Slashdot Mirror


Scientists To Open Mass-Cloning Factory in China This Year To Clone Cows, Pets, Humans (express.co.uk)

An anonymous reader writes: Scientists in China are planning to open a mass-cloning factory by the end of the year. The ambitious and futuristic facility hopes to be mass-producing one million cows every 12 months by 2020. Not only will it clone cattle, but the factory, which will be located in the northern Chinese port of Tianjin, will also cater to more specific needs by genetically engineering police dogs and thoroughbred race horses. It is part of a $21m plan which is backed by the Boyalife group in collaboration with South Korean company Sooam Biotech Research Foundation.

121 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Is it just me...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or are we taking a completely natural world and ruining it with artificial selection?

    1. Re:Is it just me...? by Flavianoep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's just you. The world is not completely natural any more and we have been practicing artificial selection for ages.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:Is it just me...? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Or are we taking a completely natural world and ruining it with artificial selection?

      You mean something like corn?

      Corn as we know it today would not exist if it weren't for the humans that cultivated and developed it. It is a human invention, a plant that does not exist naturally in the wild. It can only survive if planted and protected by humans.

      http://campsilos.org/mod3/students/c_history.shtml

    3. Re:Is it just me...? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      So your saying that the genetic diseases that we have from natural selection are better than the life we could have had without them?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    4. Re:Is it just me...? by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that the population-level resistance to extinction from a single disease (or single bad personality trait / aptitude) that we get from natural genetic diversity is not useful?

      Hint: Ask an Irish descendant what it was like to rely for staple food on a single variety of potato.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    5. Re:Is it just me...? by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      We've started interfering with natural selection since when we didn't leave the sick and weak be torn apart by the wolves, but when we invented medicine and helped people to survive despite of their sickness. With all the methods medicine has, we've stopped natural selection. This is nothing bad though, as evolution is a very cruel process. We've gained humanity, and more diversity. And from an evolutionary standpoint that's in fact even better, as a more diverse population can adapt to problems much better and faster.

    6. Re:Is it just me...? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Hint2: Ask Chiquita how it's future is looking with the current banana fungus TR4. We have already lost the Gros Michel, and now the Cavendish is threatened.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    7. Re:Is it just me...? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      There were no potatoes in Ireland prior to 1589, yet there were plenty of Irish. The tragedy of the Irish Potato Famine is not the fault of the potato.

      Lesson: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket".

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    8. Re:Is it just me...? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Cattle is cattle because of artificial selection. The problem here isn't the artificiality of it, it's the lack of variation it implies that'll make the life of every pathogen and parasite under the sun an awful lot easier.

    9. Re:Is it just me...? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Possibly, yes. You see those four genes in combination that cause the disease may by themselves or in some other combination with other genes, produce some very useful variation.

    10. Re:Is it just me...? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      No not at all.
      Sorry It's hard to be clear without it being overly long and even then.

      I was not intending to support 1:1 cloning even though the problem you point out is very significant even without the use of modern cloning.

      We have plenty of debilitating diseases that could be fixed beforehand that are very hard to treat after the fact.

      This probably falls into the category of "designer babies" But I really think that what we should be striving for is a high quality of life.

      Someday we may even be able to make these small needed alterations after the fact.

      95% or our bananas are of the Cavendish variety. Its going to be rather noticeable when they are wiped out.

      On that subject when was the last time anyone saw an American chestnut tree?

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    11. Re:Is it just me...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Humans are as much a part of nature as anything else on Earth.

      We build just as termites and bees build. We make tools just as apes make tools. We play just as dolphins play. We pass down knowledge just as elephants pass down knowledge.

      We do all that to a greater extreme than any other species, but that does not mean we are no longer part of nature.

      We select just as nature selects, by controlling fertility, both in our own species and others. We manipulate gene sequences just as viruses manipulate gene sequences, both in our own species and others.

      We understand (some of) nature's methods, and use those methods for our own purposes, but that does not mean we are no longer part of nature.

    12. Re:Is it just me...? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There were no potatoes in Ireland prior to 1589, yet there were plenty of Irish.

      Nope. Ireland was sparsely populated prior to the introduction of potatoes. Staple crops like wheat grow poorly in their cold wet climate. Potatoes had a huge effect on European history, enabling northern lands to increase in population, devote fewer workers to growing food, and invest more in commerce and military force. Power shifted from the Mediterranean to Germany, Britain, Sweden and Russia. The Reformation likely would have failed without this power shift. Nothing did more to destroy the Spanish Empire than that sack of potatoes that they brought back from Peru.

    13. Re:Is it just me...? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well it wasn't like they were only growing potatoes.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    14. Re:Is it just me...? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      It's not just corn either, basically everything you can buy at a grocery store came from thousands of years of selective breeding. This is one reason I make fun of people who say "natural is better" and have never eaten a natural vegetable in their life.

    15. Re:Is it just me...? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Hint2: Ask Chiquita how it's future is looking with the current banana fungus TR4. We have already lost the Gros Michel, and now the Cavendish is threatened.

      This is completely unavoidable because nobody would eat a banana that has seeds in it. They're not like watermelon seeds that you can just chew or swallow; they're actually harder than your teeth.

    16. Re:Is it just me...? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I evolved naturally you insensitive clod!

      Like my wife said, "I'd rather be a primate than a therapsid."

      Tools were also evolved naturally. Funny story, one night I was walking home through the park at 3am and there was a raccoon couple mating in a tree. Raccoons usually ignore humans at that time, but this guy wanted some privacy; he started throwing acorns out of the tree at me! I hadn't even stopped or anything, I just looked at him while I walked by and he started yelling and throwing things.

      Crows have no trouble using tools. They have an evolved sense of cause and effect combined with abstract thinking.

      The whole distinction is idiotic, a false dichotomy.

    17. Re:Is it just me...? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Or are we taking a completely natural world and ruining it with artificial selection?

      1) There is lots of cloning taking place in nature. Where do you think we're learning it from?!

      2) Clones are not as robust as the source. They will only survive where cared for; for example, growing in a tank to provide transplant organs. A cloned cow might have tasty meat, but it wouldn't have a long lifespan. Doesn't matter if you're eating it as soon as it gets big enough, of course. But it isn't going to escape and displace a natural selection process.

    18. Re:Is it just me...? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I think a good example would be the resistance against malaria shown by people with sickle cell anemia.

      We have already managed to map out a lot of known bad combinations.

      And even knowing that sickle cell anemia helps against malaria It is still probably better to use anti malarial drugs on the chance that they catch malaria at some point than it is to guarantee a lifetime of sickle cell anemia.

      Everyone shouldn't be made to be identical but when we find out that gene 232wxyz causes a 99.7% incidence of having no arms you probably wouldn't want your child to be born with it.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    19. Re:Is it just me...? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      It is still probably better to use anti malarial drugs on the chance that they catch malaria at some point than it is to guarantee a lifetime of sickle cell anemia.

      I don't know of a single biologist, scientist or doctor qualified to make that kind of judgement.

    20. Re:Is it just me...? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      No usually it's the least qualified by knowledge and most qualified by responsibility that gets to make such choices: the parents.

      I think they should be doing whatever they think will give their child the best quality of life. Of course that also implies that they ought to be making informed decisions.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    21. Re:Is it just me...? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It also nicely demonstrates that transgenics that deprive me of my rights as a farmer are entirely unnecessary.

      Transgenics are like losing your house because Cheney's dog got loose and decided to take a dump in your yard.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    22. Re:Is it just me...? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      We do genetic engineering because without it millions will starve.

      But you know what, we as a species can do more than one thing at a time. Biologists aren't really great working with robotics, instead with have roboticists for that.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    23. Re:Is it just me...? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      The problem is the principle, which will almost certainly be extended once accepted in one case (sickle cell), regardless of what you think the merits of that specific case are.

    24. Re:Is it just me...? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      This is completely unavoidable because nobody would eat a banana that has seeds in it.

      What? Not even the people who had been eating seed-containing bananas for millennia before the seedless varieties were developed in the 19th century?

      You might not eat a seed-containing banana. But if someone gave you a seed-containing banana which was called a swogglemick, and told that it tasted great if you steamed it like couscous, once you sieved the seed out, you might actually like it. I would then expect you to commit sepukku on discovering that you'd been feeding yourself seedy bananas.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    25. Re:Is it just me...? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      With all the methods medicine has, we've stopped natural selection.

      Almost certainly not true. What, if any, direction Hom.sap is going in isn't at all clear. But natural selection has never required there to be a direction of drift. Just that there is differential reproductive success on heritable grounds. (Note : not even deaths are required - just differential reproductive success.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Signed by messymerry · · Score: 2

    ...and this post was signed by me and me and me and me

    --
    Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
    1. Re:Signed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey, uhm, could I get a liver from one of you? I can pay royally. I have lots of hidden assets in a small Panamanian bank.

  3. We have cloned Steve Jobs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And the first thing his clone did was scream at us about how inelegant the process was, and he browbeat several members of the team so badly they jumped off the roof.

  4. April fools... by skaralic · · Score: 3, Informative

    April fools was 4 days ago guys...

    1. Re:April fools... by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Informative

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Be more credulous about what China is willing to do, medically.

      This is not some joke or corporate PR to gain attention just for cloned pets. This is about food production. And they will also be doing pets for rich people to fund it. And human tests. They don't have the same ethical restrictions. If they think it will help good people, then whatever harm or sacrifice is required from others is also seen as good.

      They're executing Falun Gong practitioners on demand to provide organs. Human cloning for organ harvest isn't even going to be controversial in China.

  5. You were all thinking it by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I guess these clones will all look the same?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:You were all thinking it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How can we tell they're clones?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:You were all thinking it by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

      How can we tell they're clones?

      You ask about their mother. If they promise to tell you about their mother and pull out a shotgun, it's a clone.

    3. Re:You were all thinking it by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I don't know, that sounds an awful lot like your average american school shooter these days, and we know all of them had mothers.

      Yeah, but she was also their sister, cousin and aunt.

    4. Re:You were all thinking it by nevermore94 · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily.
      There have been many examples of cloned animals having very different color patterns on their genetically identical bodies.
      Google "cloned cats look different"

      --
      Nevermore.
    5. Re:You were all thinking it by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      How can we tell they're clones?

      Ask it what it's name is. If it says "TK426" shoot it.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    6. Re:You were all thinking it by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      When they wear white armor and can't hit a barn with their rifle, you know they are a clone.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:You were all thinking it by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Why would you even start to think that? The developmental processes that largely control appearance are influenced by genetics, but not particularly tightly controlled compared to more important things like closing the neural tube, and getting mitochondria working.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

    > factory to clone...humans

    Because if there's one thing the Chinese are bad at, it's producing more humans.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Misleading as hell. Here's a less yellow news source. They do not plan on cloning humans.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Funny

      They do not plan on cloning humans.

      Nonsense. Chinese families want a perfect son. They will happily sell their daughter into sexual slavery to afford a perfect son cloned from the father.

    3. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Where did you hear this?

      Are you not familiar with Chinese society?

      China's preference for sons stretches back for centuries. Infanticide, the abandonment of girl babies and favourable treatment of boys in terms of food and health has long produced a surplus of men. In the past two decades, the gap at birth has soared: the advent of ultrasound scans has allowed people to abort female foetuses, even though sex-selective abortion is illegal.

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/02/chinas-great-gender-crisis/

    4. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Are you done spouting racist nonsense?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      Bullshit! Post the URL of this Chinese sexual slave market. For evidence and no other reason whatsoever.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    6. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Are you done spouting racist nonsense?

      Nope. Just citing an aspect of Chinese society preferring sons over daughters that goes back centuries.

    7. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which seems rather scary in the long run. I recall once reading something where the author speculated that one of the largest reasons for the disproportionate amount of violence in the Middle East was due to the cultural and religious customs allowing men to have multiple wives. Since almost every country has a roughly even infant sex ratio this means that there were a large number of young men who had no prospect of finding a mate which contributed to the willingness to commit violence or engage in suicide bombings.

      China might not experience the same problems or those problems in exactly the same way due to other aspects of their culture, but having a large part of the population being potentially unable to satisfy some of their most basic human desires seems like a recipe for problems down the road.

    8. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Good thing mistreatment of women is a problem that's only ever occurred in China. Makes it so much easier to stereotype.

    9. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Makes it so much easier to stereotype.

      Is the stereotype wrong when its based on facts?

    10. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Well, let's hope they're female sheep!

    11. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by Altrag · · Score: 1

      It can be, in the context of omission. By singling out one specific people, there's an implicit assumption that the stereotype doesn't equally apply to other peoples.

      Its basically a quirk of our language and the (not always correct) assumptions we make based on how a phrase or thought it worded, but its the way things are.

      In this case, while the one child rule and associated penalties may have made the practice more drastic, history provides no shortage of cases where female children were considered inferior or outright useless, across many cultures all over the planet.

      And of course being a very recent event means its fresh in our minds while older examples may not be as easy to discover (especially since its also only very recently that the world as a whole has been keeping mass records on everything, and much of what was recorded prior to a couple hundred years ago would have been recorded almost exclusively by men living in far more patriarchal times -- so finding much in the way of women's issues would be even more challenging than your average delve into historical research.)

    12. Re:Korral bit it from Lucille and The Comedian by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Because woosh maybe woosh he was looking to buy woosh

      God, it is windy in here...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  7. No worries, if it's anything like their ordinary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No worries, if it's anything like their ordinary QA and product quality.

  8. Burying the (non-)lead by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Not only will it clone cattle, but the factory, which will be located in the northern Chinese port of Tianjin, will also cater to more specific needs by genetically engineering police dogs and thoroughbred race horses."

    It gets a brief mention in the title and then the body focuses on cows, dogs, and horses rather than the part about cloning humans???

    Actually checking TFA, it says:

    "There are currently no plans in the pipeline to clone and produce humans in a bid to eradicate disease, but Xiaochun has said that this can change if people become more open to the idea of it."

    So it sounds like the cloning humans is just a "hey, we could do this at some point" thing, and not part of the initial plan of operation?

    In any case, i'm not sure why this is a good solution to a demand for more meat. In the long run (and possibly even the short run) doing a little more research and building a cultured meat factory would probably be a lot more cost effective than cloning the entire cow.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Burying the (non-)lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm still going to start collecting locks of supermodel hair from e-bay, because I can see which way the wind is blowing.

    2. Re:Burying the (non-)lead by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      So it sounds like the cloning humans is just a "hey, we could do this at some point" thing, and not part of the initial plan of operation?
      In any case, i'm not sure why this is a good solution to a demand for more meat.

      Ugh. /s

    3. Re:Burying the (non-)lead by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      So what's wrong with a sister of Scarlet Johansson?

    4. Re:Burying the (non-)lead by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      You say that now, but even Sarah Silverman has a sister....

    5. Re:Burying the (non-)lead by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      The Book "Fallen Dragon" by Peter F. Hamilton has a great scene where the protagonist is mislead into eating organic beef. Society had developed to eating synthetic meat to the point that he was so repulsed when he found out that we was actually sick. I may be paraphrasing as I can't find a quote online handy, but he said, horrified "You fed me meat from a dead animal?!"

    6. Re:Burying the (non-)lead by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You could also reference Demolition man. Much the same reaction from the other characters while Stallone's character eats a rat burger after shrugging.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  9. Now that brings back memories... by Rumagent · · Score: 1

    SMACX come alive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGCaACqy1Ro

    Should have voiced it with Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

  10. Can't see the point by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

    I can't see the point in cloning cows. Artificial insemination works well enough, is less expensive, and they will need a cow to serve as the mother anyway.

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    1. Re:Can't see the point by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Artificial insemination works well enough

      No, it doesn't. At least not for what Boyalife intends. When you actually read the story you learn they intend to produce "prime" grade beef. Only 2.9% of of carcasses grade as prime using existing techniques (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef), and these fetch premium prices. Obviously they intend to use cloning to get control over the variables and produce a reliable supply of prime beef.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  11. Misleading Headline (what's new) by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are currently no plans in the pipeline to clone and produce humans in a bid to eradicate disease, but Xiaochun has said that this can change if people become more open to the idea of it.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  12. given up on improvement by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    How do the bloodlines advance though. I can see why we would want more high-end racehorses, but I thought the real point was to breed a better horse, not level the paying field through some kind of horse formula-1 uniformity.

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:given up on improvement by rhazz · · Score: 1

      People will still attempt to breed better horses, because if they are successful they can sell the DNA to these companies for probably a lot more than the original horse would sell for. Only when the company starts genetic modifications (probably will happen in our lifetime) to produce super-animals would we see breeding left behind as an unprofitable business model for high-end stock.

    2. Re:given up on improvement by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If they ever do a horse Indycar they'll have to breed them with shorter legs on one side.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  13. Why is this {expletive noun} on the front page? by JeffreyBPetersen · · Score: 1

    Title is nothing if not a complete lie for the sake of being clickbait. The "article" itself about matches it for quality.

  14. Re:they saved hitler's brain by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    Perhaps the "Angry Samoans" can answer this:

    They saved Hitler's cock, They hid it under a rock.
    discovered it, last night. I couldn't even, believe my eyes.

    If Hitler's cock could start to talk, it would say: To kill today.
    If Hitler's cock could choose it's mate, it would ask, for Sharon Tate!

    They saved Hitler's cock. They stuffed it in Mengele's sock.
    They saved Hitler's cock, and now it wants to talk.

    Now it's starting to get hard, I found it in my backyard.
    Every night it kills a dog, and now it wants, some night and fog
    Hitler's cock is on the move, and now I'm scared of what it's gonna do!

    Although, I guess Trump would prefer a song centered around the word, "Schlong".

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  15. Cloning Pets by laie_techie · · Score: 1

    I feel for those grieving the loss of a pet, but cloning won't bring their pet back. Cloning just creates a genetically identical (except mt-DNA) copy. Remember that individuals come with individual personalities, and even this will diverge based on individual experiences. There is no known way to clone a soul (for lack of a better term).

    1. Re:Cloning Pets by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yeah but sometimes the pet's physical characteristics are pretty awesome too.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Cloning Pets by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The pet's personality is based on how it is treated when it is raised. simply repeat the same treatment and you will get pretty close to the same thing. I had a full breed collie for 14 years, she died of old age and we got a fresh puppy to replace her. now at a year old there are a LOT of identical behaviors in the new puppy as I am raising it the same way I raised the other. You train in the desired traits, and train out the undesired ones. It's all just dog training, you just need to be consistent.

      Now natural breeding adds in randomness. I am sure there is genetic memory that is passed down, as well as training the pup gets from it's mother for the first 10 weeks that you can not influence.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Cloning Pets by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      There is no sole, that's hogwash. There is the nature vs nurture argument. DNA vs how you treat it. Then there are viruses that alter brain chemistry and operation, random mutation. Cloning won't bring back a pet because cloning only focuses on DNA.

    4. Re:Cloning Pets by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There is no sole

      There are several. They go in alphabetical sequence. You come right after the q-sole.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Cloning Pets by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      There is no sole, that's hogwash. There is the nature vs nurture argument. DNA vs how you treat it. Then there are viruses that alter brain chemistry and operation, random mutation. Cloning won't bring back a pet because cloning only focuses on DNA.

      Even if you aren't religious, you must admit that soles exist; I bet the shoes you wear even have them. As for soul, I am religious and spiritual. I used a religious term to encompass the non-physical essence of the individual. Identical twins raised in the same household have different personality traits despite identical DNA and near identical nurture.

      In any case, my point is that you won't get your pet back; at most you'll get a twin of it.

    6. Re:Cloning Pets by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      I'll admit, I paused with a confused look on my face for about 2 whole seconds before considering what the next 'sole' would be ... duhno if you originated that or stole it well, but it brought a smile to my face, cheers!

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  16. Start pumping out Elvis clones by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    We need more of them in Las Vegas.

  17. Re:GMO Everything by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Yeah sure go ahead and call me flamebait, because the goram Chinese are just so perfect and careful with everything they do, what could possibly go wrong? In their headlong rush to beat the West at everything and become the predominant political and military power in the world, they wouldn't dream of taking any shortcuts or taking any big risks now would they? After all they're just so peaceful and benevolent, absolute advocates of human and civil rights, freedom of speech, respectful of the borders and territories of neighboring countries, and wouldn't even dream of harming so much as a single fly!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  18. Kidneys, lungs, livers. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    1) A human can live after donating a kidney, lung, pancreas, bone marrow, or liver.

    2) There are a lot of diseases that slowly affect those organs. A prime example is IgA Nepropathy can take 27 years from first affecting your kidneys, till you need a transplant.

    3) Imagine you discover that your 10 year old child has IgA Nepropahty and that they will need a new kidney sometime in 10-30 years. You can clone them today, ensuring a healthy kidney without any immune suppression drugs,, or wait and hope they get a donated kidney from a stranger and immune suppression drugs.

    Damn right you will clone her. Hell, I would clone her even if she was 20 years old. (If she was 30, I'd tell her to raise her own child.).

    Yes there should be laws preventing abuse of this technology. But don't tell the parents of a child with a deadly disease that we know how to treat her but we won't do it because of fear of abuse.

    Personally, if I wanted to have kids, I'd rather get a matched set of clones. Just for the extra medical capabilities it offers.

    For example, if one person gets an Immune disease, you could wipe out their current immune system and give them a new bone marrow implant from the healthy clone.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Kidneys, lungs, livers. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      http://www.adultswim.com/video...

      Here is your blueprint....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Kidneys, lungs, livers. by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Damn right you will clone her.

      That's where the problem comes in. If the "clone" is just a meatsack with working organs then great. But that's unlikely since they're being cloned from non-meatsacks.

      So now what you have is two daughters, not much different from identical twins other than the time delay, rather than a daughter and a meatsack. Are you OK with sacrificing one daughter for the sake of the other?

      And if during the cloning process the company can correct that defective gene.. why would you sacrifice the healthy daughter for the sick one even if you were willing to make such a choice? Why wouldn't you go the other way? And if they can't correct it then the clone will have the same problem anyway and your only solution is to sacrifice a freshly-grown copy of your daughter every 10 or 20 years for the rest of her life.

      Or you could just go in vitro and have them weed the defective zygotes from day zero.. I can't imagine you'd be opposed to an in vitro procedure if you're willing to delve into essentially human sacrifice to ensure a healthy daughter. It would be far less ethically questionable and probably far cheaper to boot by the time all is said and done.

    3. Re:Kidneys, lungs, livers. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      1) This is a disease, not a genetic issue. Make no sense at all to 'clone' someone to deal with a genetic issue.

      2) Note the long term lines I declared. That means the clones get to decide, not anyone else. It's all voluntary, by adults.

      3) As I clearly stated, this was to deal with situations where neither clone should die. Yes, there is a small (3% chance of dying from donating a kidney, liver, pancreas, etc.)

      Yes, you can bring up evil ideas for some douchebag to do. I fully admit it is possible to abuse cloning technology.

      I am not talking about that, I am talking about legitimate uses of cloning that do not have the ethical problems you are bringing up - and claim that the possibility of abuse should not preclude non-abusive use of technology. We don't home DVR (DVD or tape) recording because some other people use it to steal shows. Nor should we outlaw ethical uses of cloning because certain unethical uses also exist.

      As per my sig, please respond to the ACTUAL thing I wrote, rather than what some idiot thought I meant.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  19. Re:GMO Everything by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    On there other hand it does't matter if we die more often if we just resume living from our Gold Cross backup clone.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Just one question: why? by whitroth · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is a specific cow, or pet that special? And if so, why on *earth* would you think a cloned one would act the same?

    And people... there are these people called "twins", or "triplets", etc, and they all turn out differently. What would you expect to get by cloning someone?

    And it's a long term thing, if you're cloning your favorite movie star, or politician...

                    mark

    1. Re:Just one question: why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think about fruit trees. Just about any fruit you buy at a grocery store will have come from clonally propagated (grafted) tree. Every Fuji apple comes from a clone of the original Fuji tree and so on.

      Suppose that a specific cow has beautifully marbled meat or really high milk production. You could breed that cow, and hope that its offspring has the same trait, or you can clone that cow and virtually guarantee it.

      Twin studies don't disprove the importance of genetics when it comes to outcomes, they prove it. Plus, a factory farm raised animal is not going to have nearly the environmental variation as a human or a pet.

    2. Re:Just one question: why? by e1618978 · · Score: 1

      Well, clone it without the frontal lobe and there is no moral issue I'd say. Harvesting organs sounds pretty fantastic to me - would using a cloned organ make it so you didn't have to take immune suppressant drugs to prevent organ rejection?

    3. Re:Just one question: why? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      People really believe *everything* is coded in your DNA. Right down to the type of music you like. Explain that identical twins (same DNA) not only have very different personalities, look different, like different things etc. And people still don't get that nurture/nature part at all.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  21. Don't muddy the waters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Selective breeding is analogous to using mother nature's tools, within mother nature's workshop, to guide the otherwise natural course of evolution. That's precisely why human beings have been able to do it for ages: because it relies on nothing more than mother nature.

    Genetic engineering is something entirely different. Clearly, genetic engineering does NOT use mother nature's tools, but rather a toolkit which isn't found anywhere in nature. And clearly, genetic engineering does NOT work within the rules of mother nature's workshop, but rather outside of them completely. This is precisely why human beings have not been able to do this until very recently in the course of our technical evolution: because it requires much more than mother nature's toolkit and workshop.

    The two procedures aren't even remotely comparable, even if they do attempt to achieve a similar goal. Note that I haven't actually spoken out against genetic engineering here. I've only laid out a common-sense argument why genetic engineering isn't comparable to selective breeding.

    1. Re:Don't muddy the waters by Flavianoep · · Score: 2

      Selective breeding is artificial selection nonetheless; it favors features desired by humans and sometimes even renders the race or variety created incapable of naturally reproducing (see the giant-breasted turkeys).

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:Don't muddy the waters by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Selective breeding is analogous to using mother nature's tools

      The tools of genetic engineering, such as CRISPR/CAS, come from bacteria, which are also part of "Mother Nature".

      Genetic engineering is something entirely different.

      No it isn't. It is just another point on a continuum.

    3. Re:Don't muddy the waters by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Genetic Engineering is to selective breeding like the Golden Gate Bridge is to stacking selected rocks.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:Don't muddy the waters by SumDog · · Score: 2

      Mother nature is a socially constructed concept:

      http://www.abstrusegoose.com/215

      We have been slowly altering our world for centuries. We've bread sweeter fruits, starchier corn, turkeys that cannot reproduce on their own, cows with unregulated muscle growth, white tigers (not a species, a trait sought after so most of them are inbred), etc. The rice we eat today has been entirely cultivated and most likely would not survive on its own in the wild without modern agriculture.

    5. Re: Don't muddy the waters by cfalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean, yes, but that's a definition of "natural order" that really just means "whatever the limits of physics are".

      Thus far, our actions work on a pretty damned small scale. A maniac in a story who wants to "destroy the universe" usually does so with some power that has no real world equivalent- magic, a dark god, etc. More realistic stories that still feature cartoon villains who want to "destroy the Earth" usually do so with something that could, in theory, be a risk- nuclear technology being heavily abused, a self replicating agent (gray goo, virus, bacteria, fungus), or something that could realistically exist.

      This is because our experiences show that stuff that happens on the human scale mostly stays on the human scale, and we are worried it can hit the planetary scale accidentally. We can wipe out all the bugs and mice in our house (and we want to!), but probably not the world (and we don't want to!). But we have NO reasons to believe that this observation, which has been true until this point, is actually real in the general case. The truth is, we don't know how easy it would be to "destroy the universe", and we don't understand a hell of a lot of low level physics that could point in that direction. Our best reasoning for it not being easy is that it hasn't happened yet, but this would be a much more potent observation if we could observe hundreds of hyper-advanced civilizations, all standing tribute to it being difficult to accidentally (or on purpose) blow up everything.

      Anyway, just because we are at no risk of that RIGHT NOW doesn't mean that we should continue making that assumption going forward. Existential risk from our own actions will not always be benign.

    6. Re:Don't muddy the waters by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Genetic engineering is something entirely different.

      No, it's not. You can, given time, obtain the same results with GE that you can with selective selection. In the end it's about nucleotide sequences and getting them to line up how you want them to. Selective selection just takes a more time and resources.

      Genetic engineering is something entirely different. Clearly, genetic engineering does NOT use mother nature's tools, but rather a toolkit which isn't found anywhere in nature.

      And this, Mr anonymous, is a complete load of uneducated horse shit. "Natural" gene splicing has been around practically forever in the form of viruses. In fact, the human genome has some 100,000 DNA sequences inserted into it from exactly that. Some of them are big enough to be complete gene sequences, such as that of the human placenta.

    7. Re: Don't muddy the waters by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Even destroying all life on Earth would be a monumentally difficult challenge. Destroying all of a specific species (possibly our own) would be more realistic and we've done that many times over in the course of the past 10-20 thousand years..

      But destroying "all" life would require damaging the Earth so badly that even viruses and bacteria can't adapt fast enough to survive. And they have mutation rates on the scale of hours. Tremendously challenging.. would require something along the line of pushing the Earth outside of the Goldilocks zone.. and even then we have no idea how far out you'd have to go to effectively destroy all microbial life.

      And of course if the bacteria survive, its almost assured that a few billion years from now we'll start seeing critters swimming in the oceans again. Well OK, we won't be cause we'll be long dead. But some outside observer would.

      Destroying the universe is well.. almost literally impossible. We simply don't have the energy scale available to us to affect something as large as the universe. Even if the LHC managed to produce a strangelet bomb or an Earth-eating black hole as the paranoid keep suggesting, it would be a localized effect and probably wouldn't even significantly change the orbit of the moon never mind anything else (the LHC isn't creating mass or energy -- only converting between the two -- so its not possible for our overall gravitational influence to change significantly no matter what we do to the planet, including compressing the whole thing into a black hole.)

    8. Re:Don't muddy the waters by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You can't go into the weeds or your argument loses meaning. It can only be defended at the very top level as an artificial distinction. Trying to claim a real difference breaks down quickly.

      Like lets say a new insect evolves that eats a type of tree. Now the tree is being selected for different traits than before, entirely due to external pressures. Ants even conduct farming, and maintain herds of aphids that they "milk" for sugar. There are lots and lots of examples of an external selection pressure being introduced by another species. Those are all called "natural selection."

      The only difference is because people choose to use different words arbitrarily when humans are involved.

    9. Re:Don't muddy the waters by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      "Genetic engineering is something entirely different. Clearly, genetic engineering does NOT use mother nature's tools, but rather a toolkit which isn't found anywhere in nature. "

      Oh look, another one who hasn't heard that transgenic processes have now been found in nature.
      http://arstechnica.com/science...

    10. Re:Don't muddy the waters by OzoneLad · · Score: 2

      Many humans are tools alright.

    11. Re:Don't muddy the waters by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...in a very limited form.

      Although the main reasons to turn your back on this sort of stuff is that it is UNECESSARY and also has consequences that go a bit beyond "but science". That's the problem with the "but science" crowd. They're trying to drown out the nuance of the situation and engaging in the usual scientific vanity.

      Vanity genetics is probably another area that will run afoul of the patent laws.

      Beyond that, the Frankenstein stuff should not be let out into the wild where it can run amok on it's own.

      That's toying around with a production system for which you have no backup.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re: Don't muddy the waters by kencurry · · Score: 1

      Look, genetic engineering is the most powerful force in the universe, yet you wield it like a toy you found in your mother's basement. You looked at what others had done and you took the next step. And now you slap it on a lunchpail and your selling it.

      I'll tell you the problem with what you've done here, you did not earn this. What you call process, I call the rape of the natural world. (Boom - totally from memory. Homage to late great Michael Crichton)

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    13. Re: Don't muddy the waters by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Your AC. Who gives a fuck. Your not even prepared to put a fake name to stance/faith/whatever.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    14. Re:Don't muddy the waters by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2

      I can cross-breed a goat and a spider?

      Really? Because that would be cool as hell.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    15. Re:Don't muddy the waters by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Actually - a lot of transgenes come from natural sources. We know certain DNA sequences work in certain ways mostly from seeing them work that way in nature. Most tools people use for genetic engineering started out as things in nature too - they're still "mother nature's" tools, just refined and changed somewhat.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    16. Re: Don't muddy the waters by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      The biosphere isn't ruined. Damaged, certainly, but not irrevocably.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    17. Re:Don't muddy the waters by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      I can cross-breed a goat and a spider?

      First of all, even in that example they didn't cross breed anything. That's a lateral gene transfer, something that viruses have done practically forever. The human placenta is the result of one such gene transfer.

      Second of all, yes, given time and resources (in this case, lots of it) you could pull that off with selective selection.

    18. Re:Don't muddy the waters by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Mitocondria is also an example like that. Mitocondria are a beneficial parasite that we picked up way back when. They increase our energy production, but are entirely a foreign body.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  22. Re:$21 Million Won't Do Much by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait, multiply by five to take into account that it's done by non-US scientists and engineers.

    I think your factor of five is very low. There is no thicket of TLA's to navigate in China — OSHA, NLRB, EPA, FDA, etc. — just grease the right palms and hit the go button. Even more than that you have to consider the legal risk; anyone involved with this in a developed Western nation would find themselves in front of congressional committees or parliaments and subject to a barrage of legal challenges by who knows how many pressure groups. Individual scientists would be demonized by academe. I think an industrial cloning operation is politically infeasible in the US or any part of Europe.

    I find this all rather amusing. We've built this industrial, scientific and financial monster in Asia with our trade regime while simultaneously feathering our environmental regulatory regime at home and fostering this anti-industry, anti-energy, anti-anything-more-impactful-than-a-hobby-farm mentality. It turns out the monster we've created couldn't care less about our finely honed sensitives and is going to fill the world with cloned food.

    Brilliant. Go China.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  23. Practice On Critters Before Cloning A Super Army by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    They have to perfect their techniques on critters, then they can work on creating a super army of clones. I bet 3 cats that China, and I assume 4 or 5 other countries, ARE working on human clones in a laboratory away from public eye. Its not a matter of IF, its a matter of WHEN. You didn't think they were just throwing those aborted fetuses in a trash can did you?

  24. Re:UUMMMMM by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    Great way to make soldiers, though, especially if you can figure a viral way to make them deficient in forebrain.

  25. Yoda called it by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Begun the clone war has.

  26. Guard Dogs by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Would we get these?

  27. Chinese knock-offs by zerofoo · · Score: 2

    The Chinese really do copy everything don't they?

    1. Re:Chinese knock-offs by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They stole it from Microsoft who stole it from Apple who stole it from Xerox who invented great gizmos but were priced at 15 grand.

  28. RTFA by chipschap · · Score: 1

    Another lousy headline, including the headline on TFA. Deeper in the article it says that there are no current plans to clone humans. I also love the picture in TFA, which has a caption about cloning cows but shows a line of people.

    Come to think of it ...

  29. Overlords? by monkeyman.kix · · Score: 1
    I for one welcome our new cloned cow overlords.

    mmmm....cloned meat!

  30. I'm glad it's China that is doing this by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    The flat-earthers can't touch a project when it's built in China. The new AP-1000s are going in there. This is where the Thirty Meter telescope should be built.

  31. Attack of the clones by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Has anyone seen Temuera Morrison recently?

  32. Re:UUMMMMM by wyHunter · · Score: 1

    I know an awful lot of really smart American military guys. I know a lot of stupid ones too, but there are way lots of smart military men.

  33. All the burgers will taste EXACTLY the same! by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    Go veg.

  34. Sixth Day by mcswell · · Score: 1

    The headline is misleading; from the article: "There are currently no plans in the pipeline to clone and produce humans in a bid to eradicate disease, but Xiaochun has said that this can change if people become more open to the idea of it." Time for a Sixth Day law.

    BTW, there's a possibly more reputable article (from Dec 2015, but basically same content) here: http://phys.org/news/2015-12-c...

  35. Gives new meaning to the phrase... by Puppet+Master · · Score: 1

    Made in China.

    --
    The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!