Human embryo cloned - what do you think?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 8:21 pm

Yesterday (Sunday), the American company ACT reported they have cloned human embryos. This was done with somatic cell nuclear transfer, the DNA in a human egg cell is removed and replaced with DNA from a human body cell. The experment included 8 cells, and two developed to divide, one into 4 cells, another into 6 cells.

This news will surely spur a renewed ethical debate regarding human cloning. However, it's not the first time cloned human embryos have appeared. In 1998, the same company claimed they had made a hybrid clone by using an emtpy cow's egg and human DNA. The same year South Koran scientists also claimed they had cloned a human embryo and destroyed it.

Reproductive cloning of human beings is prohibited, but cloning of early embryos for harvesting stem cells, remains legal within certain limitations.

At the moment, cloning is a risky business. Many tries are needed to produce an embryo, and the cloned individuals show some still not understood differences from naturally produced individuals. Cloned cows and mice often grow obese (even Dolly had to be put on a special diet) and they die earlier. Some develop diabetes and other diseases although the "host" or the DNA donour didn't have it. (For some yet unknown reason, the chromosomes seem to get shorter in the cloned individual, and this is thought to cause the premature death and some other problems.)

Anyway, these technical obstacles will soon be overcome - major improvements in cloning safety have already been made - and we will have a technique to clone healthy babies.

So, what do you think about it? Is it just another reproduction method, or is it a step towards a "headless clones for storage of spare parts"-scenario? Monozygotic (identical) twins are naturally occuring clones. Is there any difference between MZ twins and cloned babies?

Let me hear your thoughts! Should all cloning be banned? Or should it be free as soon as it's safe? Should it be allowed with limits, as it is today? Where and why should the limits be drawn? Other issues?

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 8:35 pm

I think cloning should be banned. Unless they are used for scientific testing. Like for the cure of cancer and other life threating health problems.

But then you would have someone screaming, about using clones as test subjects.

Hmmmmmmmmm, I think the world would be a better place, with only one Darkpoet.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 8:36 pm

If it isn't legal in the US, it will be pursued elsewhere. If it is prevented the world over, it would still be pursued in secret. We've just let lose the genie that can cure diseases and create faceless armies with a wave of its hand--and something tells me humanity isn't about to do something uncharacteristic and act very responsibly.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 8:50 pm

At the moment, I think the international limit for how long a cloned human embryo is allowed to develop, is 14 days. A problem is that all places on earth aren't included in the international laws. An Italian and an American scientist has already promised to start reproductive human cloning at some small Pacific island-countries that have not yet signed the international agreement. They plan to use it as an infertility treatment method.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Nov 25, 2001 9:16 pm

Originally posted by fable:
If it isn't legal in the US, it will be pursued elsewhere. If it is prevented the world over, it would still be pursued in secret. We've just let lose the genie that can cure diseases and create faceless armies with a wave of its hand--and something tells me humanity isn't about to do something uncharacteristic and act very responsibly.

I think I agree with what fable said.

IMO, cloning of organs for the purpose of transplants is a good idea. Part of the reason I think this is that I have an uncle who was terminally ill and needed a lung transplant. He's completely cured of the disease he had now(divine intervention), but he only has like a part of one lung left. He would be better off if a new pair of lungs could be cloned and transplanted into him.

In actuallity, I don't think it is possible to clone a complete human; but that depends on some variables of which I don't know, variables that no one but God knows. Identical twins, though identical in appearance, are still two seperate people both created through the process of a woman getting pregnant and giving birth.

One thing I'm reminded of is an episode of the sci-fi show Sliders. They landed on a world where clones-for-spare-parts were a common thing, for rich people. I'm sure it's a somewhat extreme situation that was dealt with on the show, but it is 'theoretically' possible, especially the way things seem to going.

One thing I can say for sure is that I do not want to be cloned. This world wouldn't survive if there was more than one of me.

This post was brought to you by Sailor Saturn, the Queen of Saturn, Queen of Spam, and Goddess of Death and Rebirth.

CM · Post by CM » Sun Nov 25, 2001 9:54 pm

There is no reason to play God.
But if i find it perfectly accept to clone an organ that has failed - like Fable said.
Instead of heart transplants, just clone another heart.

CM · Post by CM » Sun Nov 25, 2001 10:01 pm

Oh yeah the world could do with a few more of me!!

I mean if clones of me ruled the world, their would be no war, only peace, no famine, too much good food, and alot of beautiful beautiful women!!!!!

And alot alot of COMM!

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:50 am

Imho the progress made in cloning techniques are a very good and promising thing. It will force us to make up our minds about what "qualifies" as a living being with human rights and such. It will also serve to question the sense in having profit as our primary driving force.

Ofcourse cloning, as any other tool, must be used in a ethical and cautious way. But i think the argument "it is not our domain" is newer reason to abandon a field of science.

btw, isnt cloning(even "safe") seriously flawed as a method of reproduction? wouldnt it be more costly then doing it the old fashion way and also make the genetic code more uniform?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 8:22 am

btw, isnt cloning(even "safe") seriously flawed as a method of reproduction? wouldnt it be more costly then doing it the old fashion way and also make the genetic code more uniform?

The idea of some wacko ruler (and not one of our wacko rulers, I suspect) cloning 100,000 troops to be trained in certain skills and mindsets from birth, then let loose on the local enemy, is no more crazy than genetic cloning itself was, twenty years ago.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 8:41 am

Nobody has yet mentioned the rights and welfare of the child. hmmm

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 10:07 am

Cloning in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. DNA technology offers a lot of potential for eradicating genetic presdispositions for disease and defects. However, like all other forms of power, we (as a species) must use it for good, not evil.

If we acquire the technology to eliminate Alzheimers, diabetes, alcoholism, etc., we will also acquire the technology to manipulate genes to create the uberhumans and supersoldiers that science fiction fears. The two come hand in hand, just as nuclear power brought us the ability to inexpensively generate massive amounts of electricity but also the ability to wipe entire cities off the face of the Earth.

I think the current state of cloning comes with a lot of risks and has a high failure rate, as some of our friends have already pointed out. That makes now the perfect time to discuss the ethics of cloning and its place when the success rate is higher.

There are three sides of this: 1) Go forth with any research and we'll see where it goes before trying to control or regulate it, 2) Put as much of the genie back in the bottle and try to "un-invent" as much of the technology as possible, or 3) Do the research under the watchful eye of the world-wide scientific community so that it can be controlled and regulated, because even if the US or the EU bans it, someone will go to a third world country and do the research anyway under conditions that are less than ideal.

Personally, for pragmatic reasons I support option #3 because once scientists get a goal in their heads, they tend to go forth for the sake of discovery without regard to the ethics of the situation (Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park being the prime example of the science experiment gone horribly wrong). It is my opinion that the best way to keep cloning technology safe and minimise the risk of abuse is to conducts all of the research in public with strong governmental oversight by multi-national entities. Our collective best defense against an "attack of the clones" is to not let this research be conducted by "black ops" and secret military projects.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 11:53 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
Cloning in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. DNA technology offers a lot of potential for eradicating genetic presdispositions for disease and defects.

I agree that it, in and of itself, is not bad; however, there are other things to consider when looking at the whole genetic engineering thing. How many Einsteins, Picassos, and Mozarts will end up just another "average" human being because the erradication of a 'genetic defect'? On the other hand, how many Einsteins, Picassos, and Mozarts will be the results of eradication of 'genetic defects'? IMO, there are really too many variables for this to considered "safe." It may be "safe" as in the child will be completely healthy; but physical health is not all there is to life. It reminds me of my two great grandmothers.

The first one: in her late 80s-early 90s, is physically very healthy, but she has very little of her mind left.

The second one(she died last Christmas): in her early 90s, wasn't all that healthy physically, unable to get around on her own, but she hadn't lost one bit of her mind and her memory was as sharp as ever.

I know those are specifically examples of old ladies, but I see it applying to children as well. You may have a child that is physically unable to do things such as play basketball, football, or sports of any kind; but can calculate e=mc^2 in her head accurate to 5 decimal places; or you may have a child who can play sports quite well, but can't add 2 and 2 to get 4. Extremes yes, but the eradication of whatever made the former physically unable to play sports could result in her becoming the latter. I would much rather give my child, when I eventually have one, the chance to find ways to rise above whatever "defects" she might have than to mess with her DNA and risk that she be something totally different from what she is meant to be.

Omar · Post by **Omar** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:09 pm

I heard of the cloning experiment this morning. Who has been funding this project? I wonder how much money this research is usurping, especially since president Bush cancelled all financial support by the government!
Regardless of the pro's and con's, if a third party is sponsoring such experiments things might get onto the "commercial" tour real quickly, instead of applying cloning for the good of humanity

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:35 pm

It disgusts me. It's evil.

I don't care what they say about finding cures for every known disease on the planet. Nature itself suffers from disease. Life itself is imperfect. Now, it is a good thing to try to eliminate suffering. I hope one day we find cures for all disease. I really do. But this is not the way. We're going to create life just to destroy it for our own purposes? For our own gratification? That's called selfishness. Talk about a culture of death. What would make us any better than the Nazis??

We may eliminate disease, but what would we be putting in its place? Think about it.

What's to say we'll stop at the godlike benevolence of curing illness? What's to say we won't go on to produce our own version of a perfect Master Race? Resulting in worldwide competition for who can fill the globe with their own version first. Who knows the long-term effects of all this? It's way too early to jump in and say that cloning is the salvation of humanity.

Think about it, folks. We are on the verge of creating human embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them. Now, just put aside your political correctness for a moment and think about that. Not with your mind, but with your heart and your spirit. And tell me if this is a good thing to be doing.

Objection to be raised, I'm sure: "Well, Loner, how would you feel if one of your own loved ones had an incurable disease? Bet you'd change your tune then!"

Answer: Probably. At least for a time, in my own mind. But I hope that I would have the grace and the strength to hold to my convictions and not allow them to be altered by my circumstances. I hope I would be able to say that destroying a created life in order to preserve my own personal contentment would be morally wrong. I can tell you this, the welfare of my loved one would be my only consideration. I would not want them to suffer. Even so -- I hope I would have the grace and the strength to acknowledge that whatever was happening was in the wisdom of a creator greater and wiser than I; that everything was part of a plan that I couldn't see, but a real plan nonetheless. That everything is in the hands of love itself, no matter how awful and agonizing things might get. I hope that I would have the grace and the strength to let go.

There has to be another answer. In the long run, you cannot fight evil with evil. You cannot fight the evil of disease with the evil of destruction. They are one and the same. You cannot expect to increase violence and destruction and get away with it, and come out with peace, health, and security. There is no way I will ever accept that this is the only way to cure disease and help the human race. There has to be another way. There is always another way. We just can't see it at this stage, so we're pouncing on the first thing that comes along. Tell me, is that rational? Is it common sense?? It's laziness.

If we go down this path, if we insist on clinging to the folly that death breeds life, it will eventually destroy us.

I am not going to reply to any responses to this post. I don't want an argument. I've said my piece and people can take it as they will.

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

Omar · Post by **Omar** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 12:55 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
[QB]It disgusts me. It's evil.

I don't care what they say about finding cures for every known disease on the planet. Nature itself suffers from disease. Life itself is imperfect. Now, it is a good thing to try to eliminate suffering. I hope one day we find cures for all disease. I really do. But this is not the way. We're going to create life just to destroy it for our own purposes? For our own gratification? That's called selfishness. Talk about a culture of death. What would make us any better than the Nazis??

We may eliminate disease, but what would we be putting in its place? Think about it.

......[/BQ]

Indeed,what would happen?! I think that by eliminating diseases we will be just one step away of controlling our own genetic evolution1 Wouldn't it be better to let nature run it's course? Mabybe we will develop resistances in a natural way, maybe not; but one thing is certain: diseases play an important role in human progress.
I don't know how far this experimenting has reached and whether there are concrete plans to tackle various illnesses; and if so, whether treatments will become available to the global population or not. In this light it is also important to remember that the world is suffering from overpopulation; it is cruel to say it but diseases are key factors in regulating the growth of populations

CM · Post by CM » Mon Nov 26, 2001 2:11 pm

Omar and Loner is not it the basic aim of life to live longer and have a safer life, free of diseases?

So much is being spent on cancer cures and a cure to aids and ebola.
edit: Should that be discontinued?

Edit:
I don't think we should go for a master race.
If we can cure diseases and clone body parts like a heart, i think we should.
I don't think creating body parts and curing diseases is playing God.
But creating a whole human is.
That i don't agree with.

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: Fas ]

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 6:04 pm

Okay, let me clarify my meaning a bit.

I don't have a problem with reproducing organs, like skin for burn or cancer patients, etc. That is creating a replacement part from the patient's own cells, from what I understand. However, creating a human embryo specifically so it may be destroyed for replacement parts, that is evil.

They say that the goal is "not to clone a person." Using their way of thinking, that means that the cloned embryos will never fully develop. Sure. For one thing, that is, as I keep saying, the worst kind of evil. Secondly, that's what they say now. I hardly believe it will actually pan out that way. Where does it stop once it gets going? Science is not known to place limits on itself when it thinks it has hit on a "good thing." As if they'll really stop if they have the technology to go on? Please.

@Fas: I never saw the elimination of disease as the aim of life. Rather to enjoy the life and time you've got, I always considered that the aim of life. I didn't say we shouldn't try to find cures; I only said that this cannot be the way.

At the same time, Omar has a point. All of creation, all of nature, suffers disease. It's not fun, it causes terrible agony for everyone concerned; but our world is imperfect and disease is simply an unfortunate fact of life. Like I said: we may eradicate disease, but in the wake of our tinkering something will inevitably come to take its place. I don't want to know what that would be.

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 6:27 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
I don't have a problem with reproducing organs, like skin for burn or cancer patients, etc. That is creating a replacement part from the patient's own cells, from what I understand. However, creating a human embryo specifically so it may be destroyed for replacement parts, that is evil.

I agree with this 100%. This is what that episode of Sliders I referred to earlier had to do with. The Quinn of the world they landed on lost his eyes in a lab accident. They were going to remove the eyes from his clone to transplant into him. A clone yes, but a living breathing clone that walked and talked like everyone else, though they hadn't educated 'it,' and they were going to remove 'its' eyes. Very much evil, despite the fact they have the "best of intentions."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 6:44 pm

I don't know how one can keep the worst from happening: how one can keep governments of the future from preparing armies of clones, or clone police, or how we can keep the richest and most tempted of us from using genetic knowledge to create "super-children." It all sounds so sci-fi, but unfortunately also right over the horizon. And you know that even if all the nations outlawed it today, tomorrow the same people would be funding research surreptitiously, and nothing much will change. Chemical weapons research was outlawed after WWI--who ever refers back to that little fact? The leaders of nations who authorize it are too embarassed, but that doesn't stop the programs.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 7:10 pm

Originally posted by fable:
I don't know how one can keep the worst from happening: how one can keep governments of the future from preparing armies of clones, or clone police, or how we can keep the richest and most tempted of us from using genetic knowledge to create "super-children." . . . And you know that even if all the nations outlawed it today, tomorrow the same people would be funding research surreptitiously, and nothing much will change. Chemical weapons research was outlawed after WWI--who ever refers back to that little fact? The leaders of nations who authorize it are too embarassed, but that doesn't stop the programs.

That is exactly why I believe that all cloning and DNA research must be done in the public eye and under the scrutiny of the international community with tight controls over which projects are funded and what direction the research takes.

Rogue states do not observe restrictions placed on research that the rest of the world agrees on. Examples A and B are India and Pakistan who have recently developed nuclear weapons despite the world-wide Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Example C is Iraq and its massive (uninspected, unobserved and unsupervised) nuclear/chemical/biological weapons program(s). Example D is the North Korean ballistic missile program. Example E is the United States and its stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and our proposed illegal ballistic missile shield. Shall I go on?

Saying that all cloning research is immoral and should stop is akin to placing our heads in the sand and hoping the problem will go away. It won't. Cloning and genetic engineering programs will go on regardless of who funds it; we are at a crossroads where we can choose that the research is used properly for the betterment of mankind or whether that research is conducted in desert laboratories by super-secret "complete deniability" programs.