Seeing I have lost touch in my seriousness lately, I strongly felt it is time for me to post another intellectual thread. Previously, we have discussed genetic engineering and human cloning here on SYM, mostly from the perspective of what a clone really is, what genetic engineering can be used to and what the risks are. We have also touched upon some ethical dilemmas such as whether it is right or wrong to use cloned human embryos for harvesting of stem cells to cure severe diseases. However, now it's time for another important discussion. The people I mentioned in earlier threads who planned to start human cloning as infertility treatment, have now as they promised, begun. The Kentucky-based American infertility doctor Pavos Zanas will start with 6 couples 2003. One of the couples have given an anonymous interview in an American TV show. The interview transcript can be found here. Whereas I personally think it is very upsetting to read about "Bill" and "Cathy" who believe it is gods will that they should do this and don't want to adopt since foreign adoption may be a health hazard, the tragic irony with the latter statement is IMO much more concerning. I am referring to the fact that cloning of animals can not be done in a safe way, and that the cloned offspring suffer from premature aging and many other medical problems such as arthritis and overweight. Only about 1 in 100 or even 200 fertilised cloned eggs, lead to prgnagny and surviving offspring. Read more about risks involved for both the mother and the cloned offspring here.
The obvious and perhaps most urgent issue to me, is the unsafety of the cloning procedure. I don't think it's right to start cloning humans when we can't even do it safe with a mouse. We don't know what causes the accelerated aging and the other health problems, although telomeres is hottest hypothesis around (I'll explain more about this if anyone is interested). But here are many other problems as well. Cloning is an extremely expensive procedure. Cloning of human embroys for stem cell harvesting has a huge medical potential. Cloning of human embryos that lead to pregnancy and a baby, has only one medical use, and that is as infertility treatment for couples like Bill and Cathy who can't get a child through IVF (she is too old, so her eggs can't be used) and who don't want to adopt a child. IS this really an area of medical research worth to invest a lot of money in?
Other problems, more long term, is if and how cloning should be controlled. Do we want somebody to make clones for slavery or for selling them to pedophiles? Do we want somebody to make hybrid clones between species who cannot naturally reproduce? You may think I'm talking science fiction here, but the American company ATC who cloned human embryos last autumn, cloned a cow-human hybrid embryo already in 1998. All these embryos were killed early in development, after the cells divided a certain number of times.
To me, it is obvious that cloning needs to be controlled and that we need global laws that stop people like dr Zanos from setting up labs in small island countries who haven't (yet) signed the international agreements. Personally, I also think cloning should not be allowed in private companies like in the US. In other most (if not all) countries where cloning labs exist, only research labs gets permission do it.
So please, let me hear you opinions.
Human cloning experiments started
Human cloning experiments started
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Assuming human cloning can be done safe in the future, I think the responsibilities for cloning humans should be the same as concieving humans the natural way. I've always been bothered by the view that parents in any way have a "right" to their children, or that how they think they should be brought up are their buisiness only. Same would go for clones.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
Animal cloning is a science still in its infancy, and human cloning is certainly not an area we should rush in to.
Despite this, Severino Antinori (featured in this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1477476.stm ) has claimed a few months ago, that there is a woman in Italy carrying a cloned baby. He does not repeat the claims in this article, so possibly he was lying, or the experiment failed.
The problem of premature death seems to be a major hurdle. Telomeres appear to be the most likely culprit of the "use-by" date for cells. Even if they can be repaired however, it has been suggested that telomeres are an important mechanism in preventing cancers, hence premature death could await clones in the form of carcinoma rather than old age.
Cloning is enormously costly and inefficient as well. I met Ian Willmott (one of the team which produced "Dolly") a couple of years ago, and he was not too optimistic for the short-term prospects of cloning. Several hundred unsuccessful attempts were necessary before Dolly was successfully cloned.
I do not see interspecies hybrids as a problem. Such creatures can only survive to birth when two species are very similar genetically, and these can be produced naturally anyway (mules for example). Hybrid cells can be cultured for a short time, but will self-destruct long before cell differentiation occurs. Mouse-human hybrid cells have been used extensively in genome research in recent years.
Human cloning would appear to be the province of the wealthy at the moment, and there is no guarantee of a normal life-span, or even normal development for the offspring.
There are any number of more worthwhile causes that these funds could be used for.
Despite this, Severino Antinori (featured in this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1477476.stm ) has claimed a few months ago, that there is a woman in Italy carrying a cloned baby. He does not repeat the claims in this article, so possibly he was lying, or the experiment failed.
The problem of premature death seems to be a major hurdle. Telomeres appear to be the most likely culprit of the "use-by" date for cells. Even if they can be repaired however, it has been suggested that telomeres are an important mechanism in preventing cancers, hence premature death could await clones in the form of carcinoma rather than old age.
Cloning is enormously costly and inefficient as well. I met Ian Willmott (one of the team which produced "Dolly") a couple of years ago, and he was not too optimistic for the short-term prospects of cloning. Several hundred unsuccessful attempts were necessary before Dolly was successfully cloned.
I do not see interspecies hybrids as a problem. Such creatures can only survive to birth when two species are very similar genetically, and these can be produced naturally anyway (mules for example). Hybrid cells can be cultured for a short time, but will self-destruct long before cell differentiation occurs. Mouse-human hybrid cells have been used extensively in genome research in recent years.
Human cloning would appear to be the province of the wealthy at the moment, and there is no guarantee of a normal life-span, or even normal development for the offspring.
There are any number of more worthwhile causes that these funds could be used for.
@Osiris: Very difficult to say whether Antonori was lying or if it simply failed, I haven't heard anything more. I'll ask my friend the ass. prof in molecular genetics next time I see him, if he knows anything more.
The trade-off hypthesis regarding p53 is interesting, I assume it the one you refer to? Telomeres in general is a hot research area, so I am sure we will soon know what till happen to clones with repaired telomeres.
IIRC, 247 tries were required for Dolly.
Interspecies hybrids is, as you point out, is certaintly nothing to worry about today. However, I recently dicussed this with a geneticist who wa convinced it will be feasible in the future, why he thought legal actions should be taken early as to prevent future ethical problems of human-other species hybrids. It should of couse also be noted that many people think the use of mouse-human hybrid cells is an abhorration, and many people also think cloning is general is unethical.
Another, more current ethical problem is the use of pigs as carriers of human organs for donation. How do you people feel about that?
The trade-off hypthesis regarding p53 is interesting, I assume it the one you refer to? Telomeres in general is a hot research area, so I am sure we will soon know what till happen to clones with repaired telomeres.
IIRC, 247 tries were required for Dolly.
Interspecies hybrids is, as you point out, is certaintly nothing to worry about today. However, I recently dicussed this with a geneticist who wa convinced it will be feasible in the future, why he thought legal actions should be taken early as to prevent future ethical problems of human-other species hybrids. It should of couse also be noted that many people think the use of mouse-human hybrid cells is an abhorration, and many people also think cloning is general is unethical.
Another, more current ethical problem is the use of pigs as carriers of human organs for donation. How do you people feel about that?
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
I feel abit ambivalent about keeping pig carriers, But I dont think the morality of it differs that much from keeping pigs as food carriers.
In the case of tampering with the genes of humans (ie anything from hybrids to trying to cure genetical diseases) I think the safest way to go is to start with no tampering allowed at all, then after the result of a specific change have been well documented and judged to have no negative effects, or atleast no negative effects in compare to what it cures, you can allow that modification specifically, gradually increasing the amount of allowed changes but being abit carefull about it.
In the case of tampering with the genes of humans (ie anything from hybrids to trying to cure genetical diseases) I think the safest way to go is to start with no tampering allowed at all, then after the result of a specific change have been well documented and judged to have no negative effects, or atleast no negative effects in compare to what it cures, you can allow that modification specifically, gradually increasing the amount of allowed changes but being abit carefull about it.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
It is plain wrong. Both for religious reasons (in the case of islam) and in my opinion moral considerations. If you have a clone, is it given the same rights as the original human? The answer is of course, but how many of you would like your clone to do the work you rather not do. Also what is going to stop people from cloning people of inferior intelligence who can do minial jobs, or those stonger and smarter to full the jobs. I dont agree with cloning people because it gives the possibility of a whole lot of "god playing" with serious reprecussions. I know a majority of my questions cant be answered at present. However these must be considered before we actually start. We cant decide on the at the spurr of the moment.
I however i agree with the cloning of body parts. New kidneys, hearts brains etc would be an asset instead of a liability. But that again is far away in reality. Cloning parts say when a person loses a limb is great in my opinion. Cloning whole humans is a big no no.
I however i agree with the cloning of body parts. New kidneys, hearts brains etc would be an asset instead of a liability. But that again is far away in reality. Cloning parts say when a person loses a limb is great in my opinion. Cloning whole humans is a big no no.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
@C E. Mutation in p53 or any other oncogene can lead to cancer.
When you talk of "interspecies hybrids" do you mean transgenetic hybrids (for example transferring a few human genes into a pig) or full hybrids? There is no way to produce a viable hybrid between, say, a horse (64 chromosomes) and a human (46 chromosomes) - too many errors during cell division.
When you talk of "interspecies hybrids" do you mean transgenetic hybrids (for example transferring a few human genes into a pig) or full hybrids? There is no way to produce a viable hybrid between, say, a horse (64 chromosomes) and a human (46 chromosomes) - too many errors during cell division.
I'm going to base my opinion on the opposite of CM...(Just so I can have a reference) (Please correct any mistakes on my part)Originally posted by CM
It is plain wrong. Both for religious reasons (in the case of islam) and in my opinion moral considerations. If you have a clone, is it given the same rights as the original human? The answer is of course, but how many of you would like your clone to do the work you rather not do. Also what is going to stop people from cloning people of inferior intelligence who can do minial jobs, or those stonger and smarter to full the jobs. I dont agree with cloning people because it gives the possibility of a whole lot of "god playing" with serious reprecussions. I know a majority of my questions cant be answered at present. However these must be considered before we actually start. We cant decide on the at the spurr of the moment.
I however i agree with the cloning of body parts. New kidneys, hearts brains etc would be an asset instead of a liability. But that again is far away in reality. Cloning parts say when a person loses a limb is great in my opinion. Cloning whole humans is a big no no.
I believe any clone will not be a clone. A person to me is formed from his or her enviroment. I personally would say a clone is a person like anybody else, with the chance to so much good, but also with the chance to so much bad.
From a religious point of view, who is to say (insert your belief) didn't cause this act.
Now I do agree with CM's statement.."it gives the possibility of a whole lot of "god playing" with serious reprecussions." but I believe the possibility for such actions lie in a lot of the stuff mankind has today...and in the future. Strict regulations IMHO must be in place before any cloning of humans take place.
Now, parts replacement...a subject that to me is more scary that cloning. As this is out of my expertise, I will tell my fear and hope someone can dis-prove it.
My knowledge of DNA leads me to believe the string is different between a human and all other animals...with the monkey being the closes match. What is the chance of a humans DNA being corrupted by an replacement animal's DNA. Would it lead to an off breed of the human DNA? Would it lead to a major corruption of the human immune syatem? Say you get a new kidney today, and ten years down the road decide to have a child...would the replacement DNA kidney be past on to the child?
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
@Osiris: I meant the model where lack of p53 can make up for the effects of lacking telomerase, as demonstrated in mice (Chin, L. et al. Cell 97, 527-538, 1999). The the only connection between telomerase and oncology I know about. If you have full access to Nature, follow this link. If not, I'll post an extract just to illustrate what I refer to. You working in this field, Osiris? Good to see you in this discussion anyway.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage. ... 6a_fs.html
I mean the possibility of transgenetic hybrids where functial genes from one species, that makes a difference, would be inserted into the genome of another species.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage. ... 6a_fs.html
I mean the possibility of transgenetic hybrids where functial genes from one species, that makes a difference, would be inserted into the genome of another species.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Re: hybrid cloning: Osiris establishes a final point on that by noting the chromosonal disparity between, say, a human and a cow. The only hybrid cloning I would be concerned with would be a genetic cross between a human and a chimpanzee, our closest living relative. That hybrid might actually be a viable organism - perhaps like the mule (or hinny, depending on which one was the mother).
I admit that the concept of pigs carrying donor organs is a bit bizarre. Rather, I believe there may be fields that successful cloning will open up in genetics that will broaden our knowledge of the human genome to such a degree that tissue regeneration may become feasible. It functions in lower organisms, and to a very limited degree in ourselves. I recall reading, some time ago, an article concerning birds, and their ability to regenerate neural cells (I wish I could recall where I saw that article). My opinion: instead of cloning creating organ farms for our usage, I think it will open doors to the secrets locked within our own DNA that will eventually enable us to regenerate lost limbs, organs, and possibly even repair damage to the central nervous system.
Why would we clone humans in the first place? That is the question. Cloning itself is not unethical, IMO, but what happens to a human clone falls within the realm of ethics.
I admit that the concept of pigs carrying donor organs is a bit bizarre. Rather, I believe there may be fields that successful cloning will open up in genetics that will broaden our knowledge of the human genome to such a degree that tissue regeneration may become feasible. It functions in lower organisms, and to a very limited degree in ourselves. I recall reading, some time ago, an article concerning birds, and their ability to regenerate neural cells (I wish I could recall where I saw that article). My opinion: instead of cloning creating organ farms for our usage, I think it will open doors to the secrets locked within our own DNA that will eventually enable us to regenerate lost limbs, organs, and possibly even repair damage to the central nervous system.
Why would we clone humans in the first place? That is the question. Cloning itself is not unethical, IMO, but what happens to a human clone falls within the realm of ethics.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
-
diablo1221
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 3:16 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact: