Mouse Cloned From Drop of Blood

Ogi_UnixNut writes "Scientists in Japan have succeeded in cloning a mouse from a drop of blood. From the BBC: 'Circulating blood cells collected from the tail of a donor mouse were used to produce the clone, a team at the Riken BioResource Center reports in the journal Biology of Reproduction.' The female mouse managed to live a normal lifespan and could reproduce, according to the researchers."

Comments

I see ....

[PPH]

... thousands of nerds chasing Natalie Portman with needles.

Re:I see ....

[meerling]

As a clone would be an infant with normal growth & aging, it would still be a very long time before she's legal. (Exact time depends on local laws. I believe the US is 18 years of age, so with the 9 months gestation, close to 19 years, assuming you weren't already caught and thrown in jail.)
Why do so many people think clones are a copy of a person, that's instantly adult and has all their memories? I vote for stupidity.

Star cloning controversy

[EmperorOfCanada]

Rich people cloning pets will be a mild controversy but mostly due to the money wasted. Some ego maniac cloning themselves will make the news. Then some people will clone lost loved ones causing a certain creepy factor news bite. But the cloning that will really make the news is when some company will claim (initially fraudulently) that they have the DNA of a variety of stars so you too can not only have Brad Pitt's baby but that the baby will be Brad Pitt. That is when the creepy factor will completely cross into the public discussion with all the legal, ethical, moral water cooler philosophizing that the news-people and their pundits can then do.

Basically this will bring a 1,000 sci-fi books to life (but in a sad and pathetic kind of way).

I'll start by asking: what do you with the kid if Hitler is cloned? Does Mr. Pitt owe child support to any of his clones? Or does Brad Pitt's father owe child support to the clones?

Re:Star cloning controversy

[ArcadeMan]

What do you with the kid if Hitler is cloned?

Nothing. Apart from looking like the original, he'll be raised differently by different people in a different environment and so he won't be the same person. A clone is just a biological copy, not a psychological one.

Does Mr. Pitt owe child support to any of his clones? Or does Brad Pitt's father owe child support to the clones?

No and no.

It's not even valid questions, you'd need incredibly twisted logic and totally ass-backward laws to support these ideas.

Re:Star cloning controversy

[CastrTroy]

I wonder how this hasn't happened already. Woman obtains DNA of famous person. Has their kid (not a clone) by combining their DNA an that of the famous person and using invitro fertilization. Sues them for child support. The famous person could claim they never slept with the person, but if she had his child, it would be pretty hard to refuse otherwise.

Re:Star cloning controversy

[rubycodez]

nonsense, too many witnesses in the near term at exclusive facilities, in the far term this type of scenario would be first suspicion.

Re:Star cloning controversy

[excelsior_gr]

you'd need incredibly twisted logic and totally ass-backward laws to support these ideas.

Now you got me worried...

Re:Star cloning controversy

[EmperorOfCanada]

Actually this could get weird. Here is a story of a guy who donated sperm to a lesbian couple with contracts protecting him. Then the couple went on welfare so the state is now going after him for child support.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/sperm-donor-sued-child-support-article-1.1232394

As for the Hitler kid. It is not so much that the kid would be a genocidal monster but would have the crushing weight of history on him. I suspect that regardless of his predisposition that there would be groups calling for his blood (bad pun).

The key here is that cloning is going to result in some screwed up situations.

Let's say a serial killer has 5 clones made before he is caught. Then the first 4 (all raised differently) go on a killing spree themselves. What do you do with the 5th?

Then what about the billionaire who has 300,000 clones made of himself by paying 300,000 women $10,000 each to be impregnated with his clone. (For the low price of $3 billion.)

Re:Star cloning controversy

[icebike]

Many habits and behaviors are indeed genetically inherited. This is scientifically proven with selective breeding in dogs and foxes.

People aren't Foxes, (aside from the above mentioned Natalie Portman).

Most habits and behaviors in humans are learned.

I don't believe there is much if any evidence of non-physically induced behavior being inherited.
Twin studies (twins raised separately) tend to show that behavior is not inherited unless it can not be traced to physical sources (parting the hair on a certain side due to the pattern of hair growth, etc).

Children who are orphaned, fostered, or adopted may have certain behavior or inheritable traits activated by certain environmental factors or adopted parents, but only within the limitations of their genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study

Re:Star cloning controversy

[Nimey]

If it gets out that he's a cloned Hitler (or Boston Strangler, or Jeffrey Dahmer, or whatever) the kid could never have a normal life - he'd be in the fishbowl forever, because of a choice somebody else made. That right there makes it unethical.

Re:Star cloning controversy

[ancientt]

True story: I was gifted with a genetically pretty good body. A couple things during gestation, prenatal development and delivery went just slightly wrong. (I was born breach, with I suspect near hypoxia and to a second-hand smoker, see: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4310.) Nothing huge, but I do suspect some of my struggles wouldn't have been necessary in ideal circumstances. Despite this, I excelled at academic pursuits in my early years and had a pretty high athletic prowess as well. I had a good home, social and educational environment, but of course none were exactly ideal. I've done well enough, but if my history were ideal, I might have contributed much more to society than I've managed thus far. With only very slightly improved early circumstances, I can imagine my life and choices might have been dramatically different. (I won't say better because I recognize the hubris in guessing how someone who developed differently and in a different would have reacted.)

Now, I'm not unhappy to be where I am and accept that my choices are primarily the reasons for my failings and successes. Normally that would be the end of the discussion and I'm comfortable with that. Now it isn't then end of the discussion anymore. If I were tremendously wealthy and had different drives and morals and the same analysis of my past, with this news comes the idea that I could possibly raise or direct the raising of an idealized version of what I could have been given an "improved" history.

Maybe there is a billionaire right now planning to give to the world a version of himself that he thinks would be an ideal version of himself. I don't have the desire myself, but can easily imagine someone like myself having that desire.

The more likely questions to ask are: What if that cloned "ideal self" happens and is successful. What if we're talking about a secret clone who wins multiple Nobel prizes and olympic medals but is found out later? That would surely raise the temptation for later imitators of the process and potentially raise a huge backlash against people who happen to be clones and through no fault, are suddenly feared, hated or detested by society. And then, what if it becomes cheap, accepted and common in a hundred years, wouldn't that mean a shrinking gene pool and at the same time a "superior" race? What does mankind face with a society that is comfortable with a "superior" race? What does mankind face with a society backlash where every high achiever is viewed with suspicion of being "unnatural"?

Re:Star cloning controversy

[Somebody Is Using My]

You want controversy, just wait until people start asking about the legality of cloning for the purpose of harvesting the body parts. Can I clone myself, alter the hormone balance in utero so the creature is born effectively brain-dead, then grow it (in a tank, for a proper sci-fi ambiance) until I need a new kidney or heart?

Less futuristic, how about I clone myself but abort the fetus and harvest its stem-cells?

And who "owns" the clone, prior to its birth anyway? The donor? The doctors? The woman who has been implanted with the fetus? Can it even be owned?

Worrying about paternity rights or cost is just the tip of the iceberg. Ultimately, cloning could (but not necessarily /will/) reduce human life to literally just another resource to be harvested.

Re:Does this mean...

[RussR42]

Hitler clone

I don't want to be a Epsilon

[billybob_jcv]

Cloning smart people or beautiful people or athletic people is NOT the problem. The problem is when they decide to clone stupid people as servants & laborers. when the creation of slave classes of low-intelligence clones becomes economically viable, it will become a commercial, not social activity.

Re:I don't want to be a Epsilon

[elucido]

Cloning smart people or beautiful people or athletic people is NOT the problem. The problem is when they decide to clone stupid people as servants & laborers. when the creation of slave classes of low-intelligence clones becomes economically viable, it will become a commercial, not social activity.

Why bother? Machines make better servants and smart people can build them.

Great!

[houbou]

Now, let's figure out how to take our full memories, experiences and ego and let's start making mind transfers! :)

Re:Great!

[ancientt]

I saw a recent comment on the abortion issues in Texas which argued that killing a fetus was okay since it didn't have the same perception of existence as an adult. Laying aside more logical arguments on both sides of the debate (an undeveloped human brain doesn't make a person or alternately neither does a two year old,) this made it clear to me that some people are absolutely convinced that it is ethical to treat potential people as tissue for use or discarding as is most convenient. In that light, your suggestion implies that if cloning is a non-invasive and affordable procedure, many people will be absolutely comfortable with the idea of using clones as parts.

I think there is a logical progression this discussion must follow, but first a digression. (Yes, it is relevant.) On the abortion issue, I'm convinced that most people are in agreement but arguing about the wrong thing. I've talked to strong supporters of abortion and almost every one agrees that killing a two day old baby is wrong and three days before that is just as wrong, and even twenty days before that is wrong. So even strong abortion supporters believe that killing a baby is wrong if it is actually a baby. I've talked to strong opponents of abortion and almost every one agrees that killing a wart or cutting out a cancerous tumor, or getting an appendectomy doesn't constitute murder, not even cosmetic surgery which kills healthy human cells is murder. So even strong opponents of abortion agree that killing cells or even organs isn't murder. The obvious conclusion from this? We all agree that killing people is wrong, regardless of age, but we can't agree on what makes a person a person. That's the real argument and the most passionate people on the subject don't even realize they are arguing past each other.

At some point, we need to have a national, possibly global, discussion where we define what makes a person a person and not just tissue. When we decide that we'll be ready for the discussion on using clones as parts. If we decide it is about the potential to become human then cloning will have to be about cloning tissues. If we decide it is about brain activity, then we'll have rich people with clones who are healthy aside from having their brain development blocked as embryos. If we decide it is a heartbeat, then we'll have clones who are on heavy life support and grown essentially in a vat.

Whatever we decide, I'm weary of hearing sound bites and bickering and ready to get on to the real discussion. I'm also very curious how our collective decisions on the subject will affect the average health options for clone parts.

Sniff...

[PopeRatzo]

You think they can bring back my old dog, Smokey? I've still got one of his paws in my sock drawer.

He was the best. And I learned about how babies were made from watching Smokey with my family members' shins.

Normal-looking offspring were obtained from all...

[Trax3001BBS]

"Normal-looking offspring were obtained from all four strains tested."
Link from article http://www.biolreprod.org/content/early/2013/06/25/biolreprod.113.110098.abstract)

One scary a$$ line, indicates a 100% success rate.

The ramifications of what's implied are numerous and cover every aspect of our future.

Re: Yeah, well

[DigiShaman]

Minus the fact genetic mutations and corruption takes place over time from the original zygote. That, and the telomeres are shorter. Unless they solved that problem via resetting the length however. I doubt it though.