Cloning : Where do u stand?

[Globber]

Cloning for medical purposes is okay in my book, as is food cloning and genetic breeding. However, cloning for other purposes is questionable at best, depends on circumstances, really. Really, I don't see the physical limitations on human cloning (ethics is a huge can of worms I won't open). The clones will be born the same as any other child, and the only point where they can be identified as a clone is as a clump of cells. What medical problems are there, anyway? Identical twins are no different from synthetic clones, at least at the cell level....

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by Globber
What medical problems are there, anyway? Identical twins are no different from synthetic clones, at least at the cell level....

I addressed this on the previous page.
Natural twins have fresh DNA with long ends without any information. If the ends get shorter during cell division there is no trouble as only rubbish DNA is getting lost.
Clones are made of old DNA without the long ends without any information. At the end of the DNA there is information needed to live, if the end of the DNA comes off the individual is not able to function normally as some vital pieces of information are missing.

 

[Cloudyvortex]

Cloning is vital for my jihad against Simon Darkshade.

But, in reality, (like I'd ever really be foolish enough to so much as ever venture into Darkshade's continent ) I am fully with Globber. Just to many questions. This is what I hate about new technology. It is not dependent on civility and is going faster than human evolution.

 

[Ludovit]

Originally posted by civ1-addict

Problems known so far with cloning:
- You can never produce an exact clone is there is mitochondrial DNA that isn't being transferred into the clone from the original.
- DNA shortens every cell-division, this is not bad as the outer parts of the DNA are composed of non-information. However when you clone you use old DNA (already shortened) that will be made even shorter in the new individual each cell division. After a while it can easily happen that parts of the DNA fall of which actually are information carriers. The results of this can be a big disaster.

I know about mitochodrial DNA and telomer problems, but I was not talking about technical problems. Someday (not tomorrow) it will be possible. People take it rather as question of ethics.

Originally posted by Becka

Maybe there are some standards that shouldn't........

Agreed. But we are so afraid of cons, that we give up pros. But here my arguments come to end. I'm too lazy to think what pros I'm talking about.

 

[Ludovit]

civ1-addict, I heared, that twins have different fingerprints. How is it possible, if they have the same nucleus DNA and also mitochondrial DNA, as they come from same mother? Is it for mechanical reasons? I don't think so. Then it would be too easy for criminals to change their fingerprints.

 

[The ANZAC]

Identical twins have exact copies of DNA excepting mutations. I don't know about the fingerprint thing though, it could be based off of multi-factorial genes, where the environment comes into play also.

 

[Richard III]

No to mammals. Undecided elsewhere.

R.III

 

[Sanaz]

Originally posted by civ1-addict
To make my opinion on cloning clear:
I/m all in favour of cloning to make organs for people who are seriously ill and don't have another option. Much research should be put in this. I'm just against cloning full human beings.

I think this sums up the whole argument for me. It always helps having a professional around.

Cloning entire humans rings of Dune or a Stephen King novel - just too creepy to think about. And I honestly can't think of the benefit of cloning an entire human. I like the idea of taking genetic traits from two people, the old fashioned way.

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by Ludovit
civ1-addict, I heared, that twins have different fingerprints. How is it possible, if they have the same nucleus DNA and also mitochondrial DNA, as they come from same mother? Is it for mechanical reasons? I don't think so. Then it would be too easy for criminals to change their fingerprints.

I wasn't aware of this but I found a site on this:
http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID_Twins.html

Apparently fingerprints are already formed while the child is still in the uterus and the appearance is formed by the micro-environment there. The differences in finger prints between your own fingers is even caused by this effect. Your finger prints of your fingers are pretty much alike but not for the full 100% and this is also the case for twins. The genetic basis is the same but the micro-environment in the uterus causes slight differences in the final form of the fingerprints.

I've heard of manipulation of criminals with their fingerprints. With some kind of acid or something they can sort of remove them and make their finger tips completely without ridges.

edit:
found a site devoted to fingerprints...
http://www.fingerprints.demon.nl/

 

[Grey Fox]

- Cloning a whole human being. No.
- Cloning an organ. Yes. If it's to save people.
- Making new crops, etc by gen techniques. Yes, if it's done right.

 

[cgannon64]

To quote someone else, "If its good for my kids, like replacing a kidney, I'm all for it." I'd want my children lives to be saved, too. But would you want "organ farms", full of cloned people who are killed for the sake of their copy? Would you want your child cloned so he can have a heart transplant? That is a life saved by a death. Granted, this probably won't happen, but if in the wrong hands...

CG

 

[onejayhawk]

Some of the obvious uses would be very good. It should be possible to clone skin and blood fairly quickly. Blood in particular is hard to come by. Whole replacement organs are still science fiction at the moment, but sooner or later, that will be available also, removing the biggest obstacle to transplants, tissue rejection. Or so we hope.

The biggest problem is that the simplest thing to clone is the entire organism. I am a religious individual and I have no problem with someone cloning anyone, including themselves, to raise as a child. Cloning someone to use as an organ bank is another story.

Whatever the moral and religious objections, I am certain that research will go forward, openly in some cases and covertly in others. The science is just too basic to medicine not to pursue. The question is what will we do with the knowledge once we have.

J

 

[Darklaws]

"What moral right could anyone possibly have to impose YOUR horrible looks on another sentient being"."LOL"

 

[onejayhawk]

True. I have a face only a wife could love.

J

 

[gr8ful wes]

Anti Cloning

It aint natural.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by civ1-addict


Problems known so far with cloning:
- You can never produce an exact clone is there is mitochondrial DNA that isn't being transferred into the clone from the original.
- DNA shortens every cell-division, this is not bad as the outer parts of the DNA are composed of non-information. However when you clone you use old DNA (already shortened) that will be made even shorter in the new individual each cell division. After a while it can easily happen that parts of the DNA fall of which actually are information carriers. The results of this can be a big disaster.

-IIRC a persons mitochondrial DNA is maternally derived. So wouldn't it be the same in the clone as long as the host cell comes from the mother of the person being cloned?

-Very true, but isn't that why we have all those extra base repeats at our telomeres? They shorten every cell division, but we're not talking about cloning with DNA from germ cells here right? Just draw the chromatin from cell types that don't divide all that frequently, and from fairly young people, and the telomeres should still be long enough to sustain them though a (hopefully)long and healthy life n'est pas?. Then wouldn't this become a problem only if cloning from a clone of a clone etc.?

Also, in regards to those "organ farms" that somone else was talking about. Banish such thoughts from your minds. Once we manage to figure out the proper molecular signals, hopefully one could grow an organ from cloned embyonic stem cells, and never need an adult body around it.
Obviously harvesting organs from adult clones would be monstrous, and no sane scientist would consider it a possiblity.

 

[funxus]

I'm not sure, but it seams most of these problems will be solved when cloning organs or humans is possible, at least better than it is today. People are usually very afraid of new technology, but after a couple of years not many people care, it's considered natural. When the nuclear bomb was new, I believe a lot of people thought that the earth wouldn't exist in 20 years. I also think a lot of people have been afraid of computers(?), robots... I think these problems will be solved when the problems are facts

 

[Silverblade]

Hey let's start to build an elite society while we are at it. Just take the perfect DNA a create a super-human.

Well I'm not really against cloning if it leads to a better world.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I am totally against cloning. For anything, especially extending human lives.

My clone, on the other hand, supports the idea wholeheartedly and would like to see everyone cloned and their originals destroyed or put on ice for spare parts.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by The ANZAC
Yeah, cloning people is bad, but everything else is ok, though it should be for medical purposes.

By everything else I assume you mean stem-cell research? I completely agree with you on this one; this research can cure paralyzing and deadly diseases, and to NOT explore these research paths to their fullest in the name of morality or religion is needlessly and savagely slapping the victims of these diseases in the face.

I only wish your conservative brethren would take the same approach as yourself.