Human embryo cloned - what do you think?

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 7:19 pm

The end justifies the means?

More like opening Pandora's box to me.

I would like to think that these scientists DO have good intentions...

...so was Einstein with his Theories that eventually produced nuclear weapons.

So far we are lucky with that one. Would we be lucky with this?

With all good intentions, these projects would STILL be used for evil purposes. Why? Because there will ALWAYS be evil men out there to take advantage of this knowledge.

Let's not be naive about this. Whether we regulate it or totally ban it, the Box has already been opened. No matter how much rattle protesters world wide would do, there would still be some groups of people doing it anyway. Unlike nuclear weapons which need plutonium, the raw material for this latest issue is easily accessible.

My only wish now is that Man would survive this potential problem in the making. I have no idea to what extent this new process would lead to. Somehow I have this gut feel that things could get worse.

Don't need to explain much more about what I think on the issue, Loner hit it right in the head.

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 9:15 pm

Originally posted by Fas:
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 ]

That's it cloning for a master race. Who will it be this time???? If you really look at things, they spend more time and money on bio weapons and cloning. Then they do, trying to cure diseses. Maybe they want to clone us, then make us in to green crackers.

*Make note to talk to Mr. Heston on Solient Green* (yes my spelling is bad tonight, so waht)

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Nov 26, 2001 11:53 pm

@loner72:
We already create life for the sole purpose of destroying it on a very large scale. This is what i meant with "force us to make up our minds". We breed animals and let them live under horrible conditions just because we like to eat them, but when it comes to use a couple of non-thinking cells for curing life-threatening diseases everybody goes mad just because the cells have human origins.

@all:
The arms industries will continue to develop untill we either make it unprofitable to wage war or we change our views of whats important in life. This is imo of higher priority then to forbid certain ways of killing each other while permitting others.

also: Why is it that alot of you find the ways of "nature" to be preferable in some way? "Nature" as a force of evolution is a completly random mutation of genes, then all genetic designes inadequate for survival dies. This seem to me to be atleast as cruel as something we humans can come up with.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 12:04 am

Originally posted by Dottie:
also: Why is it that alot of you find the ways of "nature" to be preferable in some way? "Nature" as a force of evolution is a completly random mutation of genes, then all genetic designes inadequate for survival dies. This seem to me to be atleast as cruel as something we humans can come up with.

You're ignoring one important thing here. Not all of us believe in evolution. When I, for example, refer to the 'natural' way, I'm refering to the way God set things up. I'm not trying to start a religious debate on this, but you cannot make a valid rebuttle(sp?) to what's been said without knowing the direction from the ones you are replying to are coming from.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 12:10 am

Ok, sorry for that.

But for me the point remains valid.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Dottie ]

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 8:30 am

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
You're ignoring one important thing here. Not all of us believe in evolution. When I, for example, refer to the 'natural' way, I'm refering to the way God set things up.

Or, some of us believe that they are one and the same; i.e., that evolution and the processes of nature are controlled by divine wisdom, by the Creator who knows way more about the way things should be than we do.

Nautre might not be fun or fair, but it's set up the way it is for a very good reason. It's the balance of the ecosystem and of the cosmos in general. Tinker with that balance and you're simply asking for it.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 8:40 am

Everyone please try not to sidetrack this discussion into the evolution/religion debate, i think everyone posting in this thread already knows the ideological beliefs of the relevant posters. Thankyou.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 9:50 am

Evil or not, I agree with others in this discussion that human cloning experiments will continue whether they are banned by the major governments or not. HighLordDave’s call for public scrutiny by the scientific community seems sensible. Such scrutiny will only be possible if such experiments are not banned outright. Banning will only force the experiments to be performed ‘underground’.

Apparently, human stem cells offer great possibilities for scientists and the medical community to actually cure some conditions that threaten the well-being of people everywhere. I wouldn’t want this research to be limited if it means that a cure for diabetes or Alzheimer’s will be delayed or missed. Human cloning, however, is not the best way of obtaining those cells.

Cloning in general peaks my interest, simply because so much science fiction explores the pitfalls of cloning. As mentioned, Jurassic Park-like cloning really fascinates me. I’ve heard that someone is attempting to clone a mastodon, and about a year ago some scientists in Australia said that they were trying to clone a Tasmanian Wolf. I’ve tried to follow these stories, but the usual news sources rely on press releases from the scientists, and they are not likely to call the papers every time they fail. But, I would pay good money to see a living mastodon or carnivorous marsupial.

On a lighter note, this thread strikes me as a good place to double-post! I’m surprised no one has done that yet!

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 9:57 am

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Cloning in general peaks my interest, simply because so much science fiction explores the pitfalls of cloning. As mentioned, Jurassic Park-like cloning really fascinates me. I’ve heard that someone is attempting to clone a mastodon, and about a year ago some scientists in Australia said that they were trying to clone a Tasmanian Wolf. I’ve tried to follow these stories, but the usual news sources rely on press releases from the scientists, and they are not likely to call the papers every time they fail. But, I would pay good money to see a living mastodon or carnivorous marsupial.

I admit that the prospect of cloning does hold a certain fascination. If it were possible, it'd be a wonderful money making tool to have real live displays of extinct species, but it makes me wonder. Isn't there a reason they're extinct?

On a lighter note, this thread strikes me as a good place to double-post! I’m surprised no one has done that yet!

I'm sure the lack of a double post is not caused by a lack of trying.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 9:57 am

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Cloning in general peaks my interest, simply because so much science fiction explores the pitfalls of cloning. As mentioned, Jurassic Park-like cloning really fascinates me. I’ve heard that someone is attempting to clone a mastodon, and about a year ago some scientists in Australia said that they were trying to clone a Tasmanian Wolf. I’ve tried to follow these stories, but the usual news sources rely on press releases from the scientists, and they are not likely to call the papers every time they fail. But, I would pay good money to see a living mastodon or carnivorous marsupial.

I admit that the prospect of cloning does hold a certain fascination. If it were possible, it'd be a wonderful money making tool to have real live displays of extinct species, but it makes me wonder. Isn't there a reason they're extinct?

On a lighter note, this thread strikes me as a good place to double-post! I’m surprised no one has done that yet!

I'm sure the lack of a double post is not caused by a lack of trying.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 10:01 am

Nice double post SS. <clap, clap, clap>

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 10:10 am

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
Nice double post SS. <clap, clap, clap>

*curtseys* Thank you.

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 1:44 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
Everyone please try not to sidetrack this discussion into the evolution/religion debate, i think everyone posting in this thread already knows the ideological beliefs of the relevant posters. Thankyou.

Sorry, Sleep; I don't think anyone here was trying to do that. It's just that, when you talk about such things as the natural order, and debate why tinkering with that order may or may not be a good idea, things like morality/religion and the various beliefs on evolution are bound to come up in some fashion...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 3:25 pm

Originally posted by loner72:
Sorry, Sleep; I don't think anyone here was trying to do that. It's just that, when you talk about such things as the natural order, and debate why tinkering with that order may or may not be a good idea, things like morality/religion and the various beliefs on evolution are bound to come up in some fashion...

Yeah i do appreciate that

However i just wanted to remind everyone that explaining their religious viewpoints is merely a backdrop to the discussion at hand, not the focal point.

Mr Snow · Post by **Mr Snow** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 5:20 pm

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I’ve heard that someone is attempting to clone a mastodon, and about a year ago some scientists in Australia said that they were trying to clone a Tasmanian Wolf. I’ve tried to follow these stories, but the usual news sources rely on press releases from the scientists, and they are not likely to call the papers every time they fail. But, I would pay good money to see a living mastodon or carnivorous marsupial.

Gwalchmai:
Tasmanian Tiger is the name, I've heard it aswell, but it is part of a urban myth surrounding it's extinction. Supposedly there as been further sightings but no confirmation (I don't really believe it either).
Cloning animals like that, that have either near extinction or extinct is IMO very beneficial. Technology had a hand in exterminating them so it should be only right that it has a hand in bringing them back.

For human cloning...
...I'm not sure about it, but I also don't think any organisation will be able to stop it happening if someone really wants to clone a human, althought with the 270 odd to 1 success rate, it might take longer than they (and the concerned public) realise.
Also IMO the media has been sesationalising it a bit. Just the word "Clone" envokes peoples emotions, I bet if it was called copying or making a twin, people would have less trouble with it, after all cells are copyed all the time naturally in the body, it's just known as aging.

But as per usual, the worst part about cloning will go largly unnoticed: Animal cloning for food, here in Aust the cloning issue if further developed with regards to beef and sheep, so soon not only will you have GM vegetables etc but cloned meat for the dinner table too. (remember, less harmful deseases etc, in our new Hygenic World

).
To me that push for sterileness is a worst evil than cloning.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 6:02 pm

Originally posted by Mr Snow:
Tasmanian Tiger is the name, I've heard it aswell, but it is part of a urban myth surrounding it's extinction. Supposedly there as been further sightings but no confirmation (I don't really believe it either).
Cloning animals like that, that have either near extinction or extinct is IMO very beneficial. Technology had a hand in exterminating them so it should be only right that it has a hand in bringing them back.

I don't belive in the alleged sightings of the Tasmanian Tiger either. I read that there were some plans on examining the possibilities to clone the from the DNA of the pup kept in alcohol at some museum, but the DNA turned out to be in very bad shape

The ideas to make the wholly mammoth alive saw daylight when very well preserved specimen were found in Siberian ice, I think, but the same problem there - the DNA is not complete, and with today's level of knowledge, there is simply no way of knowing how to "fill out" the missing sequences, or how to put the strings in the correct order.

Like Gwally, I would love to see those creatures walk the earth, especially the Tasmanian Tiger, since it was so short time ago humans made it extinct. (The last specimen died in captivity in the 1930's.)

I agree with Snow that cloning of recently or almost extinct animals would be great. The only thing that worries me is that cloning would be overrated as a method for preservation. People who want to exploit land could perhaps use the cloning possibility as an excuse - but cloning animals is one thing, cloning an entire ecosystem is something completly else.

Do you know about the cloned gaur (a kind of antelope close to extinction), also made by ACT? Unfortunately it died after 2 days.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 6:15 pm

Originally posted by Mr Snow:
or human cloning...
...I'm not sure about it, but I also don't think any organisation will be able to stop it happening if someone really wants to clone a human, althought with the 270 odd to 1 success rate, it might take longer than they (and the concerned public) realise.

I belive one of the current dilemmas is that reproductive cloning of humans using the somatic cell nuclear transfer method, is possible already, whereas therapuetic cloning still has a long way to go before it can be used. I discussed the topic with a couple of stem-cell researchers earlier today, and it's believed that it will take at least another 5 years before embryonal stem cell harvesting starts to pay off in terms of treatment for diseases, and cloning of separate organs will probably take longer time.

Today, 170 countries are not included in the global prohibition of reproductive human cloning. Apart from the Italian and the American researchers I mentioned above, there is also an American religious group (they have a company called Clonida) who have stated publicly they plan to move to other countries to carry out human reproductive cloning.

Happy Evil · Post by **Happy Evil** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 7:27 pm

The moral dilemma of creating, then destroying, an embryo hinges on the point at which you believe life begins.
A matter which is endlessly debatable.

One thing is for certain, these researchers will never achieve any plausible benefits to society if they dont try.

thinks to himself.........
Forget the Tasmanian Tiger.
Do you think they can clone John Wayne?

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Happy Evil ]

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 7:41 pm

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
The moral dilemma of creating, then destroying, an embryo hinges on the point at which you believe life begins.

I had a rather heated debate on that issue with Weasel a while back...

IMO, it doesn't matter when life begins. The fact is, life is GOING to begin at some point. Do we have the right to prevent that from happening, once the created embryo, with its built-in destiny of becoming fully human, is in the picture? That is the question.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 7:44 pm

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
The moral dilemma of creating, then destroying, an embryo hinges on the point at which you believe life begins.
A matter which is endlessly debatable.

Where human life in personal form begins, that is

Life begins somewhere in the realm between virus and bacteria, and also a somatic human cell is human life, although not a person

Or should I start to say good morning to the fibroblast culture we keep in the cellar at the lab?

Do you think they can clone John Wayne?

It is a problem that he is dead already. But let's suppose we can find some tissue from him, and take the DNA from a cell nucleaus. It is then feasible to clone a genetic copy of him, but alas - what about all the post genetic factors that determine our developement? We would need a copy of his brain as well, with all his specific synaptic activity patters, his specific pathways etc...copying a brain (or all the information stored in the brain) is very, very far away...