mmg0789 Posted March 31, 2007 Posted March 31, 2007 Hi, I am currently working on a research paper concerning the subject of cloning. I would like to interview an expert on the topic for my paper. What is your view on cloning (humans, animals) in a few words? What are the advantages of cloning? Disadvantages? Could a cloned human be considered human? What are the scientific reasons to stop or continue cloning? Moral Reasons? Thank You In Advance Mark
mmg0789 Posted April 1, 2007 Author Posted April 1, 2007 yes, but by an expert i mean someone who works in the medical field, a professor, teacher, etc. thanks
lucaspa Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Hi, I am currently working on a research paper concerning the subject of cloning. I would like to interview an expert on the topic for my paper. OK, I do work in the medical field. What is your view on cloning (humans, animals) in a few words? What are the advantages of cloning? Disadvantages? Cloning is expensive. A lot more expensive than good old fashioned sexual reproduction. Remember that cloning, so far, is very inefficient. Over 700 attempts to get Dolly. Now cloners have the attempts reduced to "just" about 200 per successful cloned animal to term. The advantage, for animal breeders, is that it preserves exactly the genome of an extraordinary animal. Say, a sheep that has much finer wool or a cow that produces twice the amount of milk. Could a cloned human be considered human? What else would you condider the clone? How would a clone be different from a twin? What are the scientific reasons to stop or continue cloning? Moral Reasons? Scientific reasons: Problems: The following is not a reason for "stopping", but simply problems. There is really no scientific reason for not doing something. The reasons are always ethical/moral. There seems to be problems in getting cloned humans. Remember, the Korean group had to fake their results. There is difficulty in getting the ovum to divide more than about 4 times. There is concern that the clone my prematurely age. For continuing: it can preserve endangered species; it can keep the alleles of infertile people in the population; it can shorten the time it takes to improve of livestock or plants by selective breeding. Moral reasons: Remember, none of these are scientific but arise from whatever source of ethics the individual is using. So these are some of the reasons I have seen advanced by various people. Please do not quote any of them as my personal opinion. For cloning: Provide a means for infertile people to have children. Provide a source of genetically identical crops/animals so that we know the safety of the product. If cloning is only continued to the blastocyst stage (5-10 days in humans), then the cloned blastocyst provides a source of embryonic stem cells. If the clone is continued to term and then adulthood, the clone can provide a source of spare parts for people. Against cloning: "plays God". Safety concerns, especially for humans. We don't know the long-term effects of cloning, such as perhaps an increased risk of cancer, degenerative diseases, or premature aging. Loss of diversity: if all domestic plants or animals are clones, then they would be more vulnerable to new diseases. Such an epidemic could wipe out the plant or animal, having deleterious effects on humans dependent on the crop or food animal. Prejudice: people not view the clones as humans. Or worse, people exploit the clones as property or for spare parts.
bombus Posted May 2, 2007 Posted May 2, 2007 Cloning? Great idea. I'd love a spare me I can take bits from when I need them.
lucaspa Posted May 4, 2007 Posted May 4, 2007 Cloning? Great idea. I'd love a spare me I can take bits from when I need them. I can see that you will be among the first killed when the clones rise in revolt. I'd like to say it was nice knowing you, but really, with your attitude? Nope. Instead, "good riddance". BTW, with adult stem cells and tissue engineering, you can grow whatever spare parts you need without a clone.
Evilution Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 I only know the legal side of of things because of where I work and I have in fact asked one of my superiors something similar. So yes legally they would be human so they also have the same rights as you bombus so if you plan on stealing some bodyparts in the near future get ready for a long prison stretch.
geoguy Posted July 16, 2007 Posted July 16, 2007 What's the 'legal' side? There's 180 nations in the world with 180 legal systems. The pros and cons, morality, etc, of human cloning are irrelevent in terms of whether or not it'll become routine in 50 to a hundred years. Some contries might ban it as they do abortion, stem cell research, etc. today and as human autopsy was banned just a hundred years ago.
lucaspa Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 What's the 'legal' side? There's 180 nations in the world with 180 legal systems. The pros and cons, morality, etc, of human cloning are irrelevent in terms of whether or not it'll become routine in 50 to a hundred years. Some contries might ban it as they do abortion, stem cell research, etc. today and as human autopsy was banned just a hundred years ago. I disagree that the morality is irrelevant as to whether cloning will become "routine". Just because it can be done doesn't mean it ought to be done or will be done. Many types of research on humans did not become routine because of the morality. Forced sterilization did not become routine because of the morality. Each country having nuclear weapons did not become routine. Slavery was once very routine. Now it isn't because of the morality. Also, looking on the science side, unless someone can increase the efficiency of cloning by 10^3, it won't be done routinely.
geoguy Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 I disagree that the morality is irrelevant as to whether cloning will become "routine". Just because it can be done doesn't mean it ought to be done or will be done. Many types of research on humans did not become routine because of the morality. Forced sterilization did not become routine because of the morality. Each country having nuclear weapons did not become routine. Slavery was once very routine. Now it isn't because of the morality. Also, looking on the science side, unless someone can increase the efficiency of cloning by 10^3, it won't be done routinely. I disagree. Cloning is done today routinely in plants and the science in animalia will move forward regardless of hangups in countries like the USA that are still debating creationism and re-hashing the abortion debates. There is going to be huge demand in a world of educated billions for stem cell research, cloned body parts, etc. When 20 million Chinese want a new liver, 50 million Indians a new heart, entrepreneurs will invest in the research and it won't matter a hoot what protests come from a Bible Fundy in Hicksville, Alabama.
lucaspa Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 I disagree. What specifically do you disagree with? 1. That morality is NOT irrelevant as to deciding what science will continue? I gave examples where morality did influence what science does. 2. That cloning efficiency needs to be improved before it can become routine? Cloning is done today routinely in plants and the science in animalia will move forward regardless of hangups in countries like the USA that are still debating creationism and re-hashing the abortion debates. The debates in the USA have had NO effect on animal cloning. That debate is all about whether to clone humans! When you talk about "plant cloning", you are talking about making cuttings. Apples and oranges compared to animal cloning. Research continues trying to find why animal cloning is so inefficient. And so far has hit a stone wall. This work has been going on for 20 years or more. I'm touched by your blind faith in scientific progress, but you might want to read some of the papers on the subject. Scientists are baffled. There is going to be huge demand in a world of educated billions for stem cell research, cloned body parts, etc. When 20 million Chinese want a new liver, 50 million Indians a new heart, entrepreneurs will invest in the research But they can already get heart treatments with adult stem cells. There are at least 2 companies out there that will inject adult stem cells into your heart. There are several clinical trials underway using adult stem cells to repair hearts following heart attacks. So are you sure people are going to need embryonic stem cells for regenerative therapy? Right now it doesn't look that way to me. The problem is in controlling the differentiation of embryonic stem cells. Are you aware that when you implant ES cells as a mass --like you must if you want a new liver or heart -- all you get is a teratoma? Adult stem cells don't have that problem. it won't matter a hoot what protests come from a Bible Fundy in Hicksville, Alabama. The concern over cloning is not confined to those. I have ethical concern with cloning. For instance, when you talk about "cloned body parts", are those just the individual organs or are you talking about an whole clone from which you harvest parts? I have severe ethical objections to the latter. If you clone an entire human being, the question becomes: is that a human in the ethical/legal sense, or is it a piece of property? If you know anything about history, you know how people have been treated as property, from indentured servitude to Roman slavery to serfdom to American enslavement of Indians and blacks. Do you really think people will have no objection to making a new group of slaves?
D H Posted January 22, 2008 Posted January 22, 2008 I have ethical concern with cloning. For instance, when you talk about "cloned body parts", are those just the individual organs or are you talking about an whole clone from which you harvest parts? I have severe ethical objections to the latter. If you clone an entire human being, the question becomes: is that a human in the ethical/legal sense, or is it a piece of property? If you know anything about history, you know how people have been treated as property, from indentured servitude to Roman slavery to serfdom to American enslavement of Indians and blacks. Do you really think people will have no objection to making a new group of slaves? Like lucapsa, I too have ethical concern with cloning (and I am very far from being evangelical). The cloning can of worms -- or more precisely, the cloning can of human-cow parts has now been opened.
Zelos Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 If you clone an entire human being, the question becomes: is that a human in the ethical/legal sense, or is it a piece of property? If you know anything about history, you know how people have been treated as property, from indentured servitude to Roman slavery to serfdom to American enslavement of Indians and blacks. Do you really think people will have no objection to making a new group of slaves? If people do start cloning, and it isn't legal to completely clone someone then harvest from them, the question then becomes when in the cloning process would they be considered human and when would they just be considered a hunk of meat, so to speak. Would they get their rights only if they are completely cloned? Only after they wake up? Ethics are too subject to change to limit such things, me thinks.
iNow Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Couldn't we instead clone just the organ which you intend to harvest? We'd probably have to come up with some new technology, like a kidney/heart/liver/pancreas incubator, but seems better than growing people to slaughter them.
Severian Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 All we Severians have found human cloning very useful. It certainly cuts down on our teaching load.
Zelos Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Clone me next. Make around 300 million of me. That should be enough for my own private army
Daecon Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Surely anything that doesn't reproduce sexually is a clone? Unless you believe the Bible, of course...
Mr Skeptic Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Clone me next. Make around 300 million of me. That should be enough for my own private army Yes, but who will lead it?
Zelos Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 The me that is made into an android, and his first officer will be the cyborg real me.
dom3mo Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I believe that when cloned the clone will become eventually different because the events that happen to you or it, will make it change or you could change.
Zelos Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I believe that when cloned the clone will become eventually different because the events that happen to you or it, will make it change or you could change. Uh, don't mean to sound rude, but that's kinda obvious. Not to mention the clone will not be a perfect replica of you in the beginning anyway. I would put an emoticon here to show that I'm not saying this in a hostile way, but none of them are appropriate. :\
thedarkshade Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 Human Cloning = a completely devastation of human dignity Other cloning = sure, as long as it is good fur us!
arnoldschwartz Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 I think that cloning is fine if it can be justified, but in most cases it cant be justifed and so I am against it an the negatives of cloning also in most scenarios outweigh the positives
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now