few bytes here and there, then looking for effects when they run it. Would you consider that app bug free? Now imagine 1 million hackers, taking 10MB binaries that are all slightly different, and communicating back and forth to see what the trends are between code differences and functional differences. Get them all to tinker with the programs, and... does this sound familiar yet?

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

No official announcement on Dolly's website by Zerbey · 2003-02-14 11:42 · Score: 1

It's interesting to note, that although most of the major news sites have picked up on this, no announcement has been put on the "official" site. That's just not right.

I wonder if Dolly ever knew how important she was? I wonder what her view on all the excitement she generated would be?

Obviously a sign by jforr · 2003-02-14 11:51 · Score: 1

From our alien master creators that we should kill more sheep and eat lamb chops.

does anybody know if Dolly got laid in her life? by lingqi · 2003-02-14 11:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's actually a pretty important question, if you think about it, not even on the "at least give the sheep what it might want" sort of way. few examples:

* does cloned animals retain "normal" sexual apetite? (i.e. would a cloned panda be more, or possibly even less willing to fuck than the one's we've got right now?)

* If dolly does suffer from premature aging, would her offspring suffer the same thing? how would the offspring from a cloned animal be compared to an offspring of the source animal? (with the same "father," let's say)

--

My life in the land of the rising sun.

British Consulate by rwise2112 · 2003-02-14 12:17 · Score: 1

I was suprised by this story today, as just earlier I had noticed, for the first time, a huge sign on the british Consulate in downtown Ottawa, Canada promoting British technology.

The line that sttod out was "from DNA to Dolly".

I hope they didn't just put it up!

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"

From What it Sounded Like on NPR by Greyfox · 2003-02-14 12:18 · Score: 3, Informative

It wasn't that Dolly was a clone. Dolly was kept indoors with a bunch of other sheep (some clones, some not) and this virus was spreading in the whole population. It doesn't sound like the disease was directly related to her being a clone.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Pictures here! by Chocolate+Teapot · 2003-02-14 12:44 · Score: 1

goates^H^H^H^H^HDolly.jpg

--
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare

more fancher by braintartare · 2003-02-14 12:53 · Score: 1

TYRELL I'm surprised you didn't come to me sooner. BATTY It's not an easy thing to meet your maker. TYRELL And what can he do for you? BATTY Can the maker repair what he makes? TYRELL Would you like to be modified? BATTY Had in mind something a little more radical. TYRELL What's the problem? BATTY Death. TYRELL I'm afraid that's a little out of my... Batty cuts in with a whisper. BATTY I want more life, fucker. TYRELL Come here. Batty walks forward. TYRELL Sit down. Batty does. TYRELL The facts of life. I'll be blunt. To make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system, at least by men, makers or not, it fatal. A coding sequence can't be revised once it's established. BATTY Why? TYRELL Because by the second day of incubation any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies -- like rats leaving a sinking ship. Th ship sinks. BATTY What about E.M.S. recombination? TYRELL We've already tried it -- ethyl methane sulfonate is an alkylating agent and a potent mutagen -- it creates a virus so lethal the subject was destroyed before we left the table. Batty nods grimly. BATTY Then a repressor protein that blocks the operating cells. TYRELL Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries a mutation and you're got a virus again... but all this is academic -- you are made as good as we could make you. BATTY But not to last.

Telemers by mumwahead · 2003-02-14 13:02 · Score: 1, Interesting

Seems to me I recall a show on the discovery channel or in some backwater of a biology course I took that linked the degredation of telemer chains on the ends of chromosomes to the effects of aging. I wonder if perhaps taking the chromosomes from the original sheep, with depleted telemers, caused Dolly to age faster than a sheep with a newer supply. If anyone can substantiate this claim lemme know.

The circle of Cloning is complete. by TheAwfulTruth · 2003-02-14 13:47 · Score: 1

Artificially created life,
artificially induced death.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!

100 years ago mutton was more popular than lamb by DABANSHEE · 2003-02-14 14:33 · Score: 1

It was considered much more flavoursome

But cross breed sheep over time helped make lamb tastier than what it was

Me I prefer saltbush hogget

Re:100 years ago mutton was more popular than lamb by ckaminski · 2003-02-17 03:25 · Score: 1

I thought it was the fact that modern lambs aren't allowed to MOVE at all, and that's what gives lamb-meat it's delicious and succulent flavor and tenderness.

FTR: I hate veal, but love chops... go figure.
-Chris

Loser. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 15:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Then go off and FUCKING DIE! OK? Just die and leave this earthblahblahblahtypicalmindlesscrap

*Rolls eyes* Oh, do shut the fuck up. Drama Queen.

Science marches on weather your Luddite ass likes it or not. And if this sort of thing gets your panties all in a wad, I giggle when I think how you'll react in 15-20 years when we really get deep into eugenics via genetic engineering, and nanotech takes off. I guess you'll be in your bunker somewhere, cowering under the bed screeching "NOOOOOOO! IF de Lawd meant for us to be immortal/superintelligent/superstrong he would have made us that way! Sinners!"

Sucks to be you.

oops by Sludge · 2003-02-14 15:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Looks like someone left a bug in Dolly's overloaded operator=

Re:What about the problems with Genetic Engineerin by the+gnat · 2003-02-14 15:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Wrong for two reasons:

1. Genetic engineering is not "random". A better comparison would be a hacker taking 10MB of source code to some random program and adding an email client. (hey, like Emacs!)

2. The genetic code can handle quite a bit of "random" mutation. There are cases where it is extremely sensitive to mutation, such as sickle-cell leukemia (single poylmorphisim that causes hemoglobin to form chains), but there are "silent" mutations and even amino acid mutations that will have no effect.

Do Clones Dream of Clonic Sheep? Re:Bladerunner by ASeed · 2003-02-14 15:38 · Score: 1

Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very very brightly, ___ Dolly. ...

Gaff : It's too bad she(ep) won't live. But then again, who does?

--

--
ACid

Your logic is suspect by NullProg · 2003-02-14 15:54 · Score: 1

Cool, that means we can wage war, murder, rape, plunder, enslave, and exploit.
I am not trying to start a flame war. You may want to redefine/tweak your logic.

Answer the question. Are immoral acts natural?

--
It's just the normal noises in here.

Re:Your logic is suspect by drinkypoo · 2003-02-14 17:34 · Score: 1

Answer the question. Are immoral acts natural?

What are you really asking me? By your standard of morality, or by mine? Where does nature leave off, and where do we begin? Is a microbial septic system natural? Is organic planting of GM wheat natural? For that matter, almost nothing we eat was made by nature. My friend Rodent had in his sig something to the effect of "you are what you don't poop." Most of your veggies will run right through but you're made of protein, except your fat, which is usually made of bread, rice, or junk food. How much of what we're made of is natural? Yet I think you could still argue that if someone shed all their worldly posessions and went into the wilderness and lived among the fucking wolves or something they would be "one with nature". (I'm picturing Denis Leary, who is funny (unlike me tonight) saying this with a severe case of coke nose and making really exaggerated quotation marks with his fingers in mockery of that kind of behavior.) So then are you still natural if you pick up a stick and tie a rock to it? That's now more than a simple machine, you might actually be intelligent. Is that unnatural?

SO back to your question, they're not unnatural, they're unusual. You could say that life is the opposite of entropy because it is so unlikely. We are little blobs of amazing states of order. While of course we are tremendously insignificant when compared to the universe at large, we do obey largely the same rules at some quantum level (we hope.) Where I'm going with all this wankery is to say that if it happens, it's part of the natural order, because it's possible. Whether we want that thing to happen is entirely a different question but it has nothing to do with what is natural.

Consider also that there are numerous cases of sexual assault amongst the animal kingdom, which we consider to be one of the worst things which one being can do to another. Hell, we even have laws against doing it to animals, or the dead, or dead animals (surely it violates some health statute in nearly every jurisdiction) which demonstrates how important that is to us. Is sexual assault natural? It seems so. Is that at all significant? Not really.

What is significant is what rules we decide to make and enforce as a society, not what is natural. Those rules should ultimately be some widely acceptable subset of what we all want. I think we can all agree on a number of them, though some of us will dicker over terms here and there -- not to say that terminology is not important, but at least our hearts are in the same place, so to speak.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

technicality and the carnal side of clones by chloroquine · 2003-02-14 15:59 · Score: 1

Ok, I know I'm being a bit of twit for pointing this out, but it isn't methylization, it is methylation. CpG methylation (putting methyl groups on CG nucleotides) can indeed be used for imprinting, but there have been very nice studies on this showing how these things work and don't work with cloned animals.

You might enjoy reading this article in Genome Biology. I'm including a link to the abstract in pubmed. In this article Mann and Bartolomei review a whole bunch of neat stuff, which would be fun to read if I had a subscription to the journal in question. Science journals are annoying that way. (Darn publishers. Go biomed central!)

Another review, this time from Science, comes from Jaenisch's lab out at MIT. It provides a nice explanation of epigenetics and why it is still pretty hard to get live birth clones.

And, on a lighter note, one of my coworkers was out in Scotland a few years ago, and got to go see Dolly. He has a nice picture of him standing next to her which he keeps tacked up on the bulletin board by his lab bench. He also has another picture that is not posted. In this one he is pretending to hump Dolly.

I guess he'll be mourning her in a special way this Valentine's Day.

Silence of the Leg O' Lamb by CognitiveFusion · 2003-02-14 16:04 · Score: 1

At least now the cloners and anti-cloners can discuss the implications over dinner, assuming whatever they put her down with doesn't leave a funky after-taste.

--
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it. ~A. Perlis

Fuck this. by rice_burners_suck · 2003-02-14 16:07 · Score: 1

I find cloning distasteful. Yes, it would be cool if they could grow your own organs for you when the ones you have break down or something. But if the new one is identical to the one that's all fucked up, then won't the new one fail too? Shit, let's say you live 100 years and then one day, your guts stop working for some reason. I don't know... some gear breaks or some belt comes loose or something. So they grow new guts for you in the body of some wild boar or antelope or something, and then you live another 100 years. Oh.... Ok, maybe cloning is a good idea after all.

Hello, Lunch! by Reziac · 2003-02-14 16:55 · Score: 1

My bologna has a first name, it's bio-research staff,
My bologna has a second name, it's gas chromatograph,
And I have wondered, so have you
Why it tastes the way it dooooooo...
Well, Oscar Meyer has a way
With recombinant DNA!!

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Re:Hello, Lunch! by fuzdout · 2003-02-14 17:04 · Score: 1

I will NEVER eat bologna again...

--
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?

Cults Cloned Kids by Whitecloud · 2003-02-14 19:15 · Score: 1

Where does this leave raliens cloned human children? Those kids cloned in the states will be pretty smart by the time they are 13, maybe smart enough to realise they might be dead by 21, horribly aged and wrinkled before the hormones kick in, but smart enough to sue the pants off their "parents" for the paltry life given them. the Irony.

--

Do you need a website upgrade?

on reversing aging by Tablizer · 2003-02-14 21:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Even if this telomere function were well-established, it doesn't entirely explain the aging process. It seems that part of the process is due to oxidative damage caused by radical reactions in the mitochondria. But similar reactions happen in chloroplasts and some plants live for millenia!

Aging is a tough problem to solve. It appears that cell reproduction errors build up over the life-time of an organism. Many of the symptoms of aging are the slowing of metabolism to reduce the chances of mistakes. If an organism is tweaked to bypass this slowdown, then cancer and similar deseases will probably end you because errors occure more often when metabolism is turned up high.

Thus, aging is a balance between a rock (slower metabolism) and a hard place (cancer).

The closest analogy that comes to mind is the basketball season. If a team plays too hard mid-season, they may have too many injuries by the time the playoffs come. And, if they don't play hard enough, they won't make it to (win enough games for) the playoffs.

Perhaps the best solution against human aging would be to slow the body's metabolism, but not the brain's. Modern living usually requires less physical exertion than our body is tuned for.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Dollywood by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-14 21:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

http://www.chrisbuck.com/archive2/index_dolly.ht ml

The moral: by vistic · 2003-02-14 23:24 · Score: 1

"What the scientists giveth, the scientists can taketh away"

how old do sheep normally live by infocalypse1 · 2003-02-14 23:39 · Score: 1

I may be the only actual sheep farmer to reply on this thread! This whole thing is totally silly for two basic reasons. (1) This type of pneumonia is relatively common. The average age of a working ewe is ~8 years. I have seen a number of sheep die from this condition at 6 years or less over the past few years. If you told me that any other 6 year old ewe died, it wouldn't be notable. (2) There is zero statistical basis to make any conclusions. What's the distribution of mortality in sheep, or even in Scottish sheep of this particular variety. The sample size required to say whether or not the event is statistically meaningful is quite large. This is thetype of stupid pseudo-science that I've come to despise. Logic, anyone?

Oh no! by Ace905 · 2003-02-15 01:32 · Score: 1

That's horrible, I can only imagine what the Rayliens multi-coloured hair scientist with no credentials has managed to do to those poor, anonymous human clones.

--Doug

--

Ace

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-02-15 02:42 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dolly, cloning, etc... by bikerguy99 · 2003-02-15 06:27 · Score: 1

I've spent few years doing some experimental stuff related to cloning in a major academic research intstitution on the east coast. Dolly's life from cloning to premature departure from this to a better world is a remarkable event in the history of biological science. HEre is why: it took about 100 years to progress from 1869 Miescher's (sp?) description of nucleoprotein in pus cells to the Watson-Crick model of DNA. Since early 1960's the effort was to describe how the genetic information is tranformed into something that can be used to build cells, tissues, organs - RNA transcription, protein translation and biochemical machinery that does it. By today we have a pretty good general undertanding of how that stuff works but many important details are missing as yet. Cloning attempts are old by now (~70 years). From the very onset, the idea was to examine the mechanism of functional specialization of cells. Theoretically cells can either lose some DNA to achieve this goal or do something else. Cloning shows that at least some cells that can produce clones retain the whole developmental program from the embryo to a fertile adult. And considering the success of cloning of many mammals from various cell types, it is pretty safe to conclude that likely it is epigenetic modifications (non-genetic but stable modifications that can be propagated even when DNA is replicated) of the genome, such as DNA methylation, that are involved in cell specialization. Telomere length is another important consideration for both cloning and cancer biology. So what's the point you may ask by now? Here it is: Cloning of farm animals is only a smaller element of a bigger picture. You have to look beyond this. Success of cloning of Dolly and many other cloned animals demonstrated that early ideas of being able to design chemical drugs and biologicals that could affect development are reasonable. Death of Dolly, low efficiency of cloning, abnormalities of clones are the signs of a very complicated and as yet poorly understood mechanisms of epigenetic control and reprogramming of the genome (yes, reprogramming!) during normal development after fertilization and after nuclear transfer in cloning experiments. The whole media frenzy, right wing's negative reaction and idiotic claims of various docs, clans and biotechs is the reflection of a great scientific process that takes place in a number of labs around the world. There is a lot to learn and whatever we find - it will be really cool because the Nature designed it and beta-tested it for a long-long time. Likely winners of this search will be recipients of stem cell-based therapies, tissue degenerative disorders and cancer patients.

252 of 365 comments (clear)