A Giant Step in Cloning

mernil writes "The Independent reports: "A technical breakthrough has enabled scientists to create for the first time dozens of cloned embryos from adult monkeys, raising the prospect of the same procedure being used to make cloned human embryos."

Comments

hmmmm

[theheadlessrabbit]

now all we need to work on is cloning typewriters, and we'll be set!

Re:hmmmm

[Daimanta]

Well that, and a million years.

Re:hmmmm

[Thanshin]

Or a way of getting year embryos from adult years.

Re:hmmmm

[tacocat]

I was thinking more like .. Now I can finally get my very own Angelina Jolie, Rachael Welch, Ingred Bergman.. Whatever suits my fancy

Re:hmmmm

[somersault]

Yeah, after you've raised them as your daughters o_0 they still don't have accelerated aging, or accelerated education ;)

Re:hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

you can also be rejected by clones of Jessica Alba and Halle Berry. Whatever suits your fancy.

Re:hmmmm

[abes]

No no no. We already have Shakespeare, and we all know that is all monkeys are good at. Never understood why people were so intent on recreating Shakespeare. Plus, I believe all monkeys are part of the WGA, so it would be pointless right now anyways.

Re:hmmmm

[boltik]

No, but you can have monkeys. Dozen of them...

Re:hmmmm

[somersault]

-.- hmph

Re:hmmmm

[davidsyes]

Really, ethically, I think, these are still beings that should NOT be manufactured for sexual exploitation reasons. In this life, if you can't GET sex (consensually, hopefully), then existentially you probably "unearned" it in this or a previous lifetime.

It's one thing to joke about sex, and another when people get fantastical ideas of having organic clones of humans for sexual gratification. For those wanting human clones for sexual reasons, go get a real doll, or pray for a neural dream-controlling simulator, like in that Wesley Snipes movie.

Re:hmmmm

[bdjacobson]

and this is why we are not ready for cloning

Re:hmmmm

[bfischer]

mod parent up - seriously. How is a clone that is a sex slave any more ethical than any other enslaved entity?

Re:hmmmm

[krotkruton]

I would have gone with offtopic. The GP pointed out why the "sex slave" idea doesn't apply to this discussion since you'd still have to raise the clones. Had you replied to the GPP, then your comment would have made more sense as he was the one who made the joke about cloning his very own celebrity. But if that had been the case, the Troll mod would have made more sense since you were creating an argument out of a joke, and I doubt I'm the only one who's tired about people picking apart the ethics or factual details in jokes.

"An Internet troll... is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages... with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response." (wikipedia). Hope that clears it up for ya.

Re:hmmmm

[rrkap]

Yeah, after you've raised them as your daughters o_0 they still don't have accelerated aging, or accelerated education ;)

You're right, not everybody has the patience of Woody Allen...

Re:hmmmm

[kehren77]

Yeah, after you've raised them as your daughters o_0 they still don't have accelerated aging, or accelerated education ;)

But if you educate them, they'll shoot you down. Just like the original.

Don't we have too many people roaming this planet as it is? Do we really need this technology? I mean seriously, does anyone want multiple copies of George W Bush wandering around? Or Michael Moore?

Or the worst case scenario.... an immortal Dick Cheney?

Re:hmmmm

[psychicsword]

Um you don't need education for what he will be doing so once they have the accelerated aging he will be fine

Re:hmmmm

[tacocat]

Damn! I hadn't thought of that. Now I can rejected by even more pretty girls than I have already.

Maybe I'll just get a nice dog and take him for a walk.

The English canon

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our Shakespeare-typing overlords.

hmmmmm . . .

[spamking]

If Michael Jackson is cloned, is it against the law for him to play with himself as a child?

some of these are good

Re:hmmmmm . . .

[kalpaha]

Ok, explain to me this: there are a million variations of a joke around the 'net that are based on the same punchline: "For making an obscene clone fall". As a non-native english speaker I have no idea what's so funny about that, and nothing in the definition of the words obscene, clone or fall would seem to explain it. Searching for any combination of the phrase just yields the same old joke, repeated again and again, without any mention of what the origins are. Here's a star trek flavour of the joke.

Dr. M'Benga was experimenting with cloning alien species. His first experiment was a disaster; the result was ugly and obscene. He decided to get rid of it by jettisoning it out of the hatch. Unfortunately, Captain Kirk saw him do it, and now M'Benga is facing a charge of making an obscene clone fall.

There's even a completely unrelated joke with the same punchline:

For all those unfamiliar with Tenne-C, the comment delimiter is WHISPER. The computer stores all WHISPERed comments in memory, but the instruction execution unit can never quite decode them, so they are ignored. Some beta site users have reported an occasional problem with IBM clone machines. These machines may get slightly confused or mildly paranoid due to the whispered remarks in the background, but the effects are usually limited to an occasional mutterance printed on the display. Note that the optional extended obcenity instruction set should not be installed in clone machines. Should such a machine crash, you could be arrested for making an obscene clone fall.

Not getting the joke is drivin' me nuts.

Re:hmmmmm . . .

[EaglemanBSA]

It's a pun, supposed to sound like "obscene phone call"

Re:hmmmmm . . .

[JFitzsimmons]

That's not a pun.

Re:hmmmmm . . .

[Spokehedz]

The joke, "Making an obscene clone fail" is a play on words of the phrase "Making an obscene phone call". the 'ph' sound makes an F sound. Phone sounds like 'fone'.

An obscene phone call is when someone calls up and starts to breath heavy into the phone (perverts) or when someone calls up and starts talking in a very sexual manner.

Now that I have squeezed every last bit of funny from the joke, it's time to get back to work.

Re:hmmmmm . . .

[twistedsymphony]

Actually, it is a pun. Technically that phrase is a spoonerism, which when said intentionally rather than by mistake, is considered a pun.

Re:hmmmmm . . .

[MozeeToby]

If you cloned Henry IV, would he be Henry V or Henry IV Jr?

What if we cloned Henry IV JR? Henry IV... The Third?

Re:hmmmmm . . .

[davidsyes]

And, if you digress into Spoonerisms, the one that started or woke me up to doing them was by a friend in the 7th grade when he said:

"Miss on you Pister. You aren't so MUCKING FUTCH. Why don't you go to your jack yard and BACK off?"

Re:hmmmmm . . .

[kalpaha]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I could not figure it out, although I'm perfectly familiar with the pronunciation of the words and we have similiar word plays in the Finnish language as well. I think it may be due to the fact that I would have expected the phrase "obscene phone call" to be transformed into "obscene cone fall" whereas "obscene clone fall" would become "obscene fone clall" or "obscene flone call".

one problem

[ILuvRamen]

They still haven't solved the #1 problem with cloning though: why would I want another one of me? My exact genes aren't that great as is.

Re:one problem

[dintech]

Your genetic code? No, probably not. Barbera Streisand? That's another matter altogether.

Re:one problem

[vadim_t]

Replacement parts.

Grow a clone without a brain to avoid the ethical implications. Keep it safely stored (frozen in liquid nitrogen?). If you need a transplant of anything you can get a new organ, fully compatible, and even better than before (lungs undamaged by smoke/contamination, etc).

Might work as a way of living longer. Heart is not doing so well when you're 70? Replace it with one from a 20 year old clone.

I could see modified clones being used. A gender swapped clone, a clone with blue eyes, fixed genetics to avoid diseases and cancer, etc. If you could move your brain to a new clone and keep this up long enough I could see people building a "perfect self", by fixing all the defects in each new iteration that they found in the previous body.

Re:one problem

[morgan_greywolf]

They still haven't solved the #1 problem with cloning though: why would I want another one of me? My exact genes aren't that great as is. Why not? Let's say, sometime in the distant future, maybe 20 years from now, you become a Type II Diabetic, and as a result you experience total renal failure. With a clone of yourself, you have not one but two kidneys that are guaranteed/i not to be rejected, since it will have your exact same genes, your exact same blood type, etc.

Re:one problem

[ookabooka]

Exactly, I mean you could be at risk for liver cancer, you know how hard it is to find a match for a new liver? A genetically identical clone could eventually have the same problem though probably at a later date than you. Why would you want a genetically identical clone. . .:-p

I suppose someone super egotistical person would raise a clone of him/herself. Or if you lose a loved one this would be a way to replace them. . .scary stuff, hard to really think of a truly legitimate reason to actually need a clone. Cloning tissue or creating cloned organs by themselves however is incredibly useful, I think it's much more probable this tech will be used to make embryos which are then harvested for stem cells. Whether or not we should pursue it for that reason is worth another 500 slashdot posts :)

Re:one problem

[squiggleslash]

Given the brain manages the body, it seems improbable that you can get away with creating a brainless clone.

(Unless you're talking about creating Republicans! Arf arf!)

No, but seriously I think the technical challenges created by somehow genetically modifying a human to have no brain or a significantly modified zero-consciousness brain are far, far, greater than those that were up against cloning. I suspect that cloning helps us create brainless organ-donors in the same way that the wheel helped us create space rockets.

Re:one problem

[PrescriptionWarning]

I could see modified clones being used. A gender swapped clone, a clone with blue eyes, fixed genetics to avoid diseases and cancer, etc. If you could move your brain to a new clone and keep this up long enough I could see people building a "perfect self", by fixing all the defects in each new iteration that they found in the previous body.

So long as you're only fixing "defects", such as illnesses, cancer, etc. I think its a marvelous idea. But once you start talking about putting your brain in another body is a whole nother mess in itself because it trivializes the point of having a body in the first place. We may as well just be floating brains.

Re:one problem

[BigDogCH]

"Grow a clone without a brain............."

The problem here is clear. What if I need a brain because of a stroke, head trauma, or something?

The key here is clearly to keep the clone sedated, and do a nightly robocopy or rsync to keep it updated. Also, the clone should be stored offsite, probably in a fireproof vault.

Re:one problem

[vadim_t]

No, but seriously I think the technical challenges created by somehow genetically modifying a human to have no brain or a significantly modified zero-consciousness brain are far, far, greater than those that were up against cloning. I suspect that cloning helps us create brainless organ-donors in the same way that the wheel helped us create space rockets.

Why, this even happens naturally. People are born with all sorts of horrific malformations, some of which include no brain, and probably being born as a vegetable as well. It's probably much faster to figure it out from that than try to do it from scratch.

Of course a problem with doing things this way is that the clone's genetic code would include all this extreme brain damage, making it probably impossible to reproduce normally.

Re:one problem

[skoaldipper]

Replacement parts.

If you saw how sausage was made, you wouldn't eat it. Your post gives me flashbacks.

Re:one problem

[Paradise Pete]

But once you start talking about putting your brain in another body is a whole nother mess in itself because it trivializes the point of having a body in the first place.

Compared to your brain, which body it's in is a whole lot less important. Put your brain in a replacement body and it's still you, just with some weird body. But put a replacement brain in your body and you cease to be.

Re:one problem

[rice_web]

No... but /mine/ are.

Re:one problem

[olman]

Might work as a way of living longer. Heart is not doing so well when you're 70? Replace it with one from a 20 year old clone.

They'd have to figure out a way to "reset" your DNA/Telomerase/whatnot first. Otherwise you'll have a 20yr old heart that's (almost) as crappy as your 70yr old except for proper diet and blah.

Re:one problem

[squiggleslash]

Well, yeah, some are born brainless (after living in the womb with the mother's life support mechanism in operation, and with most growth designed to run without brain oversight), but how many continue to live and grow outside of the womb? Even if we were to, as an experiment, put such a baby on a life support system, how likely is it that the body would develop? I assume that the body's growth outside of the womb is in large part due to mechanisms controlled by the brain.

Re:one problem

[_KiTA_]

They still haven't solved the #1 problem with cloning though: why would I want another one of me? My exact genes aren't that great as is.

If I ever need a kidney, I'd love to just be able to clone one of my originals. 0 chance of rejection!

Not to mention that by the time we're socially ready for cloning people, we'll likely have enough genetic engineering around to customize the clones. "Yeah, um, I want a clone of me, but, you know, taller and with a better metabolism."

And hey, sooner or later we'll get around to figuring out Mind Uploading / Downloading. Tired of being 50? Clone yourself a nice new 18 year old body and move your mind on in.

Or a combination of all 3. Tired of being fat, lazy, and having no charisma? Clone yourself a few years younger, make sure your new body is genetically pre-disposed to being attractive and physically talented, and move your brain on in.

Re:one problem

[Yoozer]

The key here is clearly to keep the clone sedated, and do a nightly robocopy or rsync to keep it updated. Also, the clone should be stored offsite, probably in a fireproof vault.

You insensitive clod! I have no mouth and I must scream!

Re:one problem

[Intron]

No. It needs physical activity to keep healthy, but no mental activity or it will become independent. I suggest making it a postal worker.

Re:one problem

[somersault]

Remember to poke some airholes in the vault.

Re:one problem

[PrescriptionWarning]

I think there's some psychological condition that some major burn victims have when they have to have complete facial reconstructive surgery, even if their new face doesn't appear horrific, getting used to someone else staring you back in the face in the mirror might be quite a shock to someone. Now imagine its their entire body that has changed.

Re:one problem

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Reminder to self: Breathe in. To Do. Cause stomach muscles to pulsate. Reminder to self: Breathe out. OMG!!!!, Atria contract, venticles contract, atria contract, ventricles contract. That was close! What was I doing again? Oh yes, Reminder to self: Breathe in, breathe out.

Re:one problem

[Upaut]

Well, many reasons. When you begin the cloning process, you could halt it and harvest the stem cells, to repair your damaged tissues. Have only half a liver? Put in a scaffold impregnated with the triggers for liver development, saturate it with the cells, and watch your liver grow into a virgin hunk of meat that can once again keep you alive. Of course if we got to the point the scaffold works that well, then you can clone pretty much any organ.

So lets step back, and try another reason: Technology does not enable the scaffolding method well enough to get you your lungs, but through developmental science we know, by applying markers to the cells, what cells become what in the end. So you take a blastocyst of a normal pig, and another of a human (your cloned self). No remove the cells of the pig that will become your internal organs with that of the pig. Heck, even blood for usage in the surgery. Then culture the blastocyst further down the line, make sure its healthy, and implant it into a swine. If all goes well, you have a living organ bank to draw from.

Better then having the stress of waiting for someone to die to get an organ, will kill the black market trade in organs, no anti-rejection drugs needed, and you wouldn't need to bother a family member for a kidney.

Thats why.

Re:one problem

[residieu]

If you're transplanting brains, why put your brain in another squishy human body? Much better to put your brain into a robot body.

Re:one problem

[mdwh2]

We're talking clones, so it wouldn't be a different face, let alone a whole different body.

Changes suggested by the OP such as eye colour are hardly comparable - otherwise people would have psychological problems everytime they put those coloured contact lenses!

Also note that these changes would be done by people who wanted them - so modifications to your face would be more comparable to cosmetic surgery (and could be counted as "fixing defects", anyway).

Re:one problem

[inviolet]

The problem here is clear. What if I need a brain because of a stroke, head trauma, or something?

The key here is clearly to keep the clone sedated, and do a nightly robocopy or rsync to keep it updated. Also, the clone should be stored offsite, probably in a fireproof vault.

Ah, but now you've got to answer the "transporter question": if you could duplicate yourself perfectly, would that duplicate be 'you'?

Certainly the duplicate would insist that it was indeed 'you', because it genuinely thinks that it is. But, if we destroyed your original body, would your consciousness resume in the duplicate? Or would this-instance-of-you end, and someone exactly like you take over?

There's no way ever to know the answer, yet it's a critical question when it comes to brain-duping. It's the secular version of the old religious question of what is contained in the spirit (and is thus eternal) versus what is contained in the brain (and is thus lost upon death).

Re:one problem

[mOdQuArK!]

The body provides a support infrastructure for the brain that we don't really know how to reproduce via robotics.

Re:one problem

[AVee]

Grow a clone without a brain to avoid the ethical implications. If you really believe that would avoid all ethical implications I suggest we remove your brain and see if the clone is any smarter.

Re:one problem

[vadim_t]

If you really believe that would avoid all ethical implications I suggest we remove your brain and see if the clone is any smarter.

You really don't see a difference between removing somebody's brain and growing a body that didn't have one in the first place?

Do you then think there's something wrong with growing replacement parts (been done with ears for example)?

What's the ethical difference between growing a new ear and growing a full set of organs, brain excluded?

Re:one problem

[bsmoor01]

Sure, it can be done.

1 - Send person to be cloned into a coma.
2 - Prepare clone (rsync brain)
3 - Destroy original
4 - Place clone in location where original was put into a coma (for continuity)
5 - Wake up clone

Bam! It's you.

The only nitpick I see here is if you are a mind/body dualist.

Re:one problem

[vadim_t]

Certainly the duplicate would insist that it was indeed 'you', because it genuinely thinks that it is. But, if we destroyed your original body, would your consciousness resume in the duplicate? Or would this-instance-of-you end, and someone exactly like you take over?

My guess is that it wouldn't be me. I see it this way:

Imagine you've duplicated your body and are now working on the brain. You assemble it neuron by neuron (ignore the impracticality for the sake of the argument). Will there be a point where you add a neuron and your perspective suddenly changes from seeing your clone on an operation table to feeling yourself lie on the table and seeing the original operate the brain building machine?

I can't think of any reason why should such a thing happen. In my view, a transporter is simply doing that except much faster.

Re:one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"Grow a clone without a brain to avoid the ethical implications."

This does not avoid all the ethical implications. Two ways to make a clone without a brain: suppress the brain gene expression, or remove the genes. Either have unknown side effects on the rest of the body, so may not be viable anyway. But the ethical problem is that you've just effectively destroyed a human embryo. This is ethically equivalent to an abortion. OK, effectively, but not actually destroyed the embryo: you've forced perfect retardation on an otherwise physically normal human.

Humans are more than parts to be harvested or discarded, regardless of age.

Re:one problem

[Anonymous Coward]

This is complete nonsense. I have twin identical sons, and they don't think that they're each other. They are simply two different humans who happen to have the same genetic structure.

If you were to give them precisely the same brain set-up in some magical way (ghost an image over?) what you would have is two seperate humans who, just for a moment when they woke up, were thinking identical thoughts. After a few seconds they would be thinking completely different thoughts, but they would never think that they WERE each other.

You've been watching too much Hollywood. A problem with Americans...

Re:one problem

[argStyopa]

Unfortunately, technology to grow the clones seems to be progressing much faster than your other 'miracle' techs: body freezing, or (most obviously) growing them without a brain (not possible, IMO).

So the ethical question will remain: if we are CAPABLE of doing something, that doesn't mean that DOING it is ethical. Self-evident? Sure it is, but we stupid hairless apes can't even agree on the morality of convenience-killing our not-quite-born young, do you think we're ready to resolve the question about whether we 'should' be growing what will for all intents be PEOPLE for their spare-part value?

Hell, there are credible reports that the most populous country on the planet is selling the organs of prisoners on the black market, how big a step is this from that?

Sadly, the technology isn't going to wait for us to resolve the ethical dilemma. People with enough cash will be able to find medical technologists who are either morally blind or willing to be so "in the pursuit of science" to do their bidding.

Re:one problem

[CubicleView]

Ummm, safely frozen? I'd be well pissed off after defrosting what I thought would be my better half only to be left with a brused soggy mess with bones. If you want a spare, I suggest you don't freeze it, just feed and clean it every day until you need it, oh and electrocute it regularly to keep the muscles from getting lazy etc etc

Re:one problem

[poached]

Replacement parts. Wasn't this the premise of the movie The Island, that clones were used for replacement parts? And you know what happened in the movie right? Clones have feelings too!

Re:one problem

[davidsyes]

Inextricably, part of living REQUIRES dying. It is the height of selfishness and ludicrousness for some and not ALL to have life-extending capabilities. We already have over 5 billion people on THIS planet, and probably 1/2 don't get the nutrition enjoyed and taken for granted by less than 1/4 of the human population.

Consider that embracing reincarnation is a way to begin to live life in a way that will earn you merits to a better, healthier, possibly wealthier future life.

Besides, WHO -- government, corporation, religious sect -- will decide who can extend his/her life? How much money one has? How influential or criminal one is? At what point is it a RIGHT for ALL to extend their life when debilitation makes its call? Imagine if the existing population gets the right by law, and reproduction continues?

And, if you live for a comparative 15 or even 45 lifetimes, what happens with the UNUSED body parts of say, 600 million people's spares? And what if some are wealthy enough to have multiple clones and not all the parts are used?

What if some of those clones gain sentience and are liberated? Would the source/host have the right to terminate that clone? Will the state or church mandate its destruction?

This isn't so much about "playing God" (I'm Buddhist, and I tend to feel we ALL are part of a fabric of causality and that we by definition are the fabric of "God", until proven otherwise), but it's about in THIS world denying quality of life for those souls and bodies already here and being ignored, to the greater harm of humanity as a whole. This generates bad Karma.

Just DIE when your time comes. If you live nicely, eventually, you'll come back. You may even in some instances reconnect with others you had little time with. Until we equitably and in heartfelt manners change the pitiful economic models of some pitiful countries (wealthy and poor), unnecessary suffering will exist beyond minimal suffering.

Now, if the cloning is restricted to PARTS, and not whole bodies, and if therefore these "parts" are non-ambulatory, that might be a better solution. But, still, even if you can life 52 comparative generations, how long before you will be forced to give up your job so others can fill that role while it exists? If you are forced out, with no income (criminal or legal), then at what point will you decide dying at 152 is better than hanging on till 362?

Out of control body cloning might eventually lead to a "Soylent Green" scenario, I think.

Re:one problem

[CommunistHamster]

Presumably some people would say "but the body can biologically support itself, all it needs is a brain. The ears are just blobs of cartilage and flesh (and a very tiny bone)" Well, the ears could live by themselves, if only they had a body.

Re:one problem

[CommunistHamster]

But then we'll have hyperpigs. Think of the economic state of the Yellowstone system!

Re:one problem

[vadim_t]

So the ethical question will remain: if we are CAPABLE of doing something, that doesn't mean that DOING it is ethical. Self-evident? Sure it is, but we stupid hairless apes can't even agree on the morality of convenience-killing our not-quite-born young, do you think we're ready to resolve the question about whether we 'should' be growing what will for all intents be PEOPLE for their spare-part value?

Well, my assumption is that we'd grow organs, not a full human to then remove the brain.

I don't think it can be reasonably argued that a brain-less clone is a person since the medical definition of death is that the brain is non-functional. And if a collection of alive (transplantable ) organs without a brain is somehow a person, what does that mean for transplantation?

Hell, there are credible reports that the most populous country on the planet is selling the organs of prisoners on the black market, how big a step is this from that?

Er, huge difference? Selling organs from prisoners involves mutilating a living intelligent being. Growing a full body without a brain is just growing tissue, something we already routinely do, except more complex.

Re:one problem

[ArsonSmith]

--points at president of US--

Re:one problem

[rucs_hack]

there exists the possibility of cloning portions of human anatomy on pigs. That way the problem of brainless humans would go away. After all why make whole humans if you only want certain bits? Some parts can be regenerated, and skin is pretty much able to go anywhere, except for mucosa, which would just require that we also grow that.

Re:one problem

[kurzweilfreak]

Well for that matter, we don't quite know how to transport a brain from one body to another yet, but I imagine that by the time we figure that one out, we'll probably have figured the robot part out too.

Re:one problem

[genka]

Grow a clone without a brain...
Thanks, but there are already too many lawyers.

Re:one problem

[kurzweilfreak]

Inextricably, part of living REQUIRES dying.

For now.

It is the height of selfishness and ludicrousness for some and not ALL to have life-extending capabilities.

No more than it is that some people have drive expensive cars and not everyone does. Just because something is not available to all RIGHT NOW doesn't mean it should be denied to all. That's how technology works: it starts out expensive and not working very well, then gets a little less expensive and works better, and continues on until it's almost free and ubiquitous.

We already have over 5 billion people on THIS planet, and probably 1/2 don't get the nutrition enjoyed and taken for granted by less than 1/4 of the human population.

There will probably always be haves and have-nots. The promises of nanotechnology/nanomanufacturing may solve this (or not). When we (as in mankind) have the ability to make anything we could want or need on demand, no one ever need be left wanting. That may be assuming a lot though.

Consider that embracing reincarnation is a way to begin to live life in a way that will earn you merits to a better, healthier, possibly wealthier future life.

A romantic notion, but not one grounded in reality.

Besides, WHO -- government, corporation, religious sect -- will decide who can extend his/her life? How much money one has? How influential or criminal one is? At what point is it a RIGHT for ALL to extend their life when debilitation makes its call? Imagine if the existing population gets the right by law, and reproduction continues?

This is a very good question, and the answer will probably be a combination of factors. Certainly it will start out being economically decided, but as technology brings the cost down to be generally available, certain regulations may have to be put in place, most likely to limit reproductive abilities.

And, if you live for a comparative 15 or even 45 lifetimes, what happens with the UNUSED body parts of say, 600 million people's spares? And what if some are wealthy enough to have multiple clones and not all the parts are used?

We throw away unused organic material all the time. When it becomes trivial to clone a heart from a standpoint of ability and materials, what would it matter if an extra one gets destroyed because it isn't needed? If you object on the grounds that you are assuming entire bodies would be cloned just to get at one part with the rest going to waste, I find that assumption unrealistic. We will be cloning parts, not people.

What if some of those clones gain sentience and are liberated? Would the source/host have the right to terminate that clone? Will the state or church mandate its destruction?

I'm sure eventually this will happen, but chances are there will be strict "6th Day" laws against it becoming commonplace or even legal at all. But if it does happen, a person is a person, even a cloned person, and should have all the rights and priviledges thereof as far as the state is concerned. Who cares what the church thinks? Prove I have a soul before you declare that a clone does not.

This isn't so much about "playing God" (I'm Buddhist, and I tend to feel we ALL are part of a fabric of causality and that we by definition are the fabric of "God", until proven otherwise), but it's about in THIS world denying quality of life for those souls and bodies already here and being ignored, to the greater harm of humanity as a whole. This generates bad Karma.

The onus is on you to prove God exists, not the other way around, anymore than it is up to you to prove that Thor doesn't exist. The argument about denying quality of life is a slippery slope. Curing cancer can be considered life extension, in fact, the whole of medical science can, t

Re:one problem

[ILuvRamen]

she's so fugly, she shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. What are you talking about? lol

Re:one problem

[yndrd1984]

I assume that the body's growth outside of the womb is in large part due to mechanisms controlled by the brain.

Physical development is almost completely indifferent to the brain - genetics, chemical signals and location in the body do most of the work. The brain stem does have some glands that would be good to keep for 'normal' development, but the isn't the part of the brain we're trying to leave out. There are quite a few functioning adults with only half their brain intact - they develop fine with only one hemisphere.

Re:one problem

[protobion]

You see, a clone is by definition a genetically identical organism. Anything else is an improvised version. The way things are going : 1] your memory and information is your brain will one day be downloadable to an electronic databank 2] improvised biological versions of you will substantially enhance the genepool of the species and perform your functions more efficiently. ...well, then what do we need you for anymore? PS: Excuse the sci-fi-ish nature of the post.

Re:one problem

[squiggleslash]

The brain stem does have some glands that would be good to keep for 'normal' development, but the isn't the part of the brain we're trying to leave out.

Well, actually, the "part of the brain" we're talking about leaving out is the whole thing, so yes we are and you're making my point for me. But even if we weren't, how easy is it going to be to remove most of the brain except the bits that control bodily development?

One point I meant to add earlier and forgot is that much of the body tends to atrophy if not used, so while the brain may not directly affect it, a conscious brain is required if you want to make a useful body at the end of the process.

Re:one problem

[yndrd1984]

Well, actually, the "part of the brain" we're talking about leaving out is the whole thing, so yes we are and you're making my point for me.

I'm agreeing that leaving out the whole brain is probably not the best way to go. I'm just suggesting a more realistic alternative that avoids your objection - namely leaving out the parts of the brain that lead to being a person rather than just a body.

But even if we weren't, how easy is it going to be to remove most of the brain except the bits that control bodily development?

The only parts of the brain that control growth or development would be the parts that secrete hormones, like the pituitary gland - neural signals don't play a part in it. First, all of those parts are in the lower parts of the brain, and those structures are distinct in several ways, so it should be possible to knock out only the higher parts that are associated with 'personhood'. Second, given how many people use insulin, HGH, melatonin, etc., artificial replacement of the hormones should be possible as well.

One point I meant to add earlier and forgot is that much of the body tends to atrophy if not used, so while the brain may not directly affect it, a conscious brain is required if you want to make a useful body at the end of the process.

You're right, 'blanks' (or whatever you want to call them) would have all of the problems that a coma patient would have. But people have awakened after ten years in a coma and recovered, so this seems more like a cost or ease of use issue than anything else - but I'll take physical therapy over death any day. On the other hand, if you have three backups, losing one isn't a moral issue, so costs could probably be cut quite a bit and experimentation to find better techniques should be easier.

Re:one problem

[Yoozer]

A better solution is a Moravec transfer which works somewhat like the philosophical question already posed in ancient Greece - if a ship has a part of it replaced, and this gradually happens with every single part of the ship, is the ship at the end still the same one that left the harbour when it was new? You take someone's brain. You then disable a neuron, but at the moment you disable it, an artificial neuron starts acting just like the old one. The rest of the brain sees no difference (if you're lucky) and you repeat this action for every neuron until the brain is completely artificial. There, painless transfer of the mind while staying alive. It's just not quick (or possible), and you can't reuse the organic brain. A more interesting matter would be to just scan the brain at an incredibly high resolution and then build a simulation off that. You'd get an artificial clone - but a very interesting one, because it would be able to think faster than realtime (given enough computer power).

Re:Now if only...

[niceone]

Heh, not quite quick enough there. Need more monkeys.

Re:Now if only...

[Hognoxious]

I'm sure there's a patent infringement there.

Title is wrong

[PinkyDead]

You're mixing your metaphors.

It's either 'A Multifold Advance in Cloning' or 'A Giant Step in Genetic Engineering of Monkeys with really big legs'.

Re:Title is wrong

[ookabooka]

Yes well, atleast we know this business strategy has turned a profit even if it took a while, no ??? to fill in. Seriously though, The Wizard of Oz was made in 1932 and didn't make a profit for MGM until 1976, I can't think of any other example of media with that much of a delay.

Hmmm.

[WindBourne]

How soon before we take some of the "icemans" cells and try to clone him? It may be interesting to see what has happened to man over the course of 5000 years. Of course that would require ignoring all ethical issues.

Re:Hmmm.

[Futile Rhetoric]

I'm pretty sure an iceman's DNA wouldn't be salvageable.

Something I've always wondered, what's the huge deal about cloning? It'd be interesting to add a few Einsteins to the world, sure, but apart from that, what are the real advantages? Wouldn't harvesting organs, for instance, be better achieved by using stem cells?

Re:Hmmm.

[LiquidCoooled]

hint: an iceman clone created and grown today will know as much about life 5000 years ago as you or I.

However I do see us attempting to clone wooly mammoths and dodos and other extinct animals.

Re:Hmmm.

[hairykrishna]

Not that interesting - the humans 5000 years ago were basically identical to now. Only real differences are diet and lifestyle related

Re:Hmmm.

[rucs_hack]

I believe that biologically we are no different from him, so we'd gain little there.

It would be interesting though. Getting it past the religious types, now that would be tricky.

I recognize the need for cloning and genetic manipulation. I'm rather hopeful that one day our species will get off this planet, but I am not hopeful it will be to another planet that quickly, Mars is a big job, we may not get to do it.

More likely is that we will fragment into smaller groups occupying pretty big ships, and head off. That could only work with modification to our biology that would help our surface dweller bodies cope with travel in space. After all, even with artificial gravity, there would be differences.

Re:Hmmm.

[skoaldipper]

I think the GP mean to study the changes in iceman's physiology vs. ours. However, in this budget crisis, I think it would be far more beneficial just to melt his clones into more soylent green.

Re:Hmmm.

[WindBourne]

Hint: will they be stronger? Shorter (most likely)? what resistance to what diseases do they have? How fast do the learn? Are their unique biological systems in their bodies that we have lost (for example the appendix originally was thought to be about digestion, but now appears to be a major part of the immune system), etc. etc.
That is life.

The cloning of Mammoths and Dodo are already in the pipeline.

Re:Hmmm.

[WindBourne]

key word on that is "basically". How much do they differ? That is not known. If they do not differ much in 5K years (esp. in intelligence), then it bodes poorly for mankind. Afterall, a species that is stagnant will not adapt that well. OTH, if we made great jumps in intelligence, and can show exactly how we differ over time, than we have an idea of where man is headed.

With all that said, there is more reason to believe that we are not "basically" the same. In current time, we appear to know a lot about virus. Yet that is doubtful. The virus that we know are those that show symptoms on us. It is certain that we have only touched the surface of all the virus. I am guessing that there are 1000 time more virus which inject new genes into our DNA and force small changes on us. In fact, by comparing iceman's DNA against ours may show one or two of these.

Re:Hmmm.

[tompatman]

I think Geico has found some of these humans.

Re:Hmmm.

[domatic]

A certain base level of intelligence precludes many other forms of adaptation. Our current level of intelligence allows a subtropical adapted species to live inside the Arctic circle and it's been done for thousands of years. There are things nature can still throw at us like asteroid strikes and megavolcanoes but up to a certain level all those can do is "end civilization as we know it" not "exterminate humanity". Adaptation can only take place in response to unfriendly conditions that would otherwise make life difficult or impossible. There isn't much nature can do to force changes in our minds and bodies. I don't want to sound like a "transhumanist" but we are slowly gaining the ability to direct future morphological developments and even today we can do a lot with prosthesis. Any future adaptations will be by our choice. Come to think it, the fossilized human in question was surviving in a fairly hostile environment. This alone means comparable intelligence to humans living today.

Re:Hmmm.

[peragrin]

Man of 5k years ago built the pyramids. I don't think you will find a great change of intelligence since then. man of Today is better educated and learns more, but he is still just a man. Now Man of 15k years ago that would be interesting. At the point we started coming together to form villages/tribes man hasn't changed all that much.

Re:Hmmm.

[Intron]

They are identical to the originals except for the craving for brains.

Re:Hmmm.

[ROMRIX]

ya, then ABC killed any chance they had at proving their intellect and having a fruitful if not diminutive career.

Re:Hmmm.

[vertinox]

Not that interesting - the humans 5000 years ago were basically identical to now.

Actually, there is some debate with that because of societal changes through "intelligent selection".

Over the past 5,000 years humans have been killing off other humans based on predispositions. Hence, humans with certain qualities (usually criminals) have be systematically culled up until at least the 1800s when the death penalty was slowly replaced with imprisonment. Not to mention issues with religion and laws about sex possibly changing the genetic makeup of certain parts of humanity.

Although the change would be very unnoticeable, it is possible that genetic traits that affect psychology may have influenced evolution just a tad.

Re:Hmmm.

[lordofthechia]

You're missing the reality TV show possibilities, there's already a sitcom for crying out loud!

Re:Hmmm.

[risk one]

However I do see us attempting to clone wooly mammoths and dodos and other extinct animals.

Yes. We could put them in a zoo for people to see. Or better yet, some sort of theme park. We'd need an isolated island somewhere. We'd need two paleontologists, a chaos theorist, a lawyer and two kids to appraise the safety of the place. And we'd need some sort of hacker to set up the security systems, preferably with those unix systems with the pink boxes.

Re:Hmmm.

[alan_dershowitz]

No they are not. Humans continue to evolve. Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story

Re:Hmmm.

[ShadowsHawk]

It has already been shown that descendants of traditionally short ethnicities grow taller when raised in the United States. That suggests that diet is far more significant than your genetic makeup.

Re:Hmmm.

[lymond01]

It has already been shown that descendants of traditionally short ethnicities grow wider when raised in the United States.

Fixed.

Re:Hmmm.

[davidsyes]

"Why do you eat people?"

"Not PEOple, BRAINS...."

"BRAINS?"

"It makes the pain go away..."

"Pain? WHAT Pain?"

"The PAIN of being DEAD..."

"HWuuh, I guess it hurts to be dead..."

"I can feel myself... rotting away..."

Re:Hmmm.

[Danny Rathjens]

The last 5k years have also included things such as the bubonic plague wiping out 1/3 of Europe and just leaving the more disease-resistant people. Natural selection is alive and well. :)

Re:Hmmm.

[couchslug]

"Of course that would require ignoring all ethical issues."

When we are done studying him we can drop him off at the trailer park down my street. In a year he'd own the place.

and not only for the typewriters.

[edittard]

I'm sure there's a patent infringement there.

... and not only for the typewriters.

If you are interested in licensing any of our simian IP, please contact the departmental representative, Mr Anthony Abbot, directly.

Yours sincerely,

        God.

Slashdotted

[hey0you0guy]

Here is the BBC News article since the original article seems to be down. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7094215.stm

Sometimes...

[faloi]

Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do something. I'm sure (or would like to believe) there was a spirited, well thought out debate on ethical issues, complete with people from all sides participating. I can't read the article to be sure because it appears to have been slashdotted.

Re:Sometimes...

[rucs_hack]

I'm sure (or would like to believe) there was a spirited

If there was a spirit, then it would be logical to assume it is the result of sentience. That being so, any clone of a human would have one. Any idea to the contrary is little more than the standard religious doctrine of 'hate that which is different', achieved by the simple mechanism of asserting that the target of that hate does not posses something required for acceptance by the group doing the hating.

Did you know that the catholics debated for centuries whether black people had souls? And look how we treated them....

Re:Sometimes...

[dylan_-]

Did you know that the catholics debated for centuries whether black people had souls?

No, I didn't. Do you have a cite for this?

Re:Sometimes...

[presarioD]

If there was a spirit, then it would be logical to assume it is the result of sentience. That being so, any clone of a human would have one.

Heh, but you have to admit the terrifying conclusion of such an assertion. If cloned human beings are manufactured one day and they act, live, breathe, behave just like anyone of us, including having religious worries/sensitivities, then that means that the act of acquiring a "spirit" is internal and not divinely ordained... GASP!

Imagine a world after this makes a frontline news story...



... quite fascinating...

Re:Sometimes...

[giorgiofr]

No, not really. It's what most people already believe. Or do you really think that nutjobs make up a significant portion of humankind?

Re:Sometimes...

[presarioD]

Or do you really think that nutjobs make up a significant portion of humankind?

I'm a cynic so that's an affirmative. Install yourself on a comfortable chair at a busy point somewhere close to where you live, and observe people, really observe how they behave. Then pick up any newspaper and read the consequences...

Re:Sometimes...

[Thanshin]

Or do you really think that nutjobs make up a significant portion of humankind?

Yes.

Re:Sometimes...

[east coast]

Any idea to the contrary is little more than the standard religious doctrine of 'hate that which is different'

Yeah, because hatred doesn't exist outside of religion. [rolling of eyes]

Re:Sometimes...

[AVee]

If cloned human beings are manufactured one day and they act, live, breathe, behave just like anyone of us, including having religious worries/sensitivities, then that means that the act of acquiring a "spirit" is internal and not divinely ordained... That just really weird reasoning, the process of conception and the physical growth of an embryo after that are rather well know and documented, the process also is not all that different from cloning. So I really don't expect a clone to be ay different from a 'normal' human being. And I surely don't know how a clone is going to tell us anything new about "the act of aquiring a spirit".

Frankly, I don't see the use of cloning humans at all, if we really need to have more of those we can just have more sex. It's easier and more fun.
Unless ofcourse you think you can somehow choose to not treat clones not as human beings, that might make them more usefull then 'normal' humans, but you seem to argue clones are not different.

Re:Sometimes...

[rucs_hack]

Yeah, because hatred doesn't exist outside of religion. [rolling of eyes]

You are of course correct, but they have tended to be the standard bearers.

Re:Sometimes...

[east coast]

You are of course correct, but they have tended to be the standard bearers.

Only because they're the originators of human conditioning. That only makes historical sense. So what about all the villainy done by atheists in the name of human progress? Mao and Stalin (both of whom killed more people in cold blood than Hitler) come to mind. What's your excuse for them?

Re:Sometimes...

[Bob-taro]

Did you know that the catholics debated for centuries whether black people had souls? And look how we treated them....

Did you know that many atheists believed black people were "less evolved"?

Re:Sometimes...

[presarioD]

That just really weird reasoning, the process of conception and the physical growth of an embryo after that are rather well know and documented, the process also is not all that different from cloning. So I really don't expect a clone to be ay different from a 'normal' human being.

Well tell that to something like (warning number being pulled out of my rear) 65% of the population on this planet that believes in some Diving Entity ordaining a spirit upon inception/birth/$insert_your_favorite_moment_here in the human being and then said spirit surviving death in order to be judged in something called after-life(tm)...

I think you are missing the great implications clones will have into that sacred idea. If clones, who will be a total human inception outside the norm the said Divine Entity has imposed on us (always according to the 65%), are proved to be identical to people then there are only two explanations:

a) The Divine Entity blessed them with a soul as well in a moment of compation and Infinite Love(tm).

b) There is no Divine Entity at the end of the cash register...

Re:Sometimes...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> Just because you CAN do something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD do something.

The fact is, if it CAN be done, it WILL be done. You can talk all day about what SHOULD be done but it's really rather pointless. Do you think that a few philosophers and religious leaders sitting in armchairs now can have any significant impact on the future of the technological development of humankind? Once human cloning has been carried out successfully it will become cheaper and cheaper and easier and easier and everyone who can afford it will want it. The most constructive thing we can do now is figure out how best to adapt to a world with human cloning.

(Just in case you're missing the point, I'm not advocating a position of amorality here, just facing up to reality.)

Re:Sometimes...

[rucs_hack]

Mao and Stalin (both of whom killed more people in cold blood than Hitler) come to mind. What's your excuse for them?

I'd say they were brutal psychopaths who gained power and had some kind of messianic belief in their right to kill people by the town full. Alas I cannot hide behind religious platitudes to explain away these things as evil and related to the devil, because that way denial of human responsibility lies.

Those two were not religious to be sure, but in those two particuler cases, they created a cult of personality around them which was in many ways similar to the religious model, particularly the pharaonic one.

Re:Sometimes...

[npsimons]

So what about all the villainy done by atheists in the name of human progress? Mao and Stalin (both of whom killed more people in cold blood than Hitler) come to mind. What's your excuse for them?

You know, I'm really sick and tired of this being brought up all the time. The point is not that "some psycho who killed lots of people believed XXX, therefore XXX is bad". The point is that the majority of hatred is based on belief without evidence, and religion just happens to have the corner on that market. Mao and Stalin may have been atheists in the sense that they didn't have any beliefs about god, but they definitely had religious overtones to their dictatorships. Furthermore, religion would not have stopped them from doing what they did; more likely it would have made them all the more zealous. You want to argue that "atheists" killed more people than theists? Fine. But until you can show me more people have been killed because their killers used reason to justify it rather than religion, I'm going to have to call belief without evidence (aka religion) a blight on mankind. The fact that reason, in the form of science, has brought so much good to the world, while religions of all stripes strive to keep progress from happening just reinforces my impression of religion as malevolent.

Re:Sometimes...

[AVee]

And these two options happen to be exactly the same two options there are right now, either 'God' docs it all and he would be a lame God if he couldn't somehow hand out a spirit to a clone. Or God doesn't exist. Again, what has changed?

There actually are quite a few more options, your views of what one could religiously believe seem quite limited, but that's not the point here...

Re:Sometimes...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I don't remember even Mao or Stalin saying "kill these people because they aren't atheists". Both Mao and Stalin may have been atheists, but it wasn't atheism that drove their ideologies. (Some) Christians burnt 'witches' because witchcraft was against their religion. (Some) Christians promote ignorance in schools because science is against their religion. (some) Muslims blow people up because they see non-muslims as inferior. There's a causal link here. These people saw their crimes as being entailed by their religious beliefs. Find me an atheist dictator who said "non-atheists are inferior people and we should take away their rights, their lives and their property". There is, of course, no such thing, because there is no philosophy of hatred of other people that comes bundled with atheism. But pick up a Bible or the Koran and you'll find it full of vitriol aimed at non-believers. (Though admittedly there are some sections of the New Testament aren't so bad on this score.)

Re:Sometimes...

[east coast]

I don't remember even Mao or Stalin saying "kill these people because they aren't atheists". Both Mao and Stalin may have been atheists, but it wasn't atheism that drove their ideologies.

No, but you're taking my point out of the context that "evil" exists without the benefit of religion. While it comes across in a couple of posting and I can't blame you for not quoting the entire thread it still is the point of all of this.

Also note that religion doesn't nessacerily drive the ideologies of those in office who are of a particular religious persuasion. Or do you honestly think that a nation of overwhelmingly religious (mostly Christian) people would have legalized abortion? It's funny to hear people scream "theocracy" in the face of some of what is legal in the United States. So in this way it's extremely easy to see that what one believes doesn't nessacerily translate into what one would have made legal.

Find me an atheist dictator who said "non-atheists are inferior people and we should take away their rights, their lives and their property". There is, of course, no such thing, because there is no philosophy of hatred of other people that comes bundled with atheism.

While there may have been no outright genocide going on I'm sure that if you bother to take on even a cursory knowledge of Mao's Cultural Revolution you'll find more than enough evidence of people being killed, tortured and oppressed for having a religious belief not to mention the destruction of temples and churches and cultural relics that had religious value. So you may want to back up before making such sweeping statements.

Re:Sometimes...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> Some sections? Are you able to cite references from the New Testament of the Bible that incites vitriol against non-Christians?

There's no shortage of anti-Semitic passages which have been used repeatedly over the centuries to justify barbarous acts. In particular the collective blame of "the Jews" for the death of Jesus.

> I believe the New Testament teaches contrary to what you have stated here

Sure, you're probably a decent person who knows how to cherry pick the passages that best fit your ideals, and the philosophy in the passage you quote is highly commendable. And as I say, the New Testament scores quite well. Unfortunately, if you're a Christian you carry the baggage of the Old Testament and worship a deity whose track record is reprehensible, though maybe not as bad as Hitler or Mao or Stalin (if only because there simply weren't enough people in the world when the Old Testament was written).

> somehow they managed to do it according to their own ideologies, which tells me that religion is not the basis, rather mankinds sinful nature

Yes and no. I agree with you that people don't need much help to be mean to their neighbors. But people like to have excuses before they go round hating. Religions provide a convenient them-us divide (along with nationalism and other ideologies) for such people and passages like "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." help them to justify their actions to themselves.

Re:Sometimes...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> you'll find more than enough evidence of people being killed, tortured and oppressed for having a religious belief

Of course. The communist countries were largely intolerant of religion. But there's nothing anywhere in the definition of 'atheist' that says 'thou shalt punish people who believe differently'. Mao acted the way he did because he was a mean dictator. Meanwhile the Old Testament celebrates the Hebrews who went around kicking the living daylights out of any neighboring tribe and this book still has billions of people who think that the deity in the central role is the nice guy.

Re:Sometimes...

[east coast]

But there's nothing anywhere in the definition of 'atheist' that says 'thou shalt punish people who believe differently'.

There's a lot of religions that also do not have that doctrine. If you're going to lump all religions into the same bin because of a couple of bad apples I guess we can just include all atheists in the same group since we do have examples out there.

Meanwhile the Old Testament celebrates the Hebrews who went around kicking the living daylights out of any neighboring tribe and this book still has billions of people who think that the deity in the central role is the nice guy.

We also have billions of people who follow that particular deity that dismiss intolerance based on religion. So what's your point?

If anything it seems that the atheists and the theists are pretty much the same.

Re:Sometimes...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> If you're going to lump all religions into the same bin because of a couple of bad apples So you're asking me to ignore religions whose religious texts glorify violence. That's like asking me to judge a barrel full of apples based on a small piece of crab apple wedged down at the bottom somewhere. The Koran and the Old Testament account for most of the religion on this planet. > We also have billions of people who follow that particular deity that dismiss intolerance based on religion I don't think so. Every watched the news?

Re:Sometimes...

[east coast]

So you're asking me to ignore religions whose religious texts glorify violence. That's like asking me to judge a barrel full of apples based on a small piece of crab apple wedged down at the bottom somewhere.

In turn, you're asking me to judge all religions based on a handful of followers of certain religions. How is this different from me judging the morals of the atheists based on a handful of extremists? Do you honestly think that all followers of religion hold the same values? Even stating this examining on one religion at a time would be foolish.

And you're still skirting the original point of this all: The same kinds of evil that exist within religious dogma also exist outside of it. That is the only real point to this. You're trying to twist it into something else.

I don't think so. Every watched the news?

Oh, so you're proclaiming that every follower of every religion is intolerance and violent. I see.

To-do list...

[Wdomburg]

1. Clone monkeys.
2. Give them wings.
3. Fly my pretties, fly!!! Fly! Fly! Fly!

Re:To-do list...

[Dusty101]

(Thump)

Smithers, continue the research...

Re:To-do list...

[shut_up_man]

THUMP!

"Continue the research."

Scarlet

[CarpetShark]

why would I want another one of me?

You're thinking about this cloning thing all wrong. Think Scarlet Johannson.

Re:Scarlet

[tomzyk]

Be sure to make sure you don't waste resources on cloning a professional Scarlett Johansson impersonator.

You need /bin/cp...

[r6144]

even though it does not create any new information.

Your sig

[morgan_greywolf]

Genesis 1:32- And God typed :wq! No way. God would have typed ZZ which is quicker and saves about 2 keystrokes.

Postdated

[Empiric]

You'd think two-thousand-year-old questions would generally be easy, but I'm still working on this one...

On the day you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will will you do?

--Gospel of Thomas

Re:Postdated

[ROMRIX]

On the day you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will will you do?

I believe you accidentally cloned the word 'will' there buddy...
And who said cloning was difficult...

Re:Postdated

[Timberwolf0122]

Didn't the Spice Girls answer that question in the song 2 become 1? Also they are a more reliable source than a 2000 year old document that in all fairness has been so badly edited, translated and disproven over the years that you have to question it's validity.

Re:Postdated

[AVee]

Yeah, postdated seems an appropriate title when using "two-thousand-year-old" and "Gospel of Thomas" in one message.

"giant" step

[olman]

Not that huge step to be honest. They can create viable embryos easier, yay for them. However, they haven't been able to grow a baby monkey despite trying for 100 times so far.

Tech has "some" room for refinement right there..

Re:"giant" step

[fyibtw]

It took over 200 tries to implant and get a Dolly. There are two outcomes for cloned embryos: reproductive or therapeutic. Getting a baby monkey, while interesting in itself, is not as "researchable" right now, nor is it applicable to humans due to ethical issues. Besides, Don Wolf has proven that cloned monkey embryos (not by SCNT) can be implanted and produce babies in the monkey (twins in fact). With the stem cells, researchers can concentrate on producing the different cell types and transplanting the back into the genetic donor. Just getting the stem cells to differentiate efficiently and consistently into the various cell types will be a challenge. What's going to happen when they transplant them into the patient. It's assumed immune compatibility, but will invitro culture show effects on the cells, making them difficult to function invivo? So many questions to be answered... But at least we know that they can clone a primate. No need to waste more time on this...let's get to the real research. Still saying it's not a big step?

Well the World does need. . .

[darnoKonrad]

The world does need more human beings, the ol' fashion way is pretty inefficient, and of course reducing genetic variety is a good idea.

Re:Well the World does need. . .

[Serge_Tomiko]

Well, the old fashion way unfortunately results in the least intelligent people reproducing at an exponential rate, and the most intelligent people declining in numbers in at an exponential rate. Perhaps cloning will be more palatable to the people of the future than restrictions on breeding, which tends to evoke comparisons with Nazis, Spartans, and such.

keep a good copy of your DNA?

[Danathar]

I've been thinking for some time now that sometime in the next 25 years we might be able to clone body parts, but to get good parts wouldn't you need/want a copy of your DNA that is good without too many errors (like photocopies of photocopies).

Question for somebody out there? Should we invest in keeping a good copy of our DNA somewhere, a sample from youth or something?

Re:keep a good copy of your DNA?

[Chabil Ha']

The ingredient to the fountain of youth? As you age you have a 20 year old body waiting for you, have your brain transplanted, violá, you add 60 years to your life.

Granted, your brain isn't completely wasted away...and we figure out how to transplant it...

Re:keep a good copy of your DNA?

[Danathar]

Actually I don't think that's true. As you get older you get transcription errors, one of the reasons we age has to do with a buildup of errors as a result of cell division.

Mitosis is never an exact copy, there are always errors and each generation brings those errors along to the next.

Aldous Huxley

[AslanTheMentat]

One can literally generate electricity from the rate at which Aldous Huxley is spinning in his grave.

In Brave New World , the Bokanovsky Process was the means by which one clone could easily be multiplied many times.

[...] By which time the original egg was in a fair way to becoming anything from eight to ninety-six embryos- a prodigious improvement, you will agree, on nature. Identical twins-but not in piddling twos and threes as in the old viviparous days, when an egg would sometimes accidentally divide; actually by dozens, by scores at a time.
*shudder*

Benefits

[NW101]

My very own Shakey's Pizza - here I come.

The first human candidate should be...

[CannedTurkey]

The everywhere girl! Then we can have the everywhere girl for all time! It's a cultural investment for our children. Won't someone think of the children!

Re:The first human candidate should be...

[delinear]

Maybe she already is a clone. It would certainly explain a few things...

Brother-in-Law

[WED Fan]

It'd be interesting to add a few Einsteins to the world

The problem with clones is that to get an exact duplicate, they'd have to give them and exact life experience. Won't happen.

Clone Einstein, and you're most likely to get my brother-in-law. He is a genius. Smart. But the laziest son-of-a-bitch you are likely to meet. He was tested early, school came easy, everyone treated him like a prodigy. As a result, he coasted through life. Ended up NOT going to college and becoming a half-rate photographer. Without the formal higher education, he is still good. He can read science journals and expound upon the theory behind the articles and hold his own with some laser physicists I know. But, he lacks the drive and the imagination to really put that brain to work.

The Einstein that we had was a unique individual, the sum of all his experiences. Clone him now, give him an XBox 360 Mark V with Quantum Interface and he'll play Halo 10 all day long and never amount to anything.

Besides, cloning takes the fun out of reproduction. I heartily recommend it to those of you who haven't tried the real thing, yet.

Re:Brother-in-Law

[Blackhalo]

My sister didn't tell me she got married!

Yes it would be illegal

[davidwr]

In order to be legal the clone would need to be frozen Han Solo-style for 18 years shortly after birth.

Of course, if the clone then underwent accelerated growth in preparation for fighting in some war, MJ would be out of luck.

Evil twins

[Tribbin]

If you clone, half of them must be evil?

Re:Evil twins

[WormholeFiend]

If you clone, half of them must be evil?

Actually, they come in groups of 6, and they're all commie, mutant traitors highly skilled in bootlicking.

Now report to the nearest suicide booth, citizen.

Trust The Computer. The Computer is Your Friend.

A little scary

[kcdoodle]

Do we really want the answer to the heredity/environment question?

If you clone me and raise the clone in a different environment than I had growing up, and the clone's personality turns out to be a lot like me, then everything I am was more-or-less predetermined from birth.
That would really SUCK.

However, if the clone was a unique individual no matter what I guess it would be ok.
I guess I really just want the answer I want!

Let's not get into a discussion that the clone might not have a soul. Or maybe it would have a fractional soul (like Voldomort).

Re:A little scary

[MozeeToby]

Let's not get into a discussion that the clone might not have a soul

Do identical twins share a single soul? Nature has been cloning people for as long as there have been people. As long as we maintain that the clones are human beings there really isn't any ethical dilema here.

On a side note, the studies you suggest about nature vs nurture have already been done with identical twins seperated at birth and we STILL can't decide which is more important (most likely because both are extremely important).

Re:A little scary

[Digital Vomit]

Do we really want the answer to the heredity/environment question?

Who is this still a question for? The answer is -- and has always been --, quite obviously, both.

Re:A little scary

[kcdoodle]

What a dope I am!
Didn't even think about identical twins. You got me there.
And to think I have a degree in science and one in math.
Guess I just need more coffee....back in sec.

At least do it right

[BlueParrot]

You're thinking about this cloning thing all wrong. Think Natalie Portman.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:At least do it right

[childprey]

The longer her cloned lifespan is the more I'm reminded of how bad the prequels were. Make it stop.

I'm simply ...

[eck011219]

... beside myself at the thought that this might happen.

Consider Just Day to Day Living

[LifesABeach]

From a Health Care, and Insurance Industry perspective, cloning has some very nice side benefits. If these two industries clients continue to grow and make new clients, then the monthly financial outcome will only grow bigger. When even the most stubborn of surviving detractors notice that their numbers are monotonically diminishing, then this "Moral Issue" will dissolve. I think a simple poll of anyone who has had an Organ failure, a limb lost, or an incurable illness, will, to a person, accept a cloned replacement part; Without hesitation. What a blessing it would be if your body was destroyed by some tragic event, and all you lost was a day's work, or day's vacation.

Re:Consider Just Day to Day Living

[Digital Vomit]

From a...Insurance Industry perspective, cloning has some very nice side benefits.

Yeah, if everyone had a clone, they could screw over twice as many people.

Re:Consider Just Day to Day Living

[MalindaP]

Since I have a human donor heart valve in my chest now, the ethical questions are over whelming....A cloned part would remove the rejection problem (hence my 2nd surgery), however, is purposely terminating a clone better than taking the rejection risk of using a valve from some one who died of other cuases. Or what if the donor didn't die, because they got a cloned part...how many clones would be created then? Would I still be here if he already had a clone created & I didn't? .....

Yeh Right

[Stooshie]

To all those that think this would be great for cloning Natalie Portman/Angelina Jolie etc...

You forget that you will have to wait till they grow up by which time you will be an old wrinkly.

The genes used to clone your chosen celebrity will already be 30 years old(or whatever age the star is) when you clone them. Genes degrade over time. They also have various functions switched on and off through time. If a child is born with the genes of a 30 year old, this causes all sorts of physical problems which means the clone rarely develps beyond the foetal stage. This is in-fact the main reason that most clones fail. If I remember correctly, it took 180 attempts to get a live birth of a cloned sheep (Dolly).

Re:Yeh Right

[Hatta]

You forget that you will have to wait till they grow up by which time you will be an old wrinkly.

Which is the best time to have a cloned sex slave.

The genes used to clone your chosen celebrity will already be 30 years old(or whatever age the star is) when you clone them. Genes degrade over time. They also have various functions switched on and off through time.

Telomeres degrade during DNA replication. Cells that hardly ever divide don't need to replicate their DNA much so damage can be limited. And there already exists a mechanism for resetting epigenetic data, it happens in the gametes. We should be able to find out how this works and apply it as needed.

So yes, there are problems, but there are solutions on the horizon as well. My biggest issue is with the people who want to grow up organs for transplanting, etc. If you have a group of young, aggressively dividing cells indistinguishable from your own cells inserted in your body, what's to stop it from becoming cancerous? Even natural child birth leaves behind stem cells that can increase the risk of cancer (but also decrease the risks of other conditions).

Four More Years!

[metamatic]

A cloned chimp would be a different individual from an electoral point of view, right?

Problems with storage of body parts

[evann]

This question coming from my ignorance...but since people mention freezing the cloned body parts for later use or even full grown clones, how is it that the tissue and cells are not damaged? We are made up of lots of water, water freezes into ice crystals. I get an image of a thin balloon filled with water being frozen, and then being punctured by ice. Except that the body has tons of water in a million of different places. Beyond sharp ice within cells, are there any other obstacles to freezing spare organs and humans?

Re:Problems with storage of body parts

[Bryansix]

They have a process that forces the water out but preserves the tissue much like free-drying. Then they add the water back in to reanimate the tissue. I'm sure it would involve much more then that but that's the basics.

Good use of clones

[Ch13f0f1337]

Here is what I am thinking....clone a bunch of people, and then have a giant Battle Royale...no 'real' person gets hurt and everyone gets an afternoon of fun

I'm going to heck for this...

[mcmonkey]

You're thinking about this cloning thing all wrong. Think Natalie Portman.

But do grits have DNA, and can they be cloned?

I helped build that!

[daoine]

I work for the company (CRi) that produced the polarized light imaging system (Oosight) that this guy credits for much of this new cloning success. In case anyone's interested the product website is here. and has links to movies of actual monkey eggs being manipulated and having their original DNA removed.

The basic principle is that the highly-ordered molecules on which the chromosomes are mounted are birefringent (they change the polarization-state of light), so if you know what the original polarization state was and if you can measure the state afterwards, then you can detect those molecules, even though they are transparent. As the BBC article says, this means you don't need to use toxic dyes to find them (which is obviously a bad idea, if you want the egg to actually survive the process).

Re:I helped build that!

[K-Mile]

movies of actual monkey eggs being manipulated They're not chickens, you know...

Store one clone for eveyone? Yeah Right,

[Bolkar]

How feasible of an idea is that? we need storage space for 6 billion bodies, plus all that power requirements for the cooling, thats nice. Well, it will work for me since I am an architect who will be designing those extra buildings, but good luck convincing other people. The idea behind cloning organs for transplants should be a print-like operation. You have all your biometric info stored digitally, and at one time you need a kidney, or a heart or anything else, they pull the data and clone you the organ that you need, not the whole body, and try to store it...

Re:Store one clone for eveyone? Yeah Right,

[ranton]

Where does this 6 billion bodies number come from? I dont know how much population growth and/or inflation it would take for there to be 6 billion people on Earth that could afford a clone of themselves.

--

Re:Store one clone for eveyone? Yeah Right,

[anthonys_junk]

Ewww, that's the ickiest thing I have read in this thread. Only the rich get to copy themselves...

The thought of an army of Paris Hiltons running around made me throw up in my mouth a little :-(

Mephisto says...

[mr_nuff]

But how many asses do they have?

Not everyone would have to wait!

[Anita Coney]

"You forget that you will have to wait till they grow up"

You vastly overestimate the morality of guys who crave Natalie Portman. A lot of guys would probably only have to wait 10 years tops!

Re:Not everyone would have to wait!

[Stooshie]

... You vastly overestimate the morality of guys who crave Natalie Portman. A lot of guys would probably only have to wait 10 years tops! ...

LOL! I hadn't thought of that. You may have a point.

Making insults a reality

[ciaran.mchale]

They still haven't solved the #1 problem with cloning though: why would I want another one of me? Perhaps so if somebody tells you to "Go fuck yourself" then you will be able to comply with the request.

Island adjacent...

[fahrbot-bot]

Also, the clone should be stored offsite, probably in a fireproof vault.

Or, The Island.

Sonny Bono strikes again

[tepples]

If you are forced out, with no income (criminal or legal), then at what point will you decide dying at 152 is better than hanging on till 362? Copyright term is based on the life of the author. How long can an accomplished author survive on royalties, even if here name isn't J.K. Rowling?

Re:one more problem

[vadim_t]

Let's say we can actually remove the brain of a clone and keep the body somewhat intact for spare parts.

That would present an ethical problem, but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about growing bodies that never had a brain in the first place.

Looking at the past history and current society, it would be certain that some individual would find a way to (and would really want to) have sex with the body.

Since reproduction/procreation is a purely physical process that does not need brain interaction to work properly. We would then end up with legitimate children of a body and a jerk. How would you classify those children. Are they children of the living mom whose body produced the child, simply child of a body and what would be their social ranking/role/responsibilities.

Growing a body without a brain would probably be done by genetic manipulation, which I imagine would result in children that would die during development. And since that's the case you might as well make the clone sterile, solving that problem.

Re:one more problem

[khallow]

First, it's not "remove a brain", but never have the brain in the first place. Second, while there are probably loopholes, current law on children doesn't seem that far out of whack. Children born to a brainless clone (by said "jerk") or who have no obvious parents are probably going to become wards of the state at which point they can be handled quite easily by laws of their respective countries. No need to angst over their roles, responsibilities, etc.

Moreover, we would not be far away from the possibility of body/identify hijacking using a different brain or a computerized brain. We could be seriously screwed up having to fight our own body.

Like in the movies? You have the climatic life or death struggle with your evil clone on the bank rooftop, winner gets to use the credit card? You do realize that identity theft is illegal. This is already handled by law in most countries.

If we start growing full bodies for replacement parts, we might end up with serious problems. And those problems are ignoring all possible moral/ethical issues we might have on our way to get there.

We also know that if we don't do so, we'll end up with serious problems. Lot of people don't get replacement livers, kidneys, bone marrow, etc because they died first. Sure cloning will be dangerous at first. That's why the early adopters will be people who would die anyway. If the choice is a heart of unknown durability or dying in three months, it clarifies the problems. Second, what are these "moral/ethical" issues of which you speak? Harvesting organs from thinking beings? Bad. Harvesting organs from a brainless organism? No problem. Someone does something with a clone that weirds you out? If it's not illegal, then it probably is something that can stay legal. Keep in mind most laws depend on whether you do something wrong, not how you do it. I'm sure there are a number of loopholes that can be exploited with clones, but society has been good about patching up loopholes as they are found.

At last!

[anthonys_junk]

One step closer to my army of flying monkeys!

Too bad for the Monkees...

[rholland356]

Geez, JUST when we've eliminated almost every monkey habitat in the world, such that they face extinction across the board, along comes a cloning process.

I guess that's great for the labs that need monkeys--they can clone their favorite, and let the rest fade away.

Maybe, just maybe, some genius can clone native habitat so that our little cousins can thrive once again. Probably best if this process is robotic, cuz at our current pace, we will face our own extinction all too soon.

What about the immune system?

[LionMage]

Only real differences are diet and lifestyle related

You forgot a big difference -- immune system. Humans of 5000 years ago would probably not be as adept at coping with modern diseases. This is one area where humans are in a veritable arms race with microbes and viruses.

Re:What about the immune system?

[Blackhalo]

You got half of it. Modern diseases would not be as adept at infecting a Human from 5000 years ago. What modern diseases would the Iceman be immune or resistant to without being from the modern gene pool? Perhaps that genetic code might contain the key to defeating malaria or AIDS?

I really don't think

[Rix]

The poster wanted them for their education.

You probably wouldn't.

[Rix]

Just their organs.

Re:one more problem

[yndrd1984]

We would then end up with legitimate children of a body and a jerk.

We already have surrogate mothers, and laws to handle them. We might have to deal with "it isn't rape because the body isn't a person, but you did use my property/genes without my permission", but that should fit well in existing law with minimal modification.

We could be seriously screwed up having to fight our own body.

It would be weird because you're not used to it, but it isn't any stranger that fighting someone who can kill you from a distance, getting up-to-the-minute news, or eating cooked food.

If we start growing full bodies for replacement parts, we might end up with serious problems. And those problems are ignoring all possible moral/ethical issues we might have on our way to get there.

Well, we could have problems, and there are ethical issues to discuss. On the other hand, the objections you've raised aren't the real problem ones.

Re:one more problem

[argStyopa]

I think even the optimism regarding our ability to grow 'brainless' clones is troubling.

A body is the sum of its processes - a number of which are autonomically controlled by, you guessed it, the brain. So, for example I think (IANA-brain scientist) to have a functioning body we would have to have the cerebellum, the temporal lobe, and probably the occipital lobe. I'm not sure about the parietal lobe or the frontal lobe. Where do "we" exist in there, and if the frontal lobe is genetically engineered out of development, are we creating what we ironically hope is a soulless automaton? Can one be a person without the physical chunks of brain matter where higher reasoning takes place?

I'd expect that somewhere in the world there is at least one person who was born who is, by this measure, apparently a soulless automaton since birth. I would have significant ethical and moral reservations about concluding that is not a person and thus acceptable for 'harvesting'. Would it be significantly different if the body was conceived/grown in a test tube? Could we be certain that there isn't a "person" lurking in there? Could we ever be sure enough?

Ethically troubling country - both for the actuality and the ramifications - indeed.