posted on August 10, 2001 07:37:30 PM
There's been a lot of talk in the past month about cloning, but I have yet to understand what the purpose is. Can someone fill me in?
posted on August 10, 2001 07:56:00 PM
From all I've heard and read, because they can? But I think, more, but please do not quote me on this, to have a clone for 'spare parts' it would have your same DNA and all. That sure doesn't sound right or ethical to me, but that could be one reason
Who knows if someone, some place hasn't already cloned a human?
posted on August 10, 2001 07:57:23 PM
Are you talking about cloning plants, animals or people?
Cloning plants is done all the time <grin>. Taking a cutting of a plant and having it grow into a new plant is cloning. But that's usually not what we mean.
Clones - among people and animals - is also fairly common. Identical twins are clones of each other. That's why I have to laugh at people who say that they find the very thought of 'clones' repulsive.
But when we think of 'cloning', we think of taking cells from a mature animal/person and making it grow into an identical genetic copy of that animal/person. (I don't want to go into all the technical details, this is close enough.)
Let's stick with animals first. What if a cow was born (in the normal way) but grew up to be a tremendous milk producer? The farmers could breed her and hope that her offspring do that same but it might not work. They might like the thought of cloning the cow - then they know what they'll end up with.
(I've also heard of cloning being used to help rescue endangered species but I won't go into that angle right now.)
Cloning people - well, more of us have concerns about that. We don't breed for physical characteristics. In other words, we (humans) don't deliberately breed two extremely tall individuals together to try and end up with a pro basketball player. (At least I don't think this is being done. I hope not.)
But what about mental characteristics? What if we could clone Einstein? Think of the wonderful things he might invent? But this starts sounding like the Nazi's - trying to breed a race of 'supermen'. The vast majority of people shy away from this idea.
I've also heard of it being used so that an infertile person could have their own (genetically related) child. (Actually, it would be genetically identical.) Let's say you have a married couple and the man is infertile. They don't want to (can't) adopt. They could clone the husband and have the wife carry it to term.
Do I think this is a good use of cloning. No. I think it's a tremendous waste of money and resources.
But there's one final reason that scientists will probably try and clone a human. And that's to see if we *can*. That curiosity, that urge to do something that's never been done has driven much of humankind throughout the ages. I think it's inherent in our species.
posted on August 10, 2001 10:35:14 PM
I'm not against cloning per se. And I doubt, now that the technology for cloning humans is around the corner, that it is something that can be stopped from happening. However, I do think that we should start now getting the ground rules in place.
There have been at least two cases that I have heard of involving parents who had sick children & who had a second child specifically so they could use it's blood or other body parts to aid the one that was ill. If they would clone body parts or organs only, I would have no problem. But I fear that it is possible that in the future clones would be used for spare parts as it were.
And what legal rights would/should a clone have? Would it be the property of the person it was cloned from? Being an exact copy, would it have rights to the property of the original? Being identical, what if a clone committed a crime & the original was picked up to due fingerprint or DNA evidence?
Think about it long enough & you can start imagining a whole host of problems/possibilities.
Sounds silly *now* but these are issues that should be considered now & provided for before the cat is out of the bag.
Edited to put spaces where they'd do the most good.
[ edited by bunnicula on Aug 10, 2001 10:36 PM ]
posted on August 10, 2001 10:53:16 PM
Yes, it's human cloning I'm talking about. To replicate another person doesn't mean that the "clone" won't have a brain, etc. Like barbarake said, they will be regular people, so I don't see how you could use a clone to harvest any organs etc. That's why I'm not too clear on the purpose yet......
"Once we can clone exact replicas of ourselves, the next step will be to transfer our memory and personality into our newly cloned brains, which will allow us to truly live forever. Since we will be able to
remember all our past, we will be able to accumulate knowledge as infinitum."
According to CNN, this group is only a "major competitor" of the Antinori's group planning to clone. They are financially backed by Mark Hunt, a former congressional candidate. Boisselier is a (former) chemistry professor at a Hamilton College in Clinton, New York.
August 6 CNN interview with Boisselier lead scientist for the Ralians.
posted on August 13, 2001 05:34:51 AM
I agree that humans often do things because they can. And our quest for knowledge and exploration seems to be programmed in our genes.
Agricultural cloning might be a great thing.
The sad thing is that for every good thing to come out of cloning, someone will invariably want to do something evil with it - a Hitler type scenario already mentioned.
I have to say that if I could live my life knowing that on my deathbed my brain would be transplanted into a physically 20 year old me, I would love it. But that won't happen with cloning unless it gets very specific - cloning a whole human w/out a brain - which might be tough considering you need a brain to breathe and all.
posted on August 13, 2001 09:35:22 AM
Cloning coupled with the human genome project may lead to "growing" spare parts in other species. A pig may grow you a new set of lungs, or perhaps a heart. We have used pig heart valves in human hearts for years.
Sufficiently aligning a human's genetics with that of another mammal voids rejection problems. Cloning technology will aid this research.
Using cloning for infertility does, on its surface, seems to be a waste. Fertility is the biggest problem the world faces, not infertility.
But it has been well established that it is impossible to predict what great and useful discoveries will come from otherwise "valueless" expermentation. Many great discoveries came from totally unrelated experimentation.
Check out a book called "Connections". It details the strings of seeming unrelated experimentations that led to many great discoveries.
posted on August 13, 2001 10:29:31 AM
Author is James Burke. He has another book called "The Day the Universe Changed". Both of these works were aired on PBS.
If I recall properly, one interesting link had to do with the Mainz Mint in Germany, where Johann Gansfleisch' father worked.
From the science and experimentation of metalury used in minting coins, we get the printing press.
By the way, young Johann Gansfleisch who followed into his father's goldsmithing trade, later adopted his mother's maiden name of GUTENBERG.
Another interesting one is how the internal combustion engine was developed due to swamp gases theorized as causing diseases, and the experimentation that followed on swamp gases.
posted on August 13, 2001 04:21:56 PM
Terri, the first Connections series on PBS was MARVELOUS. It consisted of hour long episodes, each beginning with a discovery and leading to another surprising discovery by the end. It held my younger daughter enthralled for the longest time. Your local library may have a copy of these tapes -- if they do, you might consider screening them for your kids. The Connections series went on to produce at least two more "sets" -- Connections 2 and 3. I have an extra copy of Connections 2, volume one (covering James Watt's life -- and how his work influenced "office work, fertilizers, Italian cemetaries, safety matches, the landing on the Moon, X-rays, imitation diamonds and the coming revolution in genetics." ) If you'd like it, email me and I'll send it along, Terri.
posted on August 13, 2001 07:00:25 PM
Thanks Jen. I will check my library and PBS office tomorrow and if they don't have them then I will ask for yours. Thanks for the offer. I have yet to see any scientific material that I needed to screen...some that needed explaining perhaps. We do graphic OBGYN shows, evolution with explaination, etc.
T
Jeepers Jen! My library system doesn't have it but I found them on ebay for $125-$215 PER SERIES! If PBS doesn't have it for loan then I will ask you and PLEASE INSURE it for FULL value. They MUST be fantastic.
[ edited by jt on Aug 13, 2001 07:21 PM ]
posted on August 14, 2001 09:45:49 AM
The series also shows that discoveries rarely if ever come from the work of one person. It almost seems a pattern of people who have several varied interests cross pollinating ideas, and people "running" into someone working in an unrelated field and telling them about an observation. The light bulb goes off, and it's off to the races.
posted on August 14, 2001 11:08:15 AM
Hi, Terri! I'm one of those mom's who watches everything before my kids (heck, I read those darn Goosebumps books when I had a daughter who was enamoured of them) which is why I mentioned screening. Its one of my quirks. *g*
I know our local PBS station plays the Connections series a couple times a year (typically when they've a donation drive on), so you might also have luck contacting your local station to see when they might be airing the series (any of them) again.
to have a clone for 'spare parts' it would have your same DNA and all. That sure doesn't sound right or ethical to me, but that could be one reason