Human Cloning Possible Within 50 Years, Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Claims

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Human Cloning Possible Within 50 Years, Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Claims

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday December 20, 2012 @08:08PM from the me-and-more-me dept.

An anonymous reader writes in with a story about the possibility of having another you in the future. "Human cloning could happen within the next half century, claims a Nobel Prize-winning scientist. Sir John Gurdon, the British developmental biologist whose research cloning frogs in the 1950s and 60s led to the later creation of Dolly the sheep in 1996, believes that human cloning could happen within the next 50 years. He said that parents who lose their children to tragic accidents might be able to clone replacements in the next few decades. Gurdon, who won this year's Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, said that while any attempts to clone a human would likely raise complex ethical issues, he believes that in the near future people would overcome their concerns if cloning became medically useful."

19 of 233 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Instead of cloning, have sex by Harald+Paulsen · 2012-12-20 20:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Unless you're a single parent, just have sex. Good way to create a new offsprint, no? :-)

--
Harald
1. Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by erroneus · 2012-12-20 22:36 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  No, it's a terrible way... for men anyway. Fact is, women very often use men so they can have children and simply "change" after they got what they want. Often the current legal system is used as a means of collecting child support so that the woman doesn't have to work for a living. Stuff like this goes on more than I would like to think. And I was almost a victim of ridiculous rules about child support where my ex-wife was collecting welfare in California and she included our two sons in with the claim. I don't know how long the process takes, but eventually, the state of California tracked me down to my employer and informed them of the requirement to take my pay. This was very confusing for me and for my employer. The problem? *I* had the children with me and had been with me for quite some time. Had them enrolled in school. The records of my having them were abundantly available. The child support office in Texas said "it is not our responsibility to validate the claims made by other states" and apparently the rules for proof are equally bad in California. I actually had to take my sons out of school, drag them down to the child support office with all sorts of paperwork to prove I am their father and that my sons are with me. What the hell!? So easy for women to make claims and so hard for men to fight it.
  We used to appreciate the need for a strong nuclear family. I don't know when that changed... probably before I realized it... I grew up rather old fashioned and still think like that most of the time.
  There is a population decline in the first world. The third world is multiplying like rabbits, however. "Save the children"? Really? Stop having children you can't support. I know. I know... that's a first-world person's mind. I'm sure there are good reasons for bringing in a baby which cannot be supported into the world. To be fair, a lot of it is instinct but we can't talk about that because instinct is something only animals have instead of minds to think with and we can't go anywhere near that subject.
  It might seem somewhat orwellian or apocalyptic or something, but I seriously think there should be some population controls in place as it is. But once again, no one wants to go there... to decide who should reproduce and who shouldn't. "Do you have a license for that baby?" The world is facing some serious problems with population and resources. It is presently not sustainable and something has got to give. And with global warming changing the way rain falls all over the planet, there will soon be some massive dyings in different parts of the world... and violence... there's always violence... all of which could be avoided if we would simply take charge of our human existance and bring things under control.
  It would be immoral... but is it less immoral to let thousands of not millions die of starvation? Only the 1% are expected to survive all of this well you know.
2. Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by erroneus · 2012-12-20 22:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Most brains are wasted completely and utterly on religion and territorial battles. Increasing the number of brains will not matter since the brains who are in charge are NOT the best brains we have... only the most selfish and sociopathic.
3. Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by TheCarp · 2012-12-21 00:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  > We used to appreciate the need for a strong nuclear family. I don't
  > know when that changed... probably before I realized it... I grew up
  > rather old fashioned and still think like that most of the time.
  For a rather short period of time. The "nuclear family" was probably never the best of ideas, and definitely a modern one. There is ample evidence that living in extended families has huge benefits, not the least of which is the resulting serious decrease in mental health issues (believed to be due to growing up with a larger support network).
  In an extended family, there are just plain more people to watch the kids, more people to teach them. Its better for the kids, better for the parents, better for the older generations.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
4. Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by Digital+Vomit · 2012-12-21 01:39 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You believe that brains can magically make energy appear.
  
  Of course. Haven't you seen that documentary, The Matrix?
  
  --
  Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
5. Re:Instead of cloning, have sex by TheCarp · 2012-12-21 03:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I never said there was anything wrong with it.
  Now is there? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I think it depends on other circumstances.
  If you live in their house and basically live off them, then I tend to think that, unless you have a disability that prevents you from helping (and help could be paying rent), that your situation deserves every bit of the stigma that it has.
  If you live with them because of a bad situation, trouble finding a job etc, hey family is family, we help eachother through tough times.
  If you are productive, maybe paying rent or at least taking part in keeping the place running and making sure that they get as much benefit from you being there as you do from them being there... then I think that's a great situation.
  Imagine you have kids... your kids get to grow up knowing your parents, your parents get to grow up knowing them, much more than even if they just lived a few streets away. On top of that you get instant baby sitters, extra eyes and helping hands with all of the chores around raising your kids. Quite literally, everybody wins.
  Obviously this isn't a win for everybody...if you have abusive parents or a particularly toxic relationship with them, its not going to work, but on average, I do think its superior.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Human cloning is a gimmick. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 20:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

You may be able to recreate a human with the exact same genetic material as its source, but that doesn't mean creating another you. The butterfly effect applies in the womb (or whatever replacement they will be using for it) - the brain will develop slightly differently in individuals, even if genetic material is 100% identical. Thus, identical twins may well have slightly different characters (one good, one evil). Also, this clone of yours will never have had the exact set of experiences that you did, and therefore will develop differently.
Also, I may be biased but I think the old fashioned way of creating humans is more fun.
1. Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by meerling · 2012-12-20 22:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't say 'slight differences'. Even raised in the same environment, and sharing many of the same experiences, identical twins are not identical. Nobody would argue that they are two different people.
  Obviously a clone may share appearances with their DNA donor, but would have a totally different environment and experiences. They would probably be nothing alike outside of their overall appearance.
  
  Saying that parents could replace a dead offspring is a horrible and deceitful thing to say. The clone would be a new person that only looked like the dead one. The parents would be torturing themselves by having a constant reminder of the dead child in the image of a new one that definitely isn't the prior one. As to the poor clone, it would be always having to live up to the expectations others have based on a dead child. You thought you had a problem living in the shadow of your older siblings, just imagine the horror of living in the shadow of a dead child you were cloned from.;
  
  I'm not against cloning, but it needs to be done for the correct reason, and people need to understand that the clones are new individuals that have nothing to do with their donor other than sharing a genetic heritage, just like you. You see, you are essentially a hybrid clone derived from 2 donors. It's not an exact analogy, but it's close enough. Kind of funny how that works out.
2. Re:Human cloning is a gimmick. by RockDoctor · 2012-12-21 01:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Same thing happened to John Smith.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:Nature vs. nuture by SuricouRaven · 2012-12-20 20:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Grieving parents are not the most rational decision makers. It's quite possible that there will be a scientist of dubious morality somewhere in one of the less regulated countries willing to produce a clone, and grieving parents who will hand over their life savings for even the slimmest chance of recapturing just a hint of the child they lost.
Would anyone really want to replace a dead child? by Radak · 2012-12-20 20:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

I can understand the desire to clone lost pets. The pet relationship is one of companionship, and creating a pet predisposed to similar behaviors as one who made a good companion before makes some sense, but a child? I cannot imagine most parents would want to do that, no matter the circumstances of the loss of the original child. You think it's tough on a kid finding out he's adopted? Imagine finding out you were a replacement.
Cloning for organ farming by Radak · 2012-12-20 20:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only kind of human cloning I think I'd really like to see is cloning for organ farming, either cloning an entire (brainless, presumably) copy of myself so I have an entire inventory of replacement organs, or cloning individual organs as the need arises. Ultimately, I'd like to be able to grow a whole new me whose body is, say, 20 years old, and then transfer my brain into the new body. Still have to solve the problem of the brain itself decaying, but once we figure that out, the world can enjoy my rapier wit forever!
1. Re:Cloning for organ farming by xstonedogx · 2012-12-20 20:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You took the wrong lesson away from The Island. The correct lesson: clone Scarlett.
Cloning is already useful! by bugnuts · 2012-12-20 20:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

I need to farm a new heart with no chance of rejection.
See? The ethical issues aren't complex at all!
1. Re:Cloning is already useful! by etash · 2012-12-20 20:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  you're such a _heartless_ person!
Re:Would anyone really want to replace a dead chil by Radak · 2012-12-20 20:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Right, cloning pets is completely different because... pets aren't humans!
Not trying to come across as some kind of blubbering sentimentalist, but yeah, that's exactly it. I wouldn't call humans "special snowflakes", but yes, humans are different when it comes to things like this, and the ethical questions that must be answered are a superset of those we must answer for other animals.
Re:Replace a dead child? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-12-20 23:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Kid: "Mom, I want a skateboard!"
Mom: "No, you'll fall off a handrail doing a trick with it, crack your head open, and die."
Kid: "No I won't!"
Mom: "Trust me, this is the third time that I've been through this . . . "

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Hopefully this means therapeutic cloning by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2012-12-21 00:39 · Score: 3, Funny

So an infection killed your kidney? You need a transplant but we'll just create a new working clone of your kidney from almost any cell in your body and implant that.(Hopefully no rejection but MD's here can tell me if that's true or not.) Hey, got cancer? Cloning may help with that. Clone yourself a whole new body that doesn't have a brain and implant your brain in that. (As long as the cancer hasn't metastasize into your brain this would theoretically work. Yeah, I know reattaching all the nerves and blood vessels is going to be a bitch.) Hell you could even cure some genetic diseases with this. You have a genetic defect that makes your liver not work? Take your dna, fix the issue then clone a good liver from that. (Yes, I know a lot of this is going to be difficult but in theory a lot of this should work.)

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Re:To hell with the Boomers anyway. by lxs · 2012-12-21 03:12 · Score: 3, Informative

Where does this "blame the boomers" crap come from?
You robbed our pension funds, you burned our oil, you destroyed our system of education, you listened to shitty music, you preached love but practiced greed and you keep on making documentaries about how wonderful you were.
Sincerely,
Generation X