Human Cloning

[october]

I am interested in the general thinking out there on human cloning. Does anyone have any thoughts?

I, being a conservative Christian, am quite wary of it. It's such a strange thing for anyone to want to do, and I don't see any benefit to society other than to clone an army of improved warriors for military domination or to clone healthy people or tissue for medical reasons. Maybe I have seen one too many science fiction movies and don't really know the down to earth reasons scientists may have to pursue this line of research. I think when we get into genetics we are screwing around with stuff we should not be screwing around with, or even playing "God."

 

[Strik]

yes, you have seen too many science fiction movies? these are always about the worst that can happen. However people never think that the people who are doing this work aren't evil. They are just as me and you.

I myself am chemistry student and since bio-engineering is very close related, I have no problem with it. I look at the good things you could do with it. Curing genetical diseases that are passed on to your children. (This is not meant to be offensive but just an example). There is a real shortage in donor..eehhhh dont't know the word, something like a donor hearts and such. If we can grow a replica of a persons heart or kidney or whatever and put it in his body, he will live longer and healthier. Plus you don't have the effect of the body rejecting it. Because it is made of your own cells.

My advise to most people is: don't be afraid for it, the scientists have a conscience too. If you won't allow it to be done. No good and ofcourse no evil will come from it. But I must note that the research that is being done now is for medical purpusses. What I think ain't evil.

 

[knowltok]

Well I think we may have already touched on two seperate topics; Genetic Engineering and Cloning. The point of cloning at this time is medical. Replacement hearts that won't be rejected is just one example. If new nerve tissue can be cloned, paralysis could be cured. Taken to a reasonable level, people will be living a LOT longer. I don't think we are in very much danger of someone cloning a person in the sense of making an exact duplicate of them at this time. In other words, no evil armies made up evil brainwashed supermen. At the very least this is a seperate issue that is many many years away. It could probably be compared to physicists in the late 1800's and the atomic bomb. Its a long way off, and the benefits of Atomic reseach are likely to outway the costs (maybe).

On genetic engineering: Once this becomes possible there will be no stopping it. I am thinking along the lines of being able to program your children's genes. Even if it is only the ability to pick the best traits of the two parents, the effects will be huge. If you have the ability to ensure that you child has no defects (Down Syndrome); has the best intelligence possible between all the posibilities that you and your spouse could have; the best eyesight; best strength; strongest heart, lungs, and other organs; will have at least 120 active years; have no chance of getting the cancer that killed your father; and was the most visually apealling child you and your spouse could make, wouldn't you do it? If not, keep in mind that millions will. They will also travel to other countries if need be to do it. Also consider that by not doing it you could be condemning your grandchildren or great grandchildren to having what is now average abilities in a world full of people that have the looks of Tom Cruise; have the athletic ability of Michael Jordon; intelligence close to Einstein or Edison level; and phenominal health. It may not be a very appealing world in your eyes, but it will be to many. I can see a world divided into those that do and those that do not. Actually, had I an author's talent it would make a good book.

 

[Strik]

this is just like the film Gattaca, perhaps you gotten the idea from that knowltok. If not watch it. It is good.

 

[knowltok]

Saw the previews, but that is it. I may have gotten part of the idea from that. I'll take your advice cause I'd always wanted to see it, but never got around to it.

 

[allan]

Cloning: if we can clone ONLY the organs, apart from a whole person, I'd be for that--because you wouldn't be killing a person to get the replacement organ. But if we must clone a person in toto to get the replacement organ, then that would involve murder of the clone, and of course I would be against that....

Note that I have not really kept up on this as much as I probably should, and so am not certain which route will be taken, or CAN be taken with present or near-future technology.

As for genetic engineering, knowltok summed the issue up quite well. I fear for a "Gattaca"-like world though where people are discriminated against based on their DNA--and I can see this type of thing coming. One thing we should remember is that the "nature versus nurture" question is still far from being solved: "ordinary" people can sometimes do VERY extraordinary things, given the proper motivation, a good home, good education, or an inner drive that no set of genes could ever grant. That was the "lesson" if you will of the movie Gattaca, and I believe it is an accurate one.

There's nothing like the human spirit to overcome adversity--not even the "best" genes possible. I hope that as we open this Pandora's box of genetic engineering, we don't lose sight of that.... If we do, then we are ALL doomed.

(BTW, Huxley's Brave New World , written way back in the 20s, also foreshadowed this in a way: remember the "alpha" through "epsilon" classes of humans, all genetically engineered? Since SOMEONE has to do the menial work in society, I can see this type of arrangement being made in the future too--if we are not morally vigilant.)

 

[knowltok]

I hope it won't be as sinister as it is sometimes made out to be. I am fairly certain that it will come about in one form or another regardless of whether we try to stop it or not. While I don't like the term slippery slope, I think it fits here. First step is to ensure that your baby won't have down syndrome. Next, we eliminate the need for glasses, then, while were in there, do you want us to make her smarter / more attractive / stronger? If you see the lengths parents will go to now to improve their children, just wait till this is available. I would hope that in such a world the people who chose not to do it generation after generation can be treated as the American Amish are treated. They hold to the old ideas and old ways, but they are not forced into servitude or discriminated against.

 

[allan]

But unlike the Amish, I don't think such people will want to necessarily withdraw themselves from "mainstream" society, but will still want to participate in it. Plus you will have people born into poor families who couldn't afford the services of a geneticist.

I still contend that a person's drive and determination, and what he pushes himself to achieve while living (versus what is "handed" to him before birth), is AT LEAST 50% of what will contribute to whatever greatness he will have--actually I think it is more like 80 or 90%. Question is, given human nature to "simplify" things by putting people into neat little categorized boxes with labels, will DNA's role be overemphasized or overestimated by people who decide which people will be used to do what?

I recommend you watch Gattaca. No I don't doubt genetic engineering will be used. The weight we put on it is the important question....

Naturally as an individualist I would be concerned about such things, for my core belief is that "it's not what you HAVE, but how you USE what you have, that makes (or breaks) you."

 

[BigBirdZ28]

From the religious perspective, there is nothing wrong with the basic concept of cloning.

Please correct me where im wrong (that's why we post).

It seems that the problem Christianity faces when trying to sanction cloning is that you are messing with the Creation of God & life should be given by God. ie, man shouldn't play God.

With Islam, the basic belief is that no matter what man does, he cannot play God. Fine you can create a sheath to house a person in, but you cannot create the life it'self.

Would it be sanctionable to clone a cow which produces much more milk or beef, but suffers horribly because of defects? no.

God has made it clear that for every medical illness, there is a cure, with the exception being curing death it'self.

So the most extreme application of cloning (eugenics) can be sancitioned on a case by case basis. You cannot eugenicly cleans a race because you dont like their colour, but you can to build defences against diseases, longer life etc...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

This seems, to me, to be yet another case of splitting hairs while the logs rot. A clone is an organism grown from the embreyonic state to adulthood with all of it's DNA coming from a single organism. In effect, it is a child of the organism. It should have the legal status of child of that person, in the case of human cloning.

Should we manage to develop nanotechnology, and entirely duplicate within hours, the entire physical structure of an adult human, well, we'll have a large, inanimate mass of tissue. People are more than chemicals, and I look forward to the day when this particular experiment proves that we have a spirit that activates us.

In short, a clone grown to adulthood the normal way: child of the source DNA organism. A duplicate constructed in a tank: I suppose a good source of donor organs for the original, but not much use otherwise. Perhaps a brain transplant as a longevity treatment would be possible(old brain into new body), but I think that technology is a long way away.

In short-short, cloning is not a serious issue. Treating it as such wastes time better spent examining other applications of science, far more chilling in potential for abuse. Like genetic engineering.

 

[knowltok]

I am with you on the drive and determination. And you are right that they should be the determining factors. The question might come down to how much we wind up changing people in the next 10 generations or so. It'll be one thing if it is hard or impossible to visually tell that a person has had genetic help, quite another if everyday people of today can be as easily spotted as black and white.

I personally figure that most people will do it within a generation or three. Those that don't by the third generation probably won't because of strict religious beliefs. That may very well make them into a group that pulls away from society.

Back on the drive thing. While you are right, don't forget that our genetically tailored people have just as much chance of supperior drive and determination as those that are not. I fully admit that Michael Jordon is not just a product of genetics. Drive plays a key role and both need to be present. The thing is that instead of one Jordon who was able to match genetics with drive, we will have three. one natural one and two that were enhanced. The generation after that it will be four to one. Once this trend becomes apparent, I think most people will jump on board.

I think I'll be watching Gataga tomorrow.

 

[allan]

"It'll be one thing if it is hard or impossible to visually tell that a person has had genetic help, quite another if everyday people of today can be as easily spotted as black and white."

A DNA test before hire on a job could become a possibility....

"I personally figure that most people will do it within a generation or three. Those that don't by the third generation probably won't because of strict religious beliefs. That may very well make them into a group that pulls away from society."

If the procedure EVENTUALLY becomes as affordable as routine prenatal care (and even that really isn't affordable to everybody, not really), then maybe. But for a number of years, it will be something only the more well-off could afford. And I tend to prefer a society where people can rise from poverty and achieve greatness if they are driven to do so. Again, it depends on the WEIGHT society puts on genes and genetics, but I can see genetic engineering leading to class rigidity (as versus fluidity, like now) if we're not careful.... And as an individualist that is something that I see as unhealthy and abhorrent.

Go see "Gattaca"--it illustrates nicely much of what I am saying here....

 

[joespaniel]

The United States Army has a "swab" of my DNA from when I was in the service. No doubt the FBI now also has it.

But if they wanted to clone it to make a legion of "super-soldiers" they have my permission.

Seriously, this is a hot issue. It opens up a padora's box of ethical and moral questions. I personaly am horrified at some of the possibilities.

However, I would give the majority of our scientific community the credit to proceed with experimentation. I especialy like the prospects of stem-cell extraction from embylical cords. A fantastic discovery.

A young boy was actualy cured of sickle cell anemia. I was under the impression that this was previously incurable. Does anyone know if that was the case? Allan?

 

[CurtSibling]

Too many conspiracy theorists are trying to pin an "X-files" angle on this thing. (dna manipulation and cloning)

Get real.

Too many people in my family have died of failed organs (including my mother)
and I would welcome genetically cultured organs for cancer sufferers, etc.

You can make big opinions about this science folks,
But watch someone fade away from cancer first,
then see if you are so set-against genetic research.

If you had cancer would you still reject it?

 

[knowltok]

Well I watched Gattaca yesterday. Interesting movie, but certainly rather dark. While you are certainly right that in the beginning only the wealthy would be able to afford it, I would assume in such a society that it would become a prerequisite of basic healthcare. Certainly if we can supposedly 'breed' out violence, It is more likely that the technology would be forced on the poor rather than withheld due to monetary constraints. Not that that would be a good thing, but if you can edit out propensity to abuse drugs and commit violent crimes, I could see it happening.

I also noticed that in the movie anyone who had been altered was an A-hole unless some life experience had changed them. We shouldn't foget that these will be people that have a full range of emotions, likes, and dislikes just like we do.

I would say that by the time it got to a point where discrimination on such a scale was possible, the technology would be available to everyone. Hard to say though.

One thing about it though, it will happen if it is possible. We could only hope to slow technilogical progress, not stop it. If we outlaw it in one country, another will embrace it. Hopefully we will utilize it for more good than bad.

 

[Mongol Horde]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
This seems, to me, to be yet another case of splitting hairs while the logs rot. A clone is an organism grown from the embreyonic state to adulthood with all of it's DNA coming from a single organism. In effect, it is a child of the organism. It should have the legal status of child of that person, in the case of human cloning.

What if the person being cloned were merely a child themselves, would the clone still be lagally there child? An interesting one I think you'll agree.

I don't see cloning in itself as morally wrong, a person however they are made is still a person. People argue about the loss of individuality, I think that identical twins would have an argument there. Identical twins are essentially "natural" clones and go to show that someones individuality is an amalgam of their DNA and their upbringing\experiences.

Cloning would be implemented using already known IVF (test tube baby) techniques. There are cases here where I have moral objections. IVF is usually carried out by fertilising a number of eggs and then implanting 1 or more of those eggs into the mother. More often than not many fertilised eggs are discarded which I have a major problem with, for me human life begins when the sperm meets the egg and destroying that life should never be allowed.

 

[patg]

Cloning and genetic engeneering in themselves are not evil or bad but as history has shown 99% of all our inventions were created during, because of or in preperations for war/defence. Most of these technologies have been a great source of good for the world. But some can be quite disruptive (in an extintion sort of way). The ability to create life in the form of our choosing could and probably will be our demise. We can not afford to risk it. Cloning would save millions, the rich at first and then down the ladder but if only one person decides to use this to modify a virus it would be all over.

Altough we have been close to the edge before (cuban missle crissis) we were lucky. Many scientist that worked of the bomb latter said it was a bad idea. Eistien knew what his ideas were going to lead to and cossidered not publishing them.

With all the rush towards new technilogy in the last decade we must stop an think, catch our breath to make sure we are on the right path not throwing ourselves of a clif.

Well those are my thoughs. Hope they make sense. :crazyeyes :crazyeyes

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Mongol:

The clone is a child of the parent, even if the 'parent' in this case is a fertilized egg that is frozen after the cloning, and stored indefinitely. Should the clone be brought to maturity, it will be the child of a frozen embreyo. At that point, someone will be forced to determine the embreyo's legal status. Most likely, the donors of the embreyo will have 'custody' of it, and therefore, custody of the child of the embreyo will default to them.

And I agree, there is nothing inherently wrong about cloning. Apparently, few people understand what cloning is. Real cloning is not movie cloning. In movie cloning, an adult individual is duplicated, right down to personality traits. In real cloning, someone or some embreyo becomes a truly single parent.

 

[Ren]

I'm all for cloning for 'spare parts', but as allan said making a full clone and killing it is wrong.

 

[allan]

I'm not too knowledgeable about cloning technique, but I wonder if it is (or soon will be) possible to clone, say, a liver (and nothing else) from an existing liver cell? No killing involved, since no whole being is created....