Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Send in the Clones!

By MattOly in Technology
Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 06:22:37 AM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

It's been a crazy week in the arena of Human Cloning, and it looks like it's going to get even crazier. First, a team of scienticians from Kentucky (!?) announce a plan to clone up to 200 humans in the next year. The House of Reps voted to ban all human cloning, including that done for research, the same day. And the scientists that are in charge of Dolly the Sheep warn that the process is far too dangerous to use right now.

Did I mention the new Star Wars movie title?


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT

CNN reports that at a contentious meeting at the National Academy of Sciences Tuesday, many scienticians lambasted the Kentucky doctors, (Panos Zavos, a Kentucky-based infertility expert, and Italian researcher Severino Antinori, who helped a 62-year-old woman become pregnant in 1994,) saying that beyond the technical limitations of human cloning were the ethical. The plan they outlined is to impregnate up to 200 women from infertile couples with cloned embryos in hopes that at least a few of the women will carry a child to term. The child would be the exact copy of the DNA donor.

The good doctor said, "You know, there's nothing out there that's 100 percent, ladies and gentlemen. And, you know, this world is loaded with imperfections." Is this an accurate excuse?

The scientific and ethical worlds are, of course, colliding on this issue. Doctors Zavos and Antinori assess that human cloning is necessary for human life to go on. Enough organs for every transplant, for example. But can science actually help us build spare parts?

Scienticians are wary of the technical ramifications of cloning a human, a process still imperfect in the animal world. However, doctors this week announced that they may have the key to why the process sometimes fails. The paper suggests that "DNA imprinting" goes haywire in cloned animals. DNA imprinting is a process that happens when an embryo is developing.

The Kentucky doctor's proposal had also sparked criticism from politicians who warn about the ethical implications of scientists creating human life in a laboratory, including stem cell research in some cases. The Bush administration is expected to hand down a judgment on stem cell research sometime this week, as well.

The House of Representatives rejected a plan to allow the procedure for research only, as well as an approving an over all ban on human cloning. The bill now goes to the Senate, where Majority Leader Tom Daschle indicated Tuesday that he would support it.

But Zavos discounted the law, and his critis. "We do intend to do this, and we do intend to do it right." Although critics have warned that attempts to clone animals have resulted in a high rate of ill or deformed clones, he said, "We intend to do it right or not do it at all."

All this came on the same day that Lucasfilm confirmed the title for Star Wars: Episode II as "Attack of the Clones." Of course, the title of the movie is a coincidense, but it's stirring up controversy of it's own.

What do you think? Human cloning and the Star Wars title. Talkback below, please.

This story is being mirrored at Satanosphere, K5's cousin.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Would you let yourself be cloned?
o Yes 52%
o No 48%

Votes: 75
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o CNN reports
o announced
o hand down a judgment
o rejected a plan
o Satanosphe re,
o Also by MattOly


Display: Sort:
Send in the Clones! | 74 comments (49 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)
The real reason politicians don't want cloning... (3.55 / 9) (#3)
by Sikpup on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 02:36:34 PM EST

Any clones with defective/non existant sections of the brain dealing with ethics and morality would become competition for them.

The extra irony is opposing cloning on moral grounds, like anyone in congress has any...

Gee, I'm not sounding cynical am I?


heh heh (2.00 / 1) (#16)
by MattOly on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 03:21:45 PM EST

Now that's fucking hilarious!

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Remember (3.60 / 5) (#4)
by ucblockhead on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 02:39:59 PM EST

  • Identical twin == clone. (Roughly...the differences are minor and only important to people like iGrrrl.)
  • Cloning is copying the body, NOT copying the mind.
  • Environment has a huge impact on how DNA is expressed.

-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
with the exception... (none / 0) (#50)
by rebelcool on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 01:28:28 AM EST

that cloned animals so far age rapidly and it takes dozens of tries to be successful.

Man has not reproduced nature's baby-making process perfectly.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Already happened? (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by RangerBob on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 02:45:32 PM EST

I've read a lot of stuff that made some really good points about the possibility of human cloning already have taken place somewhere. There are several groups around the world working on this, and there's a lot of interest from people who want to have loved ones cloned. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had already done this in secret and just not released their results. The thing I've seen is that I don't think that the cloned animals are "true" clones. There always seems to be a little bit of difference that leads to wierd illnesses that the original never had.

The saddest thing is watching parents who want to clone their dead children. I don't think they've considered the fact that just because the child LOOKS like the previous one, they will never be the same. They won't have the same personality because they weren't shaped by exactly the same experiences. Yes, they may be similiar in personalities, but what if a dad had Johnny I who wanted to be a football star and then Johnny II wants to be a musician?

And as for the Star Wars title, I think that Lucas named it that way just to see how many fanboys would spasm and throw fits about a movie that they know nothing about simply based on the title ;) I can just picture him poking people and going "See, told ya so." :)

"Attack of the Clones" (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by ucblockhead on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 02:50:06 PM EST

People seem to forget what Lucas did for installment three, "Revenge of the Jedi".
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
attack of the clones (none / 0) (#9)
by starbreeze on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 02:52:18 PM EST

i'm glad you already said it.

i thought this was going to be another star wars submission.

~~~~~~~~~
"There's something strangely musical about noise." ~Trent Reznor
[ Parent ]

Nah, didn't forget :) (none / 0) (#24)
by RangerBob on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 04:00:52 PM EST

Just tired of people online having fits because of the title. I mean, I've seen people say they won't go see it just because of the title, not because of any other problems they might have with it.

Then again, I'm also waiting for Dr. Detroit II: The Wrath of Mom ;)


[ Parent ]
Actually... (none / 0) (#69)
by MattOly on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 12:02:18 PM EST

After much sould searching, I fount I like the new title. The focus of the story was, of course, the seriousness of human cloning, but the title announcement couldn't have had better timing.

The title harkens back to the title from old Flash Gordon serials, "Enemies of the Universe!" or "Attack of the Hawk Men!". It's classical serial titling, and I like it. That's all I'm saying about it here. ;)

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

If it's banned in the United States... (3.66 / 3) (#7)
by Abstraction on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 02:48:57 PM EST

all they would have to do is go to a country where it's not banned right?

A US ban would be a necessary first step (3.50 / 2) (#12)
by anansi on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 03:08:05 PM EST

Once we prohibited it on our soil, we might invoke trade sanctions on countries that supported such research. This kind of project would take up a large footprint that would be hard to do secretly unless it were a matter of "national security" (You saw The Boys from Brazil, right?)

I'll be very curious to see what opinion polls show in other countries. It would suprise me for any nation's population to come out strongly in favor.

Don't call it Fascism. Use Musollini's term: "Corporatism"
[ Parent ]

Or... (3.00 / 1) (#20)
by Abstraction on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:40 PM EST

One could just go to a 3rd world country and do it. Likely cloning would be of the last things on the peoples or governments mind. Or you could go somewhere and keep it a secret. If that kind of thing is possible to be kept a secret.

[ Parent ]
Never Assume (4.33 / 3) (#22)
by datarat on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 03:53:25 PM EST

I think that what we're seeing here is typical of the human condition. I don't like it, and none of my friends do, so NOBODY is going to like it.

And yet they kept making Police Academy movies.

Banning cloning in this country is yet another example of the increasing hostility that science is facing. The amount of knowledge that can come out of cloning experiments, and the applications to follow, is staggering.

Suppose a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, or AIDS comes out of this? That's nice, but you won't be able to get it here. Best get on that bus to Mexico...

What possible trade sanctions could we place on the country that has a cure for cancer? I think that we're blurring the lines of morality here more than we should.


-datarat "An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is afraid it's true"
[ Parent ]
No fair! (1.00 / 2) (#26)
by MattOly on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 04:18:04 PM EST

No one ever mentions Police Academy on my website!

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Like trying to get rid off Castro in Cuba? (3.00 / 1) (#54)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 04:43:24 AM EST

Cuba has a very decent health service in spite of 40 years of embargoes and trade sanctions and they have many first class doctors there.

I think they would love to do that cloning if that means a few billions for they battered economy.

I would like to see how the US would stop that.

If the US don't like something the US has all the right of the world to ban it in their own soil, if they don't like something that is happening abroad they should promote international legislation and rules in agreement with other countries. Unilateral trade sanctions are unacceptable as a civilized way of pushing your agenda in to others, because unilateral sanctions are based in the "I can" princpile, not in the " I am right" one.

Trade sanctions, when applied only "because I can" just harm innocent people and usualy don't harm the intended target ( good morning mister Hussein).

Trade sanctions against Southafrica were good because they were an international coordinated effort to uphold human rights.

Trade sanctions against Cuba are bad because it is only the US stuborness what keep them in place (unless Cuba is a threat to the national security of the US....), and although Cuba has much to answer about their human rights' record, China and Saudiarabia have very horrific (I would say worst) abuses as well and nobody sees the US goverment running to sanction them.


------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]
*rollseyes* (none / 0) (#72)
by odaiwai on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:08:17 PM EST

Yeah, because as we all know, US law applies to every country in the world, (except those where the Men in Black don't want it to.)

dave
-- "They're chefs! Chefs with chainsaws!"
[ Parent ]
Yeah! (1.00 / 3) (#39)
by Aphexian on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 09:07:51 PM EST

Hell yeah! They can do it at HavenCo!... Sealand, people! Think about it! Oh mah gawd, the ultimate in security is waiting for us just off the coast!

Now that we've dispensed with the "beowulf cluster of these" phenomenon, can we please think about this seriously?

Does anyone ever bother to think of the global economy? The situation we are in right now? Umm...Russian hackers in town on business? HELLO?

The "World's Police" will not stand for this.

Why can't I smoke a Cuban cigar in my country? (Well at least why can't I import it....nitpickers.)

Yadda yadda, etc, etc...Wise Up Man! Get cynical...

[ Parent ]
I wish someone would clone George Lucas (4.33 / 3) (#10)
by anansi on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 02:57:38 PM EST

and raise him to the age where he originally made Star Wars

I'm sure he'd do it differently this time.

I'm really pissed about the movie title. "Fall of the Republic", "Jedi Apprectice", "Origins of Empire"... those may not be the best titles, but I thought of them off the cuff, and at least they make some reference to the sort of traditions that the Star Wars franchise has tried hard to promulgate. "Attack of the Clones" sounds like a zombie slasher movie, sorta like the pod people in Invasion of the body snatchers. He's obvioulsy very tickled with himself to have anticipated the cloning debate so long ago when he first mentioned "the clone wars". And now, just in time, is a movie in which the clone wars are taking place. The timing was coincidental, but his film title was not. I wish he'd had more subtlety.

As for cloning humans, I have a hard time advancing an argument that's more substantial than the anti-abortion position. It mostly just makes me queezy.

To allow otherwise infertile couples to have babies seems like a noble goal, but my understading of evolution is that there has to be some chance for mutation each generation, and sexual attractiveness is about stirring up the gene pool.

Why do we die, if not to make room for the next generation? Why have a new generation, if not to allow them to adapt to a changing environment? This is a purely asthetic argument, I realize, but a cloned child seems like ultimate narcissism.

I also have problems with the idea of creating cloned children for the purpose of harvesting their organs for use in transplants. Heinlein predicted this technology in Time enough for love with a facile justification that the clones' brains were not allowed to develop. it still grossed me out.

Come to think of it, this cloning debate promises to make the abortion controversy seem like a minor grumble. And that in itself may be a very good thing...

Don't call it Fascism. Use Musollini's term: "Corporatism"

who cares? (4.66 / 3) (#21)
by delmoi on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 03:49:19 PM EST

but my understading of evolution is that there has to be some chance for mutation each generation, and sexual attractiveness is about stirring up the gene pool.

Who the hell cares? I mean really. Who's to say that natural evolution is the best possible way to do it? There seem to be a lot of idiots running around as it is.

Why do we die, if not to make room for the next generation? Why have a new generation, if not to allow them to adapt to a changing environment?

I dunno. Because it's fun? thats really all there is to it, isn't it. I mean what is the point of the human race? Do you know? Do I?
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Those names (none / 0) (#23)
by DeadBaby on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 03:57:38 PM EST

Are really, really, really bad.
"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us." - Carl Sagan
[ Parent ]
The gene pool. (3.00 / 1) (#51)
by Tezcatlipoca on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 04:14:41 AM EST

To allow otherwise infertile couples to have babies seems like a noble goal, but my understading of evolution is that there has to be some chance for mutation each generation, and sexual attractiveness is about stirring up the gene pool.

As any scientific discovery, cloning has the potential to be used for both good and bad things. We have never stopped scientific progress for fear of the consequences of the bad uses, perhaps this is not wise, but I don't think that trend is going to change now. The potential to make billions is too high, so this is is bound to happen sometime, somewhere, so better stupid politicians get their heads out of the sand and begin to legislate assuming clonning will happen.

You assumption about the genetic pool is correct, but the consequences of clonning only for infertile couples I think are small (if the infertility is genetic in origin, would the cloned person have to use clonning as well to get a child?). From the point of view of keeping your own genes alive, cloning makes perfect sense if the option is that your genetic material dies with you.

Of course if 99% of people were born as clones, then the genetic pool would come to a stand still, which will not kill humans, it would just make them more susceptible to be wiped out by a single illness or sudden change in the environment.

Why do we die, if not to make room for the next generation? Why have a new generation, if not to allow them to adapt to a changing environment? This is a purely asthetic argument, I realize, but a cloned child seems like ultimate narcissism.


We do die to make room for the next generation, evolution has decided this is necessary, something that we will have to decide in the next couple of centuries is if we want nature to carry on "deciding" the changes alone or if we are going to help (or even replace) nature in doing this.


I don't believe a desperate couple trying to form a family are narcisists, there is a natural urge to spread your genes, that urge is one of the strongest forces that rule our lives, I think people using this technique in the future will be just finding a solution to that natural urge.

------------------------------------
"They only think of me as a Mexican,
an Indian or a Mafia don"
Mexican born actor Anthony Quinn on
Hol
[ Parent ]

abortion (none / 0) (#61)
by Ender Ryan on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:29:13 AM EST

The way I see it, abortion and cloning are completely different issues.

One issue is about the right for people to kill a human fetus growing inside their body.

The other is about whether or not it's acceptable to grow a genetic copy of another person, possibly to the detriment of said copy.

For the record, I am strongly against abortion, at least after the fetus has effectively developed into a human. There is a gray area in-between fertilization and "humanhood" where I'm not sure of my position. IMO, when someone is carrying a child, their body does not belong to them anymore, it is shared with the child.

I have no problem with cloning though. As long as the failure rate is low enough, somewhere within the range of natual failure(which is not low by any means), well, at least on the same order of magnitude.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

clone wars (2.00 / 1) (#25)
by montjoy on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 04:14:10 PM EST

I'm not a big trekkie (or trekker, or whatever), but wasn't there a time period in the Star Trek timeline called "The Clone Wars" that happened sometime in the early 21st century?

If Star Trek turns out to be a prophecy I'm really going to be frightened.

Nope, not the Clone Wars (3.50 / 2) (#32)
by Karmakaze on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 05:25:14 PM EST

They were the "Eugenics Wars", and, according to the original timeline, I'm preety sure they're supposed to be happening right now...

Honestly, (jumping back to Star Wars) "the Clone Wars", would have been a better title than "Attack of the Clones" if he had to get the word in there. Feh. Maybe the title will got the way of "Revenge of the Jedi"...


--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]

Yes, indeed... (none / 0) (#57)
by darthaggie on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:00:59 AM EST

They were the "Eugenics Wars", and, according to the original timeline, I'm preety sure they're supposed to be happening right now...

Correct. I was gifted a copy of a book about the rise and fall of Kahn. Where I'm at in the book, Gary Seven is attempting to infiltrate and sabotage the project, and the year is 1974. IIRC, the S.S. Botany Bay was launched in the 2001-2003 time frame.

I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
[ Parent ]

Actually, (4.00 / 1) (#41)
by Happy Monkey on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 09:23:19 PM EST

The Clone Wars were from Star Wars "history", presumably the subject of the upcoming movie.

And "The Clone Wars" would be a much better title than "Attack of the Clones". It just makes me think of "Killer Clones from Outer Space"...
___
Length 17, Width 3
[ Parent ]

"Attack of the Clones" (none / 0) (#60)
by Ender Ryan on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:17:56 AM EST

Attack of the Clones makes me think of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.

Must be because it's the only movie I've ever actually seen where the title was "Attack of the ..."


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

Scienticians similar to USians? (3.33 / 3) (#29)
by theboz on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 04:36:41 PM EST

What's up with the usage of nonsense words? What is the point of writing a story (although from reading a post further down this seems to be copied from CNN without giving credit, which automatically gets a -1) just to fill it up with silly bullshit words? They distract people from the real message and purpose of the story.

Oh well, I should go debauble my computeronics rather than type these messagistas about using nonsensial words.

Stuff.

Hmm.. (none / 0) (#31)
by MattOly on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 05:03:04 PM EST

Never thought about computeronics. It's a good one. Get over your language, homeboy. You'll have more fun.

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Watching the poll. (4.00 / 2) (#33)
by MattOly on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 05:59:19 PM EST

I find it interesting watching the poll. Most of the users are for it, and that's not what I thought the outcome would be. Hmmm...

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.

key questions to be answered: (4.50 / 2) (#35)
by rebelcool on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 06:23:04 PM EST

of course the reason for natural birth is for beneficial mutations (aka 'evolution')...a pure copy of people would stagnate the gene pool, if the copy was exact.

On a more short-term note though, while its been a couple of years since dolly the sheep, how much has cloning of animals improved? Does it take less than 277 tries to get one right? I would think it dangerous to try and clone a human, when it still takes dozens of tries to get an animal.

Further, we dont know exactly what the effects of cloning does in the person's longterm. Dolly has shown signs of advanced aging.. would a cloned human die before they were 30?

All these questions really ought to be answered before cloning a human.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site

Proportion (3.00 / 1) (#45)
by ucblockhead on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 12:34:04 AM EST

It would only stagnate the gene pool if it were a significant proportion of births. Unless you are talking about cloning a significant percentage of the population (like, say, 50%), this is not a valid objection.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
true today... (2.00 / 2) (#48)
by rebelcool on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 12:58:26 AM EST

but in 100 years?

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Almost certainly (none / 0) (#62)
by ucblockhead on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:53:57 AM EST

Simply economics. The old fashioned way is free.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Um... (3.00 / 1) (#68)
by MattOly on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 11:57:59 AM EST

And my I add it's a ton more fun?

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

question (none / 0) (#59)
by Ender Ryan on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:12:35 AM EST

What's to stop the original cell(s?) the clone is started from from mutating?

Also, as a species are we even still evolving? With all our medical knowlege we keep people with horrible diseases alive so they can breed, doesn't that put a damper on the evolution of our species?

The way I see it, the only way we are going to evolve any more is by altering our species ourselves.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

evolution happens slowly. (none / 0) (#70)
by rebelcool on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 01:39:39 PM EST

incrementally. Of course you dont see it happening. Humans are adaptable enough that we dont really need to physically evolve much. Most of our evolution comes socially.

Interesting enough though, I once read about a theory on the black plague. That the survivors of the plague represented a slightly more evolved human in terms of disease fighting capability.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

The human race is not evolving (none / 0) (#71)
by delmoi on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 09:39:53 PM EST

In order for evolution to ocour, there needs to be an isolated small population of animals. there are billions of humans out there, and we're all breeding with eachother. Our genome isn't going anywhere.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
The Story of HeLa Cells & Other thoughts (4.50 / 2) (#43)
by turtleshadow on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 09:57:26 PM EST

OK, Little History Lesson
In 1951 a 31 year old woman's cells were extracted from her cervix and sent to a lab for tests for cancer. Indeed they were and a very unique form of cancerous cells that in fact are quite immortal. She died 8 months later of cancer. Today the cells are called HeLa, after Henrietta Lacks.
A person that was the same as you and I. To date her name is buried in literature and that's a shame. The medical community has made so many advances, and reverses, from this woman's biology and there is nothing left of the real person to remember.

I do have severe flashbacks to the scenes in Alien Resurection in which misfit Alien/Ripleys are stowed away in glass jars after each experiment.
Experimentation is really a word for much trial and error with a end purpose in mind. Even natural biology gets it wrong a lot

A person is much more than biology. A human is indeed the product of the chemicals of sperm & egg.
In fact the sperm & egg fetus part is the short part, .0125 of the lifespan of 60 years. The rest is a lot of time and energy that goes into being a person. And people are as much if not more formed from the culture of civilization than biology.
Unleashing cloned infants is something I have hesitation on as Science is not a good parent.
Experimentation would have to start here, as no woman could sign up to pumping out 21 year olds.
I know a few of my College chums would be happy for true subjects in a true Skinner Box experiment.
And this makes me hesitate more.

Getting back to Mrs Lacks. Would I like to know that in 20+ years a lil Turtleshadow was being harvested for parts? Should I care if 50+ years from now Lil Turtleshadow's in entirety or in part were being shipped off to fight wars as expendible meat. Should I care that in 5 years that annoying so and so due to his/her economic advantage has stashed away parts and could re-emerge to annoy a yet to be born generation?
The fact you can't take things with you when you die has always been true. Now more than ever the fact that you leave things behind when you kick the bucket is even more problematic.

The fact is that once you die you lose all control of your biology, present and future. What's to prevent donations given today sticking around, long after the intention or need or the originator's demise. Society has not awoke to this, and we are going to suffer for it.

Turtleshadow

"Clone Wars" (3.00 / 1) (#47)
by ucblockhead on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 12:44:03 AM EST

Why on earth would a military pay lots and lots of money to clone people to be soldiers when there are literally millions of people just itching to volunteer?

Most of these horror stories are based on misunderstandings on what cloning can and cannot do. And did you actually read that link to the "Skinner Box"? Skinner was wrong in terms of psychology, but he's been treated damn unfairly for that!
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

curse (none / 0) (#74)
by anonymous cowerd on Sat Aug 11, 2001 at 05:06:59 PM EST

Now suppose, just suppose, that there's this impalpable immortal soul and an afterlife and all that. I myself don't believe that, but it's such a popular idea that it's at least worth looking into. And suppose, with a few rare, privileged exceptions of course, prophets and visionaries and like that, the way it works is that one (one's soul that is) can't ascend to Paradise or go zooming off as a weightless wingéd tourist through the stars until after one's physical body is truly and finally shut down, kaput, dead.

Instead while you wait you have to hang around and keep an eye on the old mortal shell until it kicks completely and you're free to take off. If it were you stuck like that, and it looked like you were trapped on this stupid ball indefinitely far into the future, betcha you'd be frustrated, and in retribution you'd probably abuse this thoughtless world to as great a degree, Heaven knows how much that is, as your ectoplasmic nature would allow, and you'd curse:

...Go, wherever ill deeds shall be done,
Go, plant your flag in the sun
  Besider the ill-doers!
And recoil from clenching the curse
Of God's witnessing Universe
  With a curse of yours.
    This is the curse. Write.

So maybe that explains why the world is so fucked up these days. It's Henrietta Lacks. And she's pissed.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

The one thing that really disturbs me about America is that people don't like to read. - Keith Richards
[ Parent ]

Research ethics (4.66 / 3) (#44)
by Nyarlathotep on Wed Aug 08, 2001 at 11:53:02 PM EST

Clearly, all the people screaming it will harm the human race are fools. A handful of cloned individuals (research) will not do shit to our species. Actually, I would say that almost all pure research is pretty damn safe. It's the mass production that can cause trouble.

Now, there are a few ethical issues regarding cloning people when you might fuck them up. Specifically, the ethics of cloning are identical to the ethical issuues of having kids when you are personally genetically fucked up.

I point out here that there is no law about retarded people having kids. We just want the the opertunity to warn the parrents that htey could be harming the child. It should still be the parents choice period.

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
i think what most people are afraid of... (3.00 / 1) (#49)
by rebelcool on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 01:24:22 AM EST

isnt the global implications. Imagine if a child was cloned, then at around 8 years of age simply fell apart. Imagine the horror (and agony) of such a thing.

Not to be alarmist, but like many scientists have pointed out..cloned animals age faster than other animals. Would a human cloned today live to see their 30th or 20th birthday?

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Absolutly (4.00 / 1) (#53)
by Nyarlathotep on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 04:28:48 AM EST

You are absolutly correct that we do not know enough to clone people with reasonable safety to the clone. We also do not know how to protect children from many genetic disorders.

The moral and legal implications should be based on the following two conditions: probability of flaw and nature of flaw. The fact that one parents "crime" was having sex and anothers was use of premature technology is totally irrelevent. I point out that there are many genetic disorders which are much worse then growing old quickly.

This distinction extends to doctors too. Giving a retarded couple fertility medication is equivelent to implanting a clone. These actions both violate the hipocratic oath in nearly identical ways.

Note: Personally, I am not "passing judgment" on doctors who give retarded couples fertility medication or doctors who make human clones. I mearly wish to point out an equivelence which makes it easy to see the issue from both sides.

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
[ Parent ]
hmmm... close, but not quite right (none / 0) (#58)
by Ender Ryan on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 10:03:00 AM EST

Your analogy about doctors giving fertility drugs to retarded people is close, but IMO not quite correct. As far as I know, a retarded person cannot have a "normal" child(please correct me if I'm wrong), but there is a chance that a clone could be perfectly normal.

I think a better analogy would be giving fertility drugs to a couple that has genetic disorders that have a somewhat high probability of being passed on to the child.

People with genetic disorders have children all the time and that's generally accepted, but I don't know if doctors often help them have children or how accepted that is.


-
Exposing vast conspiracies! Experts at everything even outside our expertise! Liberators of the world from the oppression of the evil USian Empire!

We are Kuro5hin!


[ Parent ]

what scares me is... (none / 0) (#63)
by jimmiejames on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 11:05:47 AM EST

These particular cloning people are part of a crazy CULT! references: First, their website, www.rael.org, also the cnn.com article linking clonaid to the raelians, http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/08/06/human.cloning/index.html. Among other things, they want to build a gigantic embassy near Jerusalem, where according to them, many alian hybrids still live. They are still soliciting for land donations... yeah right!

a small quote from their embassy plan, that had me chuckling the rest of the day.
There will be a terrace on the roof where a spacecraft of twelve metres in diameter may land. Access from that terrace to the interior is essential.


-jimmiejames

doesn't particularly work (none / 0) (#64)
by goosedaemon on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 11:14:23 AM EST

you're familiar with genetic breakdown, i'm sure. if not, it's the idea that when our cells reproduce, a little piece off the end of the dna breaks off. that's okay for a while, as there's plenty of cruft there that we don't use, but eventually it hits the important parts, and we age.

well, if you clone something, you clone the dna available to you, and if you clone an adult, there's already been a significant amount of the cruft on the end removed, leaving less time before it hits the important dna.

assuming, of course, that genetic breakdown is indeed the case.



Great point (none / 0) (#65)
by MattOly on Thu Aug 09, 2001 at 11:47:35 AM EST

I do remember reading about genetic breakdown (though I'm not a scientician, I am very interested in biology), and I never thought about the age-of-the-host releationship. That is a very possible reason for why some clones just don't make it.

====
A final note to...the Republican party. You do not want to get into a fight with David Letterman. ...He's simply more believable than you are.
[ Parent ]

Of course... (none / 0) (#73)
by piman on Fri Aug 10, 2001 at 03:08:10 PM EST

According to one of my friends, who's a biotech major, the limit is about 120 years before breakdown starts occurring. Aging is more the effect of organs and muscles just wearing out after extended use, poor dietary habits, becoming more stressed, and the increasingly sedentary nature of first-world society.

Of course, it's also "trivial" to shove junk DNA onto the end of real strands of DNA (in embryo form; there's too many cells to deal with in a grown person), which eliminates the problem.


[ Parent ]
Send in the Clones! | 74 comments (49 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!