The cloning revolution

The cloning revolution

www.independent.co.uk

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 18 April 2008

A revolutionary form of cloning is to be used as part of a last-ditch effort to save one of the world's rarest animals – the northern white rhino – which is on the brink of extinction with only a few individuals left in the wild.

British scientists are to spearhead an attempt to preserve the genes of a rhino in captivity by using a technique that mixes its skin cells with the embryos of a close cousin, the southern white rhino, which is no

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well it's a noble cause to try and save animals from extinction. However, it seems like the correct way would be to protect their habitat in the first place.

I think more likely this is experimentation with another long range goal...

One scientist warned this week in an interview with TheIndependent that the technique of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells could even be used on human beings by maverick IVF doctors wanting to help infertile couples, because it has proved so easy to use on mice with few apparent side-effects.

www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



Also see this thread:
Cow-human cross embryo lives three days

[edit on 4/18/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy

I think more likely this is experimentation with another long range goal...

And what might that be?

reply to post by Scramjet76


there's a quote from the article right under the ....

To use the technology on humans.

The rate of failure in animal cloning should serve as a
fire bell in the night. Behind the headlines of apparent
success in animal cloning lies a failure rate as high as 95 to
97 percent.

Would human cloning lessen the worth of individuals and
diminish respect for human life by turning procreation into a
manufacturing process?

Is there a bright line between the joining of a man and a
woman's reproductive cells and the replication of just one
person's genetic material?

Is the one creation and the other mere construction?
The Christian philosopher G.K. Chesterton wrote, ``The
whole difference between construction and creation is exactly
this, that a thing constructed can only be loved after it is
constructed, but a thing created is loved before it exists.''

republicans.energycommerce.house.gov...








[edit on 4/18/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I think we should preserve the animals that we humans are at fault of their extinction.

But I disagree about that a thing constructed can only be loved after it is constructed, but a thing created is loved before it exists.

Is lot of things created that their creation has been mistakes later to be mistreated, abandon and abuse.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

But I disagree about that a thing constructed can only be loved after it is constructed, but a thing created is loved before it exists.

Is lot of things created that their creation has been mistakes later to be mistreated, abandon and abuse.

I am not exactly sure what you are getting at marge. Sure things that are created can be mistreated and aren't always loved. Abortion is an example. I don't think it implies that either case is always loved. Just that when they are loved there is a difference at when it starts.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Would human cloning lessen the worth of individuals and
diminish respect for human life by turning procreation into a
manufacturing process?

I never read it, but you mean kinda like I understand it to be depicted in an H.G. Wells book The (A?) Brave New World? (If I have my references correct)

I would have to say it would. And then ya' just take a look at that one Schwarzeneger (sp?) movie, and how far off are we really from something like that?

I was referring about all the abandon children that were created by rape, lust or else, seen as mistakes that becomes mistreated children and many abandon by their biological mothers.

Creation is not always so loved after all but I think you understood my point.

When it comes to animals closed to extinction or extinct I don't see a problem with trying to do anything to preserve these animals.

What I don't agree is playing games with cloning to bring back human beings just because people thinks that they will be an exact replica of the original person.

To me I see it in a different light, ones a soul exit the body is up to that soul to come back to another body.

So I see cloning no as a body created without soul but a body free to be the house of any soul.

Funny but I guess when it comes to believes specially those that have to do with religion or faith, we both knows that we are miles apart from agreeing.

reply to post by marg6043

What I don't agree is playing games with cloning to bring back human beings just because people thinks that they will be an exact replica of the original person.

Marge I agree! I have been debating a raelian over in that thread, they want to achieve immortality through cloning. The thing is, a clone is not an exact replica like we are led to believe. More like a twin.

A "human clone" is a time-delayed identical twin of another person. A clone is not an exact replica of the original, but just a much younger identical twin. As with identical twins, the clone and the original being will have different set of fingerprints.

www.indianchild.com...

Different fingerprints means a different individual to me.

So they are unique human beings and it is highly unethical to think of them as just duplicates.

I agree, cloning of humans should never be allowed, like you said and the link said this individuals will be unique, they will never be the same as the original.

They will have their own soul and their own genetic unique codes even if they will be like a twin, they do not necessarily will even have to look alike.

Cloning of humans will be a big mistake.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Would human cloning lessen the worth of individuals and
diminish respect for human life by turning procreation into a
manufacturing process?

That is laughable. We do a great job disrespecting eachother already. I hardly find that to be a valid argument.

A "human clone" is a time-delayed identical twin of another person. A clone is not an exact replica of the original, but just a much younger identical twin. As with identical twins, the clone and the original being will have different set of fingerprints.

So?

However, we can compare the fingerprints of identical twins, or "natural clones." Identical twins develop from a single fertilized egg, and thus share identical genomes of DNA. While the fingerprint patterns between twins are often similar, minor differences can be detected. Remember - we are products of our genes and of our environment. Though twins share identical genes and a similar developmental environment, sufficient variations in development can lead to fingerprint patterns that are not 100% identical.

source

As the dr. pointed out... identical twins are "natural clones," yet have slight variations. The point being even nature doesn't create "exact" clones.

So far I'm not convinced... People against this seem to be biased due to their religious or philosophical beliefs. We are not like other animals. Our advantages aren't that we run faster, have bigger teeth, stronger, fly, swim etc. Our advantages lie in our ability to understand nature and utilize that understanding. Fear is a natural emotion when considering rolling humans off "an assembly line." We should not allow personal bias or fear of the unknown to limit the potential of what is already transpiring before our very eyes.

PS- I am not for cloning humans but not for bioethical reasons. Instead, I think it would be bad thing for a socially primitive society bound by money.

reply to post by Scramjet76

So?

I guess you weren't following the conversation? There are folks that would clone themselves or dead relatives as a way of achieving immortality. SO... It is very significant that clones are not truly even exact duplicates but distinct individuals.

The only side beneficial for cloning is the one that will have big money signs on it.

The wealthy been able to clone themselves for future organ disposal.

For the parent that can be geared to believe that a lost child can be brought back with a clone.

The benefits can be unlimited as long as is money involved.

We human are not reaching extinction and we have plenty of sperms and eggs banks to preserve humanity.

Why the need to cloning then? because is all about money.

Or we can think that the future NWO if it comes into fruition, will use those dumb down clones for an army of brainless enforcers of already dumbdown population.

Really it will be a mixture of Brave New World, 1984, Minority Report.... a really hellish world.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

I guess you weren't following the conversation? There are folks that would clone themselves or dead relatives as a way of achieving immortality. SO... It is very significant that clones are not truly even exact duplicates but distinct individuals.

I followed it just fine. I see nothing wrong with reaching for immortality. It is natural to not want to die.

What makes an individual distinct? I guess that's debatable but certainly dependant on one's belief systems. Personally I think an individual is:

1) Genes/DNA
2) Experience
3) Their immediate environment

reply to post by Scramjet76


You sound like the Raelians.

The facts say it is a different person (i.e. different fingerprints) so it would more like taking a life to try to preserve your own. More akin to Vampirism than science.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


The fact is your putting too much emphasis on the vague term "person." I'm not sure how you arrive at vampirism.. I'm assuming this will turn into a discussion on morals so I'll say: we live in a free country. Guess everyone has their own opinion.

Good thread though. I think in the coming decades, robots and clones will continue to be an issue as we struggle as a society to agree on bioethics policies.