Human embryo cloned - what do you think?

Mr Snow · Post by **Mr Snow** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 7:55 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
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...

That is what I think the problem people have with cloning is, they think a clone is a exact copy, but the personality of the person is a product of their upbringing. All a clone would be is a twin, looks like you but is a totally different person.

Happy Evil · Post by **Happy Evil** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 7:56 pm

@CE: LOL, Your assuming I know what a fibroblast culture is. I though that was a band out of the UK.

Are these scientists committing murder for stem cells?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 8:24 pm

Originally posted by Mr Snow:
That is what I think the problem people have with cloning is, they think a clone is a exact copy, but the personality of the person is a product of their upbringing. All a clone would be is a twin, looks like you but is a totally different person.

Exactly. I totally agree with you that media is distorting what a clone really is. A pair of identical (MZ) twins, are a clone. If I had an MZ twin sister, she would simply be my clone. But media (and perhaps sci-fi?) has created an image of a clone as something artificial, man-made and unnatural.

posted by Happy Evil
@CE: LOL, Your assuming I know what a fibroblast culture is. I though that was a band out of the UK.
Are these scientists committing murder for stem cells?

LOL

Sorry, I'm such a hopeless science-geek sometimes

A fibroblast is simply a type of tissue cell, involved in repairing tissue damage. The culture we have is not for harvesting stem cells (I don't work in stem cell research, but I know people who do), it's for experimental purposes.

Fibroblast is actually a nice band name

To me, there is no specific difference between a 6 fibroblast cells in a culture and 6 embryonal cells. To me, 6 embryonal cells is not a human being and not a person. I realise that many people make a difference between potential human person and no such potential. It will be very interesting to follow the debate the day we can culture not only tissue cells, but also brain cells. Brr

- it's going to be very, very difficult questions, probably more difficult than today...

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 8:59 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Or should I start to say good morning to the fibroblast culture we keep in the cellar at the lab?

Yes! You should! I would if I were in that situation! *greets her computer and her car every morning and says "G'night" to her computer before going to bed everynight*

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 10:44 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Exactly. I totally agree with you that media is distorting what a clone really is. A pair of identical (MZ) twins, are a clone. If I had an MZ twin sister, she would simply be my clone. But media (and perhaps sci-fi?) has created an image of a clone as something artificial, man-made and unnatural.

There's a difference between identical twins and an artificially 'created' clone. Identical twins are a natural occurance through natural processes. A clone, however, is artificially 'created' using processes controlled by human scientists. While the end result of identical twins and cloning may be basically the same, the means are quite different: one natural and one 'unnatural.'

Mr Snow · Post by **Mr Snow** » Tue Nov 27, 2001 11:28 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
There's a difference between identical twins and an artificially 'created' clone. Identical twins are a natural occurance through natural processes. A clone, however, is artificially 'created' using processes controlled by human scientists. While the end result of identical twins and cloning may be basically the same, the means are quite different: one natural and one 'unnatural.'

@SS;

How does Natural and unnatural equate to the discussion?
Margarine is "Unnatural" that doesn't stop people using it. (also, why is stems cell research singled out, I don't hear anyone complaining about cloning an arm?)
But as I was aluding to before, people have some IMO strange opinions on genetic research. Cloning an animal is fine, but a human, that's an abomination. Why? How is cloning humans cells for organs and whatever any more or less evil/abhorent than how animals are treated every day? (Or how humans treat themselves for that matter)

I get more upset about the double standards humans have for themselves. Why is it in life that what gets done to animals is OK but when you do the same to humans it's not? I'm sure those battery chickens would like to know the answer. (Cause they're going to be the ones that have greater cloning reasearch done to and for them than humans ever will)

I can hear the cries now...
...ban all chicken cloning, chicken stem cells are life too, chicken copies are EVIL! And unnatural!

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Wed Nov 28, 2001 9:29 am

Just a little thought that pops into my head sometimes regarding this subject in general...

It may seem a bit Outer Limits-esque, but picture:

It's the future. It is now possible to develop human clones that will develop into full adulthood and live to a ripe old age. (Possibly riper than we imagine???...

) Can you imagine the controversies. Clone Rights organizations fill the land. Religious leaders debate: Is a clone a person?? Do they have a soul?? How should they be treated? As a person or as a thing?? Taxpayer dollars are poured into studies on clone habits: Are they really more prone to violence, to become criminals? Are more clones left-handed?? Do the mating habits of the clone really differ all that greatly from non-clones? Terminology confusion abounds: If we call them clones, what do we call the non-clones? Cell Masters??? Murder rate soars due to the black market harvesting transplant-ready organs from genetically-desirable clones. Clone lynchings, clone-slavery, and discrimination in school and workplace prompts the Congress to consider a clone rights amendment to the Constitution.

Or...

Possibly even later in the future:

The clones, genetic masterpieces that they are, have taken over the planet and discriminate against the non-clones, enacting oppressive legislation against them. Non-clones can't get jobs due to their faulty, imperfect genes; they are relegated to days on end of saying "You want fries with that?" Or, they fall into slavery at the hands of the superior clones. *Hollywood Music* What non-clone hero will step in to save the day and ensure justice for all? And is his clone love-interest true to him, or is she a dirty spy?!?!?!

Just a few thoughts. It may seem like a slippery slope now, but don't be too sure...

scully1 · Post by **scully1** » Wed Nov 28, 2001 9:39 am

Originally posted by Mr Snow:
(also, why is stems cell research singled out, I don't hear anyone complaining about cloning an arm?)

IMO: Because it's an embryo we're talking about, not a few cells grown into only one part. As I said in an earlier post: as far as I understand it, a replacement part is grown from the patient's own cells, or from cells culled from a compatible donor. IMO that's not much different than a blood transfusion. But a human embryo is different. I don't think I need to spell out the reasons why.

people have some IMO strange opinions on genetic research. Cloning an animal is fine, but a human, that's an abomination. Why? How is cloning humans cells for organs and whatever any more or less evil/abhorent than how animals are treated every day? (Or how humans treat themselves for that matter)

I get more upset about the double standards humans have for themselves. Why is it in life that what gets done to animals is OK but when you do the same to humans it's not?

IMO there's no difference. I realize that some people see it the way you describe: animal cloning is all right but human cloning is not. However, speaking for myself and I'm sure for many others, I'm against animal cloning as well. Not only do I believe it's wrong and unnatural; but we simply do not know the long-term effects. We don't know how all this genetic tinkering with food and such is going to affect the human race, and the earth in general, years from now. There's no way we can know that. IMO the omniscient, omnipotent Science that so many people have set up as an object of worship, is jumping headlong and very irresponsibly into what it sees as a quick-fix solution to all the world's problems. They call science a "discipline"?? Lately it's not sounding very disciplined to me

Because of this childish and arrogant irresponsibility, I'm losing more and more respect for science every day

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Wed Nov 28, 2001 1:34 pm

Originally posted by Mr Snow:
How does Natural and unnatural equate to the discussion?
Margarine is "Unnatural" that doesn't stop people using it.

Margarine is irrelevant to this discussion as margarine is not a living being.

Clones are 'created' through means other than the natural processes of reproduction.

(also, why is stems cell research singled out, I don't hear anyone complaining about cloning an arm?)

I'm more against certain applications of cloning than of cloning itself.

If you're cloning just a single organ/limb/etc to replace a lost/damaged/diseased one, that's one thing. It's the creating a complete clone who's sole purpose is to sit around all day waiting for when she gets to have something amputated to replace a part of the woman she was cloned from. that I'm against.

I see other applications for the process of cloning that may or may not be possibilities.

Example: A lesbian couple that wants children. Would some 'variation' on cloning allow for one of the women's egg to be 'fertilized' using DNA from the other woman and then the egg put back in the woman it came from? IIRC, there is a similar thing done for hetero couples who are, for some reason, unable to get pregnant where the egg is removed and fertilized with the guy's sperm and then put back in the woman.

But as I was aluding to before, people have some IMO strange opinions on genetic research. Cloning an animal is fine, but a human, that's an abomination. Why? How is cloning humans cells for organs and whatever any more or less evil/abhorent than how animals are treated every day? (Or how humans treat themselves for that matter)

I get more upset about the double standards humans have for themselves. Why is it in life that what gets done to animals is OK but when you do the same to humans it's not? I'm sure those battery chickens would like to know the answer. (Cause they're going to be the ones that have greater cloning reasearch done to and for them than humans ever will)

For some, it's the view given by the Bible. "God made man stewards over the Earth." IMO, this says we should treat animals better than we currently do, not that we can do whatever we want to animals.

But, since not everyone believes in the Bible, I'll show a more...scientific(?) view. Humans are sentient lifeforms. Animals are not. That changes things.

My biggest problem with cloning full humans to keep around for spare parts is the fact that I believe that a clone would have a soul, just like any other human. I came to this conclusion while reading Friday by Robert A. Heinlein. APs(Artificial Persons) were genetically engineered clones made to be stronger and such, but they were pretty much bred to be slaves. There are two terms...in vitro and in vivo...they both refer to a type of fertilization. I can't remember which is which. One is 'natural' and one is 'unnatural.' The fact that one is 'unnatural' is why the people in the culture in that book didn't consider APs to be real people, hence the name "Artificial Person." It is actually this same type of viewpoint that would allow scientists to make complete clones to keep around for spare parts. IIRC, what I mentioned earlier about the hetero couple is the 'unnatural' version of fertilization because the egg is fertilized outside of the body and then put back in. Does this make the baby any less human? Certainly not.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Wed Nov 28, 2001 11:07 pm

Only a clarification:
Ofcourse you shouldnt clone humans and let the grew for the purpose of taking thier limbs/using them as slaves, and i dont think anyone here who is "in favour of cloning" have argued for that.