Human cloning

[petrushka.googol]

How far away are we from human cloning ? And is it really ethical if we reach this ?

 

Please express your opinions. (taking into account social mores / scientific hurdles / religious restrictions etc.)

[davidivad]

cloning isnt very efficient.

what do we do with the less than par results?

i suppose we could test at "pre-sentience".

destroy any anomalies...

i believe this is the process anyway.

horribly innefficient.

 

 

from a science standpoint it would not really be useful.

mariguana is legal in some states yet controversial.

lets take a lesson from this...

you can only make so many clones before you need a fresh source.

cloning humans when needed to fill an imaginary moon base would require the process to be redone routinely.

it would be much easier to keep the gene pool accessible in the way it has already been provided.

to top things off, alleles attatched to the bung hole wont kick in the same way every time.

this means there is still variation between clones.

fact is, no matter how high one can count mother nature will always have the experience.

sooo...

 

stem cell research is great.

i shudder when i imagine growing clones and eliminating the unneeded males....

i would rather put my money on the gene pool size.

dont get rid of the males, i want to live...

Edited November 22, 2014 by davidivad

[StringJunky]

If you clone cells from a person who is fifty years old the age of the baby they are made from starts at fifty years old and all the concomitant issues that go with that age appear prematurely. The baby's biological clock is not set to zero in cloning. Is it ethical to condemn a person to a preset shortened lifespan?

 

"...But in January, the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, Dolly the sheep, was reported to have prematurely developed arthritis."

 

"Ogura's team cloned 12 male mice and these were compared with seven males from natural matings and six others produced using in vitro fertilisation. The clones appeared active and healthy, gained weight normally and matched the control animals in 14 of 16 physiological measurements.

But the first cloned animal died after only 311 days and, by day 800, 10 (83 per cent) of the animals were dead. In contrast, only three (23 per cent) of the controls died during the same period.

The dead clones showed high rates of pneumonia, liver disease, cancer and a lower level of antibody production, suggesting they had an immune system defect".

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1903-cloned-animals-meet-early-deaths.html

One or two of the problems expressed in the mice in this research might be inherent in the methodology used but some of those are also likely to be down to the advanced preset age of the cloned subjects.

 

[John Cuthber]

What's the point of cloning people?

We are very nearly genetically identical anyway- that's why we can all interbreed.

The cheap; fairly simple, and well-documented process of having children is very very nearly cloning yourself.

[zapatos]

I would think human cloning will be used as another means for infertile couples to have children. A couple may eventually have a choice between having a child whose genes come from the wife and a stranger, or from the wife only. I imagine there will be couples who will be interested in the latter.

[John Cuthber]

I would think human cloning will be used as another means for infertile couples to have children. A couple may eventually have a choice between having a child whose genes come from the wife and a stranger, or from the wife only. I imagine there will be couples who will be interested in the latter.

Perhaps, but between now and then there would have to be a lot of consultations that go something like this

 

Well, Mrs Smith, I can offer you two therapies. One is well established and known to be successful.

The child you would have would have half its DNA from you and half from a donor. You can (to an extent) select that donor for characteristics that resemble your husband- for example hair and eye colour.

 

Alternatively, we can offer you an experimental therapy. Based on animal tests there;'s a poor chance of success.

The child is likely to suffer from any of a number of birth defects and you are likely to have several long-term ill children (not to mention many miscarriages and still-births) before you get a healthy child.

however, that child will have the same DNA as you (give or take a few mutations).

 

Perhaps it's just me, but I think that a woman who chooses the second option shouldn't have children.

[zapatos]

Perhaps, but between now and then there would have to be a lot of consultations that go something like this

 

Well, Mrs Smith, I can offer you two therapies. One is well established and known to be successful.

The child you would have would have half its DNA from you and half from a donor. You can (to an extent) select that donor for characteristics that resemble your husband- for example hair and eye colour.

 

Alternatively, we can offer you an experimental therapy. Based on animal tests there;'s a poor chance of success.

The child is likely to suffer from any of a number of birth defects and you are likely to have several long-term ill children (not to mention many miscarriages and still-births) before you get a healthy child.

however, that child will have the same DNA as you (give or take a few mutations).

 

Perhaps it's just me, but I think that a woman who chooses the second option shouldn't have children.

Yes, I seem to remember a similar consultation from a while ago.

 

Well, Mrs Smith, I can offer you two alternatives. One is well established and known to be successful. Adoption.

The child you would have would have none of your DNA. You can however select a child that has characteristics that resemble your husband and you - for example hair and eye color. In addition, you will be helping a child in need and give them a much better chance for a happy, healthy life.

 

Alternatively, we can offer you an experimental therapy. You will find that "certain birth defects were significantly more common in infants conceived through IVF, notably septal heart defects, cleft lip with or without cleft palate, esophageal atresia, and anorectal atresia".

 

In addition "Limited long-term follow-up data suggest that IVF may be associated with an increased incidence of hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, increase in total body fat composition, advancement of bone age, subclinical thyroid disorder, early adulthood clinical depression and binge drinking in the offspring".

 

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think think that a fear of potential problems early on should halt medical advancements.

[petrushka.googol]

I would think human cloning will be used as another means for infertile couples to have children. A couple may eventually have a choice between having a child whose genes come from the wife and a stranger, or from the wife only. I imagine there will be couples who will be interested in the latter.

 

Even IVF and test tube babies are of recent vintage. Having children by the conventional way does not guarantee genetic normalcy (genetic defects are present even in offspring born of man and wife.). Altough this will be by far the most popular way of propagating one's identity, I see some cases where due to the genetic abnormalities (or physical) in one partner, or the ethical issues involved in surrogacy, for cloning as a means for infertile couples to have children as is correctly pointed out.

Edited November 23, 2014 by petrushka.googol

[John Cuthber]

It's also not clear to me that, with a population of about 7 billion and rising, on a finite planet, we need to find more ways to reproduce.

[petrushka.googol]

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think think that a fear of potential problems early on should halt medical advancements.

 

The benefits of the research far outweigh the deleterious effects. Besides even if you consider the ethical issues involved vis-a-vis surrogacy for example it leaves less scope for the religious right to resort to pandemonium, if you read between the lines, as cloning merely endorses what nature has already provided unlike surrogacy which is a moot subject.

[Strange]

It's also not clear to me that, with a population of about 7 billion and rising, on a finite planet, we need to find more ways to reproduce.

 

I would guess that if we ever get to the point that cloning makes a significant contribution to reproduction rates, that we will be facing the opposite problem, extinction.

[MigL]

A world population of 7 bil and rising is a problem.

A cut in birth rates, however causes additional problems.

You end up with an aging population ( already a problem in western nations and the reason for high immigration rates ), where too few young people support ( through taxes ) too many old, retired people ( on pensions ).

People then, whether they like it or not, need to work to a much older age than 65.

This is difficult because although we can keep people alive longer, the body and mind do wear down and are incapable of the same effort of a younger age.

 

This is where cloning could help. I don't suggest a cloned person, and I'm not foolish enough to wade into the ethics of such actions with regards to religion and personal beliefs. The cloning of body parts and organs could, however, be beneficial to an an aging population. Say every person, at puberty, is required to store some genetic material ( a vial of blood ? ), to be used later on in life, when needed, for replacement organs, limbs, joints, etc.

We don't have the technology for this. Yet. But we may in the near future. What are the ethical implications, if any, of this limited 'cloning' ?

Edited November 24, 2014 by MigL

[Endy0816]

We could definitely use it in the case of colonization or if a significant portion of the world's population were wiped out. More or less artificial hermaphrodite behavior would be incredibly efficient at creating a population surge.

 

We need to at least have the capability, though we certainly shouldn't go crazy utilizing it during more normal times. Even if the more practical problems were fixed, you could still end up with a dangerously homogenous population.

[Vexen]

If you clone someone, the clone will have an aged genome. More technically, the clone will have a shortened telomere. This would pose significant problems for the clone.

 

Cloning humans is not worth doing for many reasons. Genetic diversity is very important for a species.

 

Btw, monozygotic twins are clones. Epigenetic changes throughout twin's lives will make them somewhat different.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Vexen

[Endy0816]

You can lengthen telomeres. There are also animals which regularly reproduce asexually(not sure why I wrote hermaphrodite above...). Offers them an advantage in terms of increasing their population. We just need to be smart whenever using this same ability for ourselves.

 

Honestly, in terms of society impact, cloning is likely to take a far back seat compared with different forms of same sex procreation. Doesn't make sense to stress too much about it.

[Vexen]

You can lengthen telomeres.

Why clone and then extend telomere? It sounds unpleasant.

[Ten oz]

I can't think of any good reasons for cloning a human. Of course that doesn't mean there are not any. Many important scientific inventions weren't immediately recognized as such throughout history. So long as some basic guidelines are in place keeping the practice humane I don't see any any problem with it.

[Endy0816]

Why clone and then extend telomere? It sounds unpleasant.

 

You can do it in the reverse order. Why do more work than you have to?

 

In any case telomere extension does occur naturally in some cell types(normally anyways...) as well. You probably haven't found it unpleasant so far.

[Vexen]

You can do it in the reverse order. Why do more work than you have to?

 

In any case telomere extension does occur naturally in some cell types(normally anyways...) as well. You probably haven't found it unpleasant so far.

This is why I enjoy forums. You learn new stuff.

[Endy0816]

This is why I enjoy forums. You learn new stuff.

 

Same

[ZVBXRPL]

How far away are we from human cloning ? And is it really ethical if we reach this ?

 

Please express your opinions. (taking into account social mores / scientific hurdles / religious restrictions etc.)

I have no objections to human cloning.

If I was given the option of cloning myself as a way of achieving longer life I would take it.

[fiveworlds]

I have no objections to human cloning.

If I was given the option of cloning myself as a way of achieving longer life I would take it.

 

But the fact remains that all clones thus far tend to be sick easier and tend to have a lower life-expectancy than normally reproduced animals. We have also never succeeded in transplanting a human brain into another body. Also your brain will still degrade into dementia eventually. Even if the transfer was perfect you brain will eventually lose the ability to self-regulate the human body you will die nerve by nerve in the most painful way imaginable, but at least you will forget about it. You will eventually need numerous pacemakers to tell your heart to beat etc because your brain won't. Even if we clone you the brain that clone will have will not be your brain. When you grow your brain kills connections it doesn't need anymore this most likely leads to memories etc however it means that you and your clones brain are not the same and even if it was the same it would probably have the same or less life-expectancy than your current brain. I think at best you'd probably get to live in a young body at the risk of a lower life expectancy knowing you are going to get sick more often than usual unless we get technology we don't have somewhere in the future. But then some people would trade youth for long-life or the possibility of being able to walk again/see

Edited January 3, 2015 by fiveworlds

[ZVBXRPL]

But the fact remains that all clones thus far tend to be sick easier and tend to have a lower life-expectancy than normally reproduced animals. We have also never succeeded in transplanting a human brain into another body. Also your brain will still degrade into dementia eventually. Even if the transfer was perfect you brain will eventually lose the ability to self-regulate the human body you will die nerve by nerve in the most painful way imaginable, but at least you will forget about it. You will eventually need numerous pacemakers to tell your heart to beat etc because your brain won't. Even if we clone you the brain that clone will have will not be your brain. When you grow your brain kills connections it doesn't need anymore this most likely leads to memories etc however it means that you and your clones brain are not the same and even if it was the same it would probably have the same or less life-expectancy than your current brain. I think at best you'd probably get to live in a young body at the risk of a lower life expectancy knowing you are going to get sick more often than usual unless we get technology we don't have somewhere in the future. But then some people would trade youth for long-life or the possibility of being able to walk again/see

The best solution would be to mix human cloning with cybernetics. Or clone the mind using technology.

If you could upload your mind onto a computer and then create back ups.

Would the back ups still be considered human clones?

[zapatos]

But the fact remains that all clones thus far tend to be sick easier and tend to have a lower life-expectancy than normally reproduced animals. We have also never succeeded in transplanting a human brain into another body. Also your brain will still degrade into dementia eventually. Even if the transfer was perfect you brain will eventually lose the ability to self-regulate the human body you will die nerve by nerve in the most painful way imaginable, but at least you will forget about it. You will eventually need numerous pacemakers to tell your heart to beat etc because your brain won't. Even if we clone you the brain that clone will have will not be your brain. When you grow your brain kills connections it doesn't need anymore this most likely leads to memories etc however it means that you and your clones brain are not the same and even if it was the same it would probably have the same or less life-expectancy than your current brain. I think at best you'd probably get to live in a young body at the risk of a lower life expectancy knowing you are going to get sick more often than usual unless we get technology we don't have somewhere in the future. But then some people would trade youth for long-life or the possibility of being able to walk again/see

Wow. Where to begin...

[fiveworlds]

The best solution would be to mix human cloning with cybernetics. Or clone the mind using technology.

If you could upload your mind onto a computer and then create back ups.

 

Perhaps however in the experiment carried out by Robert J. White the transplant body has a high risk of killing the new brain off. This risk would be reduced since the clone would theoretically have your cells so shouldn't reject the transplant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_transplant

So far it has been attempted once in recorded history and the transplanted animal only survived for nine days afterward of course it wasn't a clone.

Edited January 3, 2015 by fiveworlds