Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Have Re-Cloned Mice To the 25th Generation

derekmead writes "Dolly's mere existence was profound. It was also unusually short, at just six years. But scientists in Japan announced yesterday they have succeeded in cloning mice using the same technique that created Dolly with more or less perfect results: The mice are healthy, they live just as long as regular mice, and they've been flawlessly cloned and recloned from the same source to the 25th generation. Researchers claim it's the first example of seamless, repeat cloning using the Dolly method—known as "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT)—in which the nucleus from an adult source animal is transferred to an egg with its nucleus removed. Until recently, the process was fraught with failures and mutations. But the team led by Teruhiko Wakayama, whose results were published today in the journal Cell Stem Cell, was able to create 581 clones from the same original mouse. Scientists, including Dolly's creator, have long felt the process was still too unstable—and too wasteful of precious eggs, given the failure rate—to be used on humans any time soon. But perhaps it's not so far off, after all."

134 comments

  1. Hard to believe by Sparticus789 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The only thing greater than me, would be to have 12 clones of me. Hopefully they also have a compact clone model, so I can call him "mini-me."

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're so wrong. There are certain women that should be cloned for people like me with no personality that have no ability to get girls on our own.

    2. Re:Hard to believe by cod3r_ · · Score: 1

      They need to figure out how to configure the clones with mostly robotic parts so you don't have to feed them and can turn them off..

    3. Re:Hard to believe by shemyazaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm certain that most slashdotters will have no problem "turning them off".

    4. Re:Hard to believe by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

      Those are called androids. Not clones.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    5. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize you'll have to wait quite a few years for your Eliza Dushku clone to grow up. At least, I hope you'd wait.

    6. Re:Hard to believe by Sparticus789 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most slashdotters have been waiting 20+ years for a hot girl to be interested in us, what's another 20?

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    7. Re:Hard to believe by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1
      A statement emblematic of so many issues, but I'll choose to respond with snark:

      What makes you think a clone would ever go out with you?

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    8. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant genetically engineered woman.

      Genetic Eng: "Well, we did it. We engineered this woman to be turned on by men with no personality!"

      Genentic Marketing Guy: "Oooo. Now can you make one to love guys who are unkempt, smells, lives in their parents basment and has no social skills?"

      GE: "Yes."

      GMG: "Great!" *gets on phone with legal* "Hey guys, contact Slashdot and see if we can license their name for our new 'Slashdot Girl'!"

    9. Re:Hard to believe by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      A statement emblematic of so many issues, but I'll choose to respond with snark:

      What makes you think a clone would ever go out with you?

      Hasn't bad sci-fi taught you anything? Despite being genetically identical to humans, because they are, clones mysteriously exhibit a creepy lack of free will and/or near-identical personality to the original(despite a developmental history that includes no life experience other than 'grow to apparent age of ~20 years with alarming speed in tube full of medical fluid'), perfect for producing armies of robo-hitlers or servile sex kitten harems!

      It's probably because they only get allocated one soul per genome or something, couldn't make any less sense than the answers usually provided....

    10. Re:Hard to believe by jovius · · Score: 2

      Yeah, now you would only need to replicate all of the growing up with the same parents + experiences and still you would end up with strange people just looking like you. Could make a nice bunch anyway.

    11. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Most slashdotters have been waiting 20+ years for a hot girl to be interested in us, what's another 20?

      For me, it's 40 plus long years of digital pr0n and gummy input devices.

      But you kids should see my ASCII collection. From six feet back and with squinted eyes, I mean.

      CAPTCHA = "miseries", I kid you not.

    12. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I assumed that usually had to do with clones not being treated like people and being raised in some very sheltered environment where they are brainwashed or whatever.

      Of course, there's also the idea that increasing the proportion of [heterosexual] women in the population improves the odds for [heterosexual] men.

    13. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope!

    14. Re:Hard to believe by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I think the correct answer is that "clone" has come to mean "delayed-time identical twin" when it was previously intended more literally. In the Stepford Wives, for example, they were robots made to look just like the women they replaced (which DNA "clones" will not). Most pedants today will argue that it's silly to depict "clones" as the same in personality, since DNA doesn't fully determine personality. But I would argue that this just shows the word "clone" is being abused because DNA replication doesn't measure up to it, and we should hold out on using the word "clone" for a copy of me who is still me, like Multiplicity.

    15. Re:Hard to believe by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      It's probably because they only get allocated one soul per genome or something, couldn't make any less sense than the answers usually provided....

      Hmm... that neatly explains the "evil twin" trope...

    16. Re:Hard to believe by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1
      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    17. Re:Hard to believe by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "You're so wrong. There are certain women that should be cloned for people like me with no personality that have no ability to get girls on our own." Are you talking about asexual nuns? You don't need cloning to find some of these.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:Hard to believe by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      You had me at "servile sex kitten harems". I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    19. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A statement emblematic of so many issues, but I'll choose to respond with snark:

      What makes you think a clone would ever go out with you?

      Obvious troll question... And in proper troll response "you are not my biological judge!"

    20. Re:Hard to believe by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      Best 'pitfalls of cloning yourself' movie EVA! :)

  2. Copyright by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know this is sorta trollish, I just thought it was interesting too
    There's no copyright for DNA. Someone could take a skin-swab from you, and clone you, without your permission. If they did, would you feel your rights had been violated?

    1. Re:Copyright by MasseKid · · Score: 1

      BRB... Need to go trademark myself....

    2. Re:Copyright by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      No, why would I?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    3. Re:Copyright by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      I know this is sorta trollish, I just thought it was interesting too
      There's no copyright for DNA. Someone could take a skin-swab from you, and clone you, without your permission. If they did, would you feel your rights had been violated?

      No copyright (yet) but there is patent.

      Someone could skin-swab you, clone you, patent the process with your DNA. I don't think they could sue you, but they could charge you for any unauthorized reproduction (children).

    4. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not a copyright, but they can patent it:

      http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/02/26/canc-f26.html

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-myriad-patent-idUSBRE87F12K20120816

    5. Re:Copyright by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Well, I'm sorta in your camp, but many people consider their genes part of their identity. "Genes+experience=person" kind of equation.

    6. Re:Copyright by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      No copyright (yet) but there is patent.

      Someone could skin-swab you, clone you, patent the process with your DNA. I don't think they could sue you, but they could charge you for any unauthorized reproduction (children).

      BTW, while I'm sure that scenario is unrealistic and display ignorance of patents and biology, given what we've seen from gene patents and folks like Monsanto, I'm sure we're not far off from the day when someone receives gene therapy and gets sued when patented genes are passed down to off-spring.

    7. Re:Copyright by techstar25 · · Score: 2

      Have you seen me? Let's just say, that's not going to be a problem.

    8. Re:Copyright by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      A clone is a different living orgamism. It is not you any more than an identical twin.

      Keep your panties on, your rights are irrelevent to the existence of a clone.

      People are more than genetic material alone. Your life experiences define you, your genetics only influence the rest.

      All that's happened is you suddenly have a potential organ donor

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:Copyright by Grayhand · · Score: 2

      I know this is sorta trollish, I just thought it was interesting too There's no copyright for DNA. Someone could take a skin-swab from you, and clone you, without your permission. If they did, would you feel your rights had been violated?

      As tens of thousands of geeks had the same thought at that very moment, "how do I get some Natalie Portman DNA?"

    10. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, without experience, it isn't "you"... QED... no problem.

    11. Re:Copyright by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      But if I copy a MasseKid, you still have a MasseKid. So according that sacred slashdot principle you shouldn't have any say over the matter.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monsanto will copyright all of us, and our clones then start selling as slaves like just few hunderd years ago. it is comming.
      and if you do not agree they will kill us same as pigs in Europe or Japan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-develops-genetically-modified-pig/2480

    13. Re:Copyright by LaggedOnUser · · Score: 1

      Which "me" are you referring to, original me or copy me? And what if they disagree? Both are mature competent adults, so whose opinion holds sway?

    14. Re:Copyright by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1
    15. Re:Copyright by bancho · · Score: 1

      I think using DNA as evidence in court would become problematic. What if the clone was a psycho? Conversely, what if the clone were a sane upstanding person and the DNA donor were a serial killer?

    16. Re:Copyright by Zordak · · Score: 1

      I think using DNA as evidence in court would become problematic. What if the clone was a psycho? Conversely, what if the clone were a sane upstanding person and the DNA donor were a serial killer?

      What if your identical twin is a psyco serial killer and you're an upstanding citizen? It just means that the DNA comes from one of the two of you.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    17. Re:Copyright by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      There is a copyright on DNA. Many of the HIV drugs out now are based on the gene sequencing of several African prostitutes that had natural immunity to the disease. Their DNA was sequenced and then copyrighted by the drug companies in question with no reimbursement to the prostitutes what-so-ever.

    18. Re:Copyright by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No.

      Clones aren't you. They wouldn't belong to you, and they won't have the life experiences of you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:Copyright by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Immunity, unless they stop being prostitutes, then they would get it.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/03/us/a-new-aids-mystery-prostitutes-who-have-remained-immune.html
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1539443/

      I couldn't find any link indicating anyone has trued to get copyright protection on their genes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Copyright by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      And "The Island" sounds a lot like Clonus, but that's a different story altogether.

    21. Re:Copyright by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

      I remember a story from Niven's "Draco Tavern" where an explorer that returned from a civilization with advanced biotech was being paid royalties on his clones. The Glick civilization considered his cloned self to be a delicacy- no ethical problems because they grew the clones without brains. I can't see why the explorer was upset- everybody profited.

    22. Re:Copyright by sandertje · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid to say, but there are loads of gene patents out there. SO yes, half your body belongs to some kind of corporation or another, and hence so will your clones (with the added bonus that the cloning technique itself probably has been patented a million times over)

    23. Re:Copyright by spongman · · Score: 1, Funny

      wouldn't your conception be prior art?

    24. Re:Copyright by Arthurio · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who would be more than ok with this happening? I'd be fascinated. If I could see how that person grows up I could get so many answers to interesting questions. For example common things that are partly or completely attributed to genetics such as IQ, body weight, height etc. But also what kind of interests would that person develop, what kind of tastes, would there be any similarities in terms of personality. What could be wrong with a several decades younger clone living somewhere else if the clone is healthy. More than one clone could be problematic for the clones but not really for me. It doesn't take a clone to plant my DNA at a crime scene. Besides DNA can hardly be the only evidence in such case. And if the opposite happens, the clone turns out more successful than me then I guess I'll be a little jealous but probably too old to care.

    25. Re:Copyright by giorgist · · Score: 1

      OK what if that clone somehow gets your memories as well. Who has the right to your property then ?

    26. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the clone DOESN'T turn out evil! Or nice, depending on your, ugh... current personality.

    27. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they did, would you feel your rights had been violated?

      My rights or the clone's rights? Because we are no longer one and the same...

      Also why would we have something like copyright on our own genome? Our parents were the creators, we didn't do anything for it.

    28. Re:Copyright by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      What if the clone gets someone pregnant, and a DNA test 'proves' you are the father, and therefore on the hook for child support?

      What about child support for your own clones? you couldn't just abandon them...

    29. Re:Copyright by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I always wondered if you were to have sex with a clone of your self, is that gay or just masturbation?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    30. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, i would. what if the clone goes to an elementary school and guns down a bunch of kindergarteners? then has his face, my face, plastered all over the TV?

    31. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I would not. If anything I would feel flustered because someone thinks that'd be worth the effort.

      I'm not my genes. At least not 100% and even if it would create an exact copy of me with personality and everything I'd still support it.

    32. Re:Copyright by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Strange, I coulda SWORE a bunch of pharma companies were copyrighting various strains of DNA that they were playing with.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    33. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if I copy a MasseKid, you still have a MasseKid. So according that sacred slashdot principle you shouldn't have any say over the matter.

      Confusing trademark and copyright much?

      Yes, so was the parent...

    34. Re:Copyright by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen Clonus, so I don't know, but there was a lawsuit about this. Check out the second trivia point on IMDB.

    35. Re:Copyright by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      So if the RIAA used trademark law instead of copyright Slashdot would be on their side? Somehow I doubt that.

      According to slashdot patents seem to be evil. Copyright is is evil when the RIAA use it but fine when the GPL does. Trademarks are OK if you are the Linux Foundation but evil if you are someone else.

      I.e. it's not the type of IP, more who is using it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  3. Good for the mice. by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 1

    Now to get it working in humans.

    1. Re:Good for the mice. by plover · · Score: 1

      Now to get it working in humans.

      Why? I don't know anyone who is so perfect they're worth making a clone of.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Good for the mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Why? I don't know anyone who is so perfect they're worth making a clone of.

      Imagine 1000 clones, living in different environments. Monitored by scientists. What we could learn from that.

      Or if we just want to have a duplicate of someone... How about Gauss? Tesla? Darwin? Newton? Or someone who is still alive and a bit like them.

      Or how about me? I'm not perfect, but I know now what I'm good at. And I know what I wish I had learned earlier in my life to be even better. What if I could teach my clone to be a better person than I am?

      I'm not saying that these are good ideas, but they are ideas.

    3. Re:Good for the mice. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Clones are just as good as an identical twin. Only possible separated by age.

      It is not like Sci-Fi where you have a body ready to load your consciousness in so you can live forever. It would be a Unique Human Being with just happens to have the same genetic code, but would be a different person.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Good for the mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if you keep them sedated till you needed the parts....

    5. Re:Good for the mice. by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Or how about me? I'm not perfect, but I know now what I'm good at.

      I'll say. The last thing we need are clones of Anonymous Coward.

    6. Re:Good for the mice. by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Widespread cloning would be really, really bad for the gene pool.

    7. Re:Good for the mice. by chad.koehler · · Score: 1

      I know things I would do differently in my life. I'm not entirely confident in my ability to force some other person to do them, even if it was a clone of me. For reference: http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Duplicator

    8. Re:Good for the mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Good for the mice. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Nah, just remove the forebrain while it's still an embryo, saves you a *fortune* in ongoing anesthetic costs, not to mention nutrient slurry. It's not like anybody is going to want their *brain* replaced, so really it's just a bunch of useless calorie-burning meat. Heck, catch it soon enough and there's not really even much of a brain to speak of yet - scoop out a few thousand cells at the critical junction and you've got a product that was never meaningfully "human" - after all the rest of our body is not so different from any other animal.

      Yeah, we may have some serious ethical questions to answer at some point. Then again we're making some incredible advances in regenerative medicine, so we may dodge that particular moral quandry.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Good for the mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Just ask the Asgard.

    11. Re:Good for the mice. by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Well, one thing would be to clone someone without a brain, for parts.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Good for the mice. by geekoid · · Score: 0

      We have clones, why do we need a gene pool?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Good for the mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's about time we met!

    14. Re:Good for the mice. by Millennium · · Score: 1

      For the same reasons organisms do: on a biological level, genetic variation is a big part of how we can adapt to changing circumstances.

    15. Re:Good for the mice. by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      I thought I was the only one.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    16. Re:Good for the mice. by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 1

      Because when bacteria and viruses keep getting better at killing us we need the random genetic mutations to help us survive. Look at banana colonies that have collapsed due to cloning of banana trees when a new disease came by and wiped out all the trees.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    17. Re:Good for the mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it would be a bad thing for admissibility of dna as evidence.. which would actually be a good thing.

      captcha: foiled

    18. Re:Good for the mice. by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      People accuse me of being a luddite from time to time, but I only resist technology when society (or the people I talk with) refuse to confront hard questions like the one you bring up... especially if the talk degrades into an us vs them kind of argument. Yes, you raise very significant ethical questions to a very plausible idea. I wish more people asked these same questions you did before they became a reality.

    19. Re:Good for the mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are AC. Resistance is futile.

  4. frist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fisrt psot

    1. Re:frist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clone of fisrt psot

  5. Precious eggs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and too wasteful of precious eggs"

    I knew it! The entire process is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious... eggs.

    1. Re:Precious eggs... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Human eggs are precious. They cost $157,000,000,000,000 (that's Trillion, with a Tee) an ounce!

    2. Re:Precious eggs... by Jappus · · Score: 1

      So, just like diamonds, that's artificial scarcity at full work here.

      According to Wikipedia, a woman has something around 300.000 egg cells when she turns fertile. Let us assume 50.000 cells as the average for all women between 16 and 40. So how many human females do we have in that age range?

      According to the US census [1], there were ~4.5 billion (short scale) humans on this planet between 16 and 64. To subtract the oldest 24 years, let us be pessimistic and assume an equal distribution; so we need to subtract one half (16 to 64 = 48 years; 16 to 40 = 24 years). We also subtract one half of that, as we only want women.
      Therefore, we have roughly 1.125 billion human females of fertile and (in many countries) legal age.

      So, (1.125 x 10^9) * (5 x 10^4) = 5.625 x 10^14 egg cells. 10^12 is a trillion (short scale); so we have somewhere around 562.5 trillion human egg cells on this planet earth.

      According to [2] a single human egg cells weighs between 0.00177-0.0042 mg. Average of 0.001mg. That means the total mass of all human egg cells is: ~0.5 trillion milligrams. Since milli = 1/1000, that makes 0.5 billion grams. Since 1kg = 1000g, we have 0.5 million kg of human egg cells. That means a bit over half a megaton of human egg cells at this moment.

      According to Google, that's 17 636 981 ounces of human egg cells.

      Plus, if even 1 out of every 50.000 cloning attempts works (assuming you're only producing female clones), it's self-replenishing. :p

      [1] - http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1353_age_distribution_by_country.html
      [1] - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Weight_of_a_human_egg_cell

    3. Re:Precious eggs... by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the interesting post, but I believe the average you indicated underestimates your final results by about a factor of three:

      [A] single human egg cells weighs between 0.00177-0.0042 mg. Average of 0.001mg.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Precious eggs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, at least someone who realizes what might be going on and the implications of this. Considering at a municipality, someone can sell or buy human genetic material. I'd say, human cloning is possible and is happening. Now with the implications of clones, creation of armies, suicide bombers, etc. Scary! In summary, love God in monotheism (but also fear him/her)

  6. Darth Mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are they going to clone a Darth Vader Mouse too or will they try Immaculate conception?

  7. cloning/copying same differance by smileymon · · Score: 1

    Well the Japs have always been very good at copying electronic tech. With Bio-tech, cloning is the new copying

  8. Hooray - more ways to make more humans. by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    Just what the planet needs.

    1. Re:Hooray - more ways to make more humans. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Just what the planet needs.

      Given how expensive the process is likely to be, I'm not terribly concerned.

      Now, given how expensive the process is likely to be, I'm also not wildly interested, outside of some very niche applications and the value as pure science...

    2. Re:Hooray - more ways to make more humans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that you are being sarcastic but we should clone those who are exceptional as far as intelligence goes. We need more humans who possess above average European/Oriental intelligence in order to achieve quicker scientific progress. I do agree with the gist of your comment though when it comes to evolutionary inferior forms of human existence such as sub-saharan Africans, Arabs, and Hispanics.

      As a Darwinist I feel it best to let lesser evolved forms of human existence die out. We should not be sending food or medicine to places like Haiti for example. In fact, we should use our military technology to preserve the natural habitat that still remains their by wiping out the African presence that exists there. They have ravaged the island through deforestation and over-reproduction and it is the duty of the thinking man to remedy it.

      As a man who is capable of independent thought I don't need propaganda to interpret what I see with my own eyes. I care not if the content of this message may offend you but realize that what I speak is the truth.

    3. Re:Hooray - more ways to make more humans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just what the planet needs.

      Why don't you lead by example?

    4. Re:Hooray - more ways to make more humans. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And that's why you posted AC, right?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  9. Summary seems to imply Dolly's cloning was flawed by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Informative

    But from the Wikipedia entry the summary itself links to:

    A post-mortem examination showed she had a form of lung cancer called Jaagsiekte,[15] which is a fairly common disease of sheep and is caused by the retrovirus JSRV.[16] Roslin scientists stated that they did not think there was a connection with Dolly being a clone, and that other sheep in the same flock had died of the same disease.[14] Such lung diseases are a particular danger for sheep kept indoors, and Dolly had to sleep inside for security reasons.

  10. Frak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Frak Dolly and frak all its clones, frak all these Mickey Mouse wanna-be's"

  11. Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Call me evil, but I'm less interested in full blown cloning than I am creating a sack of meat and replacement organs.

    Lose a kidney? I fear no rejection for I am fear incarnate! Also because cloned organs.

  12. Good for Disney by clam666 · · Score: 1

    I'd been hoping for a live action Clone Wars on Ice.

    --
    I'm a satanic clam.
  13. "Failure Rate" is the issue by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Large numbers of defective fetuses is what keeps human cloning from being a reality. Cloning also has the issue global warming has, the name is misleading. Instead of clone they should be called a genetic twin. Most assume the clone will look like you and have all the same characteristics. I'm sure some even think they'd have the same memories. A clone can be taller or shorter and It may look almost exactly the same but even identical twin have slight differences so family and friends can pick them out. The only hope of human cloning having a future is to get away from this carbon copy idea and explain to people how they will be unique and not a perfect copy.

    1. Re:"Failure Rate" is the issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cloning also has the issue global warming has, the name is misleading. Instead of clone they should be called a genetic twin. Most assume the clone will look like you and have all the same characteristics. I'm sure some even think they'd have the same memories. A clone can be taller or shorter and It may look almost exactly the same but even identical twin have slight differences so family and friends can pick them out. The only hope of human cloning having a future is to get away from this carbon copy idea and explain to people how they will be unique and not a perfect copy.

      Once cloning becomes common these misconceptions will fade away. But even if they didn't it's certainly not the only future for cloning; rich people will get clones regardless of what the masses want.

  14. Telomeres by ReallyEvilCanine · · Score: 3

    What's with telomeres? That's all I have. And I expect this comment to disappear underneath a delugh of "Let's clone Natalie Portman" posts, but seriously, is this thing on? What's with telomeres and DNA end funtions and all this other shit we've been reading about here and all l the rest of the sites? Why is this viable and how does it relate to us?

    1. Re:Telomeres by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Telomeres can be regenerated with a telemorase enzyme, something our bodies can produce, but normally don't. I'd imagine that either the embryonic state naturally activates the regeneration (seems plausible, there's some serious cell division going on after all), or that at some point it's stimulated artificially.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Lengthening

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Telomeres by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What? What are you asking?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Telomeres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telomeres are the reason you aren't a walking blob of cancer.

      Apologies to cancer patients who are, in fact, a walking blob of cancer.

    4. Re:Telomeres by tokencode · · Score: 1

      Telomeres are the caps on the end of DNA sequences, similar to the plastic on the tip of a shoelace. It holds the DNA strand together and signals the end of the DNA. Over time the telomeres shorten and eventually the DNA unravels. It is thought that the shorten of the telomeres may play a roll in aging / cell death cycle.

  15. Why? Nearly 100% of /.'ers are homosexual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'd rather have the goatse.cx guy or rob malda or hemos to stick their dicks in. They get excited over man pussy.

  16. Are you pondering what I'm pondering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think so, Brain, but me and Pippi Longstocking... I mean, what would the children look like?"

  17. Re:You? Yeah, right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No that's 'Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks'.

    You're welcome.

  18. So ? Disney been doing it for years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just take care not to call any of your mice Micky... You might survive cellular degradation but trademarks and patents are a whole different beast all together.

  19. Rabbit eggs by RicardoKAlmeida · · Score: 1

    The problem with human cloning is women produce too few eggs - just one a month. There's one thing that isn't cloned from the original cell: mitochondria. The clone gets them from the egg, not from the original donor. So, why not use rabbit eggs? After a few cell divisions, all proteins would have been replaced by human proteins anyway. All but those in the mitochondria. I wonder what would happen to the organism? We can try it first with monkeys and rabbits to see whether it works or not. I had this idea soon after dolly, but felt I should keep my mouth shut. It seems the Chinese tried something like that some years later, but I don't know the results. Anyone here knows?

    1. Re:Rabbit eggs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what would happen to the organism?

      Sudden increase in worldwide demand of carrots?

      captcha: prepare

    2. Re:Rabbit eggs by RicardoKAlmeida · · Score: 1

      You mean rabbits like carrots because of the genes in their mitochondria? Nothing would be left of their chromosomes. Maybe there's more to our preferences than our chromosomes. Good opportunity to know! I mean, clone chimps that would be eager for carrots. Cloning a human with such a compulsion would be unethical!

    3. Re:Rabbit eggs by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you have a misconception, women do not "produce one egg a month". A women is born with all the eggs she'll ever have in her ovaries. Normally one of them is released a month after puberty, but there are ways of stimulating the release of more or of getting more

    4. Re:Rabbit eggs by RicardoKAlmeida · · Score: 1

      you have a misconception, women do not "produce one egg a month". A women is born with all the eggs she'll ever have in her ovaries. Normally one of them is released a month after puberty, but there are ways of stimulating the release of more or of getting more

      Sheeps and rabbits "convert more eggs to maturity" in each cycle than humans. Better now? When I had the idea of xenocloning I had just read an article saying that egg availability was one of the main barriers to human cloning. She-rabbits are also "born with all the eggs she'll ever have in her ovaries". I think that's true of all female mammals. Maybe the eggs must be mature (complete meiosis I and II and segregation of polar bodies) to be used in cloning. I don't know. Do you know?

  20. What happens in Vegas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone took a skin swab without permission, I would feel violated - because of the swabbing, not because they 'stole' my DNA. If you are in public and you lose some DNA there, what control of that DNA do you have?

    I can can think of far worse uses of my DNA than cloning me, like leaving it at a crime scene.

  21. Re:You? Yeah, right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No no no. It's "dicks are for my friends".

    Doesn't anyone listen to MSI anymore?

  22. Re:Summary seems to imply Dolly's cloning was flaw by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

    Dolly had to sleep inside for security reasons.

    Why? Were they afraid she was going to steal things from the other sheep? Was there a history of anti-social behavior in her family history (as shown here)?

    --
    That is all.
  23. Duncan was right? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Moon mining and huge advances in cloning announced on the same day.... Maybe Duncan Jones was onto something?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Duncan was right? by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Well, his father IS a time-jumping psychic alien...

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  24. Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The true test to this in the future is memory. The true drive behind human cloning is immortalization. Propagation and defects etc. will always play second fiddle to this, no matter how idealistic the scientists are.

    So the true test is taking a rat and getting a baseline for memory recall (a maze etc.), cloning the rat, then when at age attempting to recreate the memmory recall of that originating rat, in the clone.

    That will be the "end all be all" test for how much research and funding actually is committed to coning. Disease irradiation, fixing genetics, these will all be second in benefit. We are an egotistical species and immortality has always been the holy grail of our imaginations.

    1. Re:Memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also for the guy above this post. If we take DNA samples early enough, telomores will never pose a significant issue, for cloning lifspan persay. But it will pose a lage threat to those who want to clone themselves at a certain point in their lives. If we do not sind a way to add telomores to our DNA, then we will never overcome cell degradation, cancer, and natural death.

    2. Re:Memory by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      what a silly misconception you have. a clone is merely a sibling, like a twin. a clone has no memories whatsoever of the donor

  25. Re:Summary seems to imply Dolly's cloning was flaw by Demonantis · · Score: 1

    I don't think they meant security from people or the other sheep, but predatory dogs. Kind of ironic that trying to protect her probably killed her.

  26. Apparently, Dolly was not a good example... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...of how telomeres work during cloning.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5466/586.summary

    Science 28 April 2000:
    Vol. 288 no. 5466 pp. 586-587
    DOI: 10.1126/science.288.5466.586

            News of the Week

    CELL BIOLOGY
    In Contrast to Dolly, Cloning Resets Telomere Clock in Cattle

            Gretchen Vogel

    When researchers took a close look at the cells of Dolly, the cloned sheep, they found that her telomeres, the caps on the ends of the chromosomes, were shorter than normal. Because telomere length decreases with age, this was an indication that Dolly might age unusually quickly. But on page 665, a physician and his colleagues report that cells from calves that they cloned have telomeres that are longer than normal. According to the researchers, the findings suggest that tissues produced by cloning might last at least as long as the original cells--and perhaps longer.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  27. How I feel is one thing, but by caspy7 · · Score: 1

    ...how my parents feel is another.
    Genetically my clone is their son. Do *they* have any rights or obligations towards him?

  28. Re:Summary seems to imply Dolly's cloning was flaw by the+biologist · · Score: 1

    I bet they did mean security from people. Plenty of anti-GMO folks out there who would have stolen (or just killed) the animal if they were given the chance. No, Dolly was not an example of GMO. Yes, people are that stupid.

  29. Re:Summary seems to imply Dolly's cloning was flaw by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    Apparently Dolly just didn't like staying outdoors. It's called argylaphobia.

  30. Re:So ? Bush Sr did a human clone of himself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush Jr was not a flawed clone but it was a successful human cloning.
    Funny how art imitates life when the movie Multiplicity said each clone is more stupid...
    Either we've not seen the grandchild clone yet or it was such a failure they are waiting until NOW... maybe we'll be around to see the 4th Bush as President (3rd one being Jeb Bush possibly in 2016.)

  31. "Pinkys, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "I think so, Brain. But how do you ever fit the cheeses of the world inside the handles of this mechanic's screwdriver's set?" "NARF! (x581)"

  32. Re:Summary seems to imply Dolly's cloning was flaw by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    that's where Mary went; Dolly was sure to go

  33. If only i could.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would clone myself, teach myself everything I know, make sure I don't make the same mistakes I made, and revel in the delight of living vicariously through myself.

  34. HOW DO EGG YOLKS BECOME CHICKENS? by BabuG.Ranganathan · · Score: 1

    HOW DO EGG YOLKS BECOME CHICKENS? (Internet Article) When you divide a cake, the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a single cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food, we received in the womb, to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my Internet article: HOW DO EGG YOLKS BECOME CHICKENS? Just google the title to access the article. Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. Bible/Biology) Author of the popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

  35. The time is now here by bobvious · · Score: 1

    Onward, to cloning neanderthal women.

  36. A Meaningless Trivial Accomplishment by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

    Mice, unlike our favorite animals - humans, dogs, cats, and horses, have active telomerase. That means that repeatedly cloning them is no great challenge.

    --
    Social Credit would solve everything...