Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: DonQuichotte on 19/10/2013 17:14:13
-
Is Human Cloning Possible, or is it just Science -Fiction ?
Source : Topdocumentaryfilms.com/ Scientific American / Wikipedia :
See these unethical attempts of this scientist regarding human cloning that might result in many unexpected side effects ...that might end in tragedy ...
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-cloning/
Dolly , for example , was the first animal mammal sheep to have been cloned via adult cells ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_%28sheep%29
The First Human Cloned Embryo :
Source : Scientific American :
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-first-human-cloned-em
What do you think about all that , folks ?
Do you think human cloning is possible , or is just science -fiction that might end up creating some sort of Frankenstein's monster ?
Thanks , appreciate indeed.
Cheers .
-
It might be possible, but I suppose the obvious question would be, why? There used to be hysterical fear over cloning humans to serve as banks for organs, but it's hard enough to keep a person healthy in a nursing home, let alone a body floating in some tank in a ware house. It makes a lot more sense just to grow a lung or a liver, or implant cells that repair an organ. And there were also, in past years, science fiction stories about "cloning Hitler." But you don't get "Hitler," just something like his identical twin, who could turn out to be a nice guy under other environmental conditions.
-
It might be possible, but I suppose the obvious question would be, why? There used to be hysterical fear over cloning humans to serve as banks for organs, but it's hard enough to keep a person healthy in a nursing home, let alone a body floating in some tank in a ware house. It makes a lot more sense just to grow a lung or a liver, or implant cells that repair an organ. And there were also, in past years, science fiction stories about "cloning Hitler." But you don't get "Hitler," just something like his identical twin, who could turn out to be a nice guy under other environmental conditions.
Exactly :
I wonder why certain scientists want per se to clone humans , like that criminal unethical Frankenstein scientist in that above mentioned topdocumentary film tried to do , just for achieving personal fame and "glory " , while cloning ,even at the level of animals, has turned out to be a very risky business ,with many side effects and unexpected monstruosities variables ..
And the most important point you made also here above , is that one would not "create " or clone the exact same human person via his / her adult cells = just another physically identical one , with different faculties qualities or properties that would be shaped by the environment culture society pshyche ....of the potentially eventually cloned person in question .
Even natural identical twins are not really and completely identical .
So, "cloning ", in the sense that cloning would create an exact copy or anduplicate of the cloned person in question , is inadequate a concept , is not the right word .
Playing with life that criminal unethical way is not right either .
Stem cells research , for example , is ok ,but cloning is something different and unethical .
There are many scientists who do not care about any ethics wahstoever , just about their personal fame, ambitions , ego , status , position , career, unfortunately enough ...
-
"There are many scientists who do not care about any ethics wahstoever , just about their personal fame, ambitions , ego , status , position , career, unfortunately enough .."
Name a few.
-
With IVF, twinning is certainly possible.
Take a blastocyst, split it in two, plus take a cell for genetic tests, then implant the pair of eggs.
Perhaps put a couple of "twins" into cold storage, in case the first doesn't take.
Actually, one could keep split blastocysts in cold storage for an extended period as a type of a clone.
As far as adult cloning, I think the issue that became obvious with the animal cloning is that the clone isn't nearly as stable as natural born offspring. Perhaps this will be resolved, or perhaps there will be better screening of embryos prior to implantation. But, producing "broken" clones is unethical.
Yes, a clone is its own individual. But, there may be some basic personality traits that would be passed on if adequately nurtured. For example I have an insatiable curiosity which I would think a clone might also posses.
Why do many people prefer having their own children vs adopting?
-
"There are many scientists who do not care about any ethics wahstoever , just about their personal fame, ambitions , ego , status , position , career, unfortunately enough .."
Name a few.
Plenty : from which part of the list should i start ...such as the one in that top docu right here above , for example .
-
With IVF, twinning is certainly possible.
Take a blastocyst, split it in two, plus take a cell for genetic tests, then implant the pair of eggs.
Perhaps put a couple of "twins" into cold storage, in case the first doesn't take.
Actually, one could keep split blastocysts in cold storage for an extended period as a type of a clone.
As far as adult cloning, I think the issue that became obvious with the animal cloning is that the clone isn't nearly as stable as natural born offspring. Perhaps this will be resolved, or perhaps there will be better screening of embryos prior to implantation. But, producing "broken" clones is unethical.
Yes, a clone is its own individual. But, there may be some basic personality traits that would be passed on if adequately nurtured. For example I have an insatiable curiosity which I would think a clone might also posses.
Why do many people prefer having their own children vs adopting?
There are many traits that cannot be passed on to the offspring though , such as intelligence ...
Gotta go, sorry
-
It's entirely possible: twins are clones.
The only reason for creating intentional clones would be to replicate some desirable characteristic of the mother. You can't produce a "monster" by cloning anything except another monster, though as Clifford has pointed out, adult mammal clones do seem to be genetically fragile. The reason is not obvious - we have been cloning plants for thousands of years and potatoes seem pretty stable - but I think we can expect an explanation or a solution because cloned dairy cattle would be very useful.
I can't see any ethical objection to making wanted babies by any means. If the omnipotent and almighty god finds this offensive, for reasons beyond my imagining, I'm sure he will strike me dead without the help of priests and mullahs. Evidence so far suggests no objection from that quarter.
-
It's entirely possible: twins are clones.
The only reason for creating intentional clones would be to replicate some desirable characteristic of the mother. You can't produce a "monster" by cloning anything except another monster, though as Clifford has pointed out, adult mammal clones do seem to be genetically fragile. The reason is not obvious - we have been cloning plants for thousands of years and potatoes seem pretty stable - but I think we can expect an explanation or a solution because cloned dairy cattle would be very useful.
Some desirable characteristic of the mother such as what ? Such as her looks ?
Not all traits of the mum can be [assed on to her siblings either .
It takes 2 to make a baby , as you know, except in the cases of Jesus , Adam and Eve haha : a father and a mother , in the conventional way then .
The potential babies might inherit genes or traits from the earlier generations of either the mother or the father , or from both , that might not be desirable after all .
Besides, my links show that human cloning is still a big risk , still cannot be stable , can trigger unwanted undesirable and unexpected side effects ...
The ethical part of human cloning must also be somehow resolved , before any ethical attempts to clone humans can be allowed to proceed .
I can't see any ethical objection to making wanted babies by any means. If the omnipotent and almighty god finds this offensive, for reasons beyond my imagining, I'm sure he will strike me dead without the help of priests and mullahs. Evidence so far suggests no objection from that quarter.
Who talked about God for that matter ? or do you have just an unsolved subjective thing or issue with God ,you cannot but express ,regardless of being offtopic or ontopic on the matter ...
-
It might be possible, but I suppose the obvious question would be, why?
Good question. In my case I'd love to create a little pmb just so that there'd be at least one person in this universe which I truly understand. :)
It'd be interesting to use this to explore the nature versus nurture question.
-
It might be possible, but I suppose the obvious question would be, why?
Good question. In my case I'd love to create a little pmb just so that there'd be at least one person in this universe which I truly understand. :)
It'd be interesting to use this to explore the nature versus nurture question.
Human nature vs nurture environment remains a relative ...mystery indeed .
-
It takes 2 to make a baby , as you know,
Apparently not. That's what we mean by cloning.
The ethical part of human cloning must also be somehow resolved , before any ethical attempts to clone humans can be allowed to proceed .
So what in your opinion (or anyone else's) is the ethical question? Assume that we have sorted out the problems of instability and premature ageing (aas many other species have), what is the problem of making a wanted baby by any particular means?
-
In my case I'd love to create a little pmb just so that there'd be at least one person in this universe which I truly understand. :)
It'd be interesting to use this to explore the nature versus nurture question.
Making babies by the usual procedure is a lot of fun.
And there's plenty of nature/nurture research on natural twins. I'm just not sure how much of it gets published - there's no headline mileage in showing that upbringing matters more than genes. Hence, I think, irrational public fears about cloning a thousand mini-Hitlers (as if we didn't have enough middle managers and keepers-of-the-stationery-cupboard in the world already).
-
It takes 2 to make a baby , as you know,
Apparently not. That's what we mean by cloning.
I was just talking about the conventional natural way of making babies , you are familar with , aren't you ?
Even cloning needs a second donor to be applied ....don't you think ? = via the nucleus or DNA of an adult cell that gets infused into a female's ovule's nucleus, the latter that gets emptied first , prior to that former action, in the case of a male donor of adult cells .
A female donor does not need a second one, if that female in question happens to have healthy ovules at leat .
-
Even cloning needs a second donor to be applied ....don't you think ? = via the nucleus or DNA of an adult cell
No. That’s not how cloning works. The DNA only comes from one source, that which is being cloned. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning
The genetic material from the ovum that it gets implanted into does not carry along the DNA of the source of the ovum.
-
One does need the donor egg.
I believe the mDNA actually does come from the egg, and not from the individual being cloned.
There are a few redundant organs that one may benefit having a clone or delayed monozygotic twin as a donor.
A chunk of the liver.
A Kidney
Possibly Bone Marrow (although moderate graft v host disease may be preferable to an exact match)
Possibly skin.
Of course it would be unethical to raise a clone to harvest vital organs such as a heart.
-
In my case I'd love to create a little pmb just so that there'd be at least one person in this universe which I truly understand. :)
It'd be interesting to use this to explore the nature versus nurture question.
Making babies by the usual procedure is a lot of fun.
And there's plenty of nature/nurture research on natural twins. I'm just not sure how much of it gets published - there's no headline mileage in showing that upbringing matters more than genes. Hence, I think, irrational public fears about cloning a thousand mini-Hitlers (as if we didn't have enough middle managers and keepers-of-the-stationery-cupboard in the world already).
You would think, though, that there would be tons of head line mileage in showing what is attributable to environment or nurture since that is usually easiest to modify or control. And it's certainly psychologically appealing. If your genes make you more likely to get type II diabetes, but you can also interfere with diet and exercise to stop or reverse it, you have the comfort of knowing "it's not your fault" but the empowerment of being able to change your fate. Too bad more things in life are not that way.
-
The problem with the "mini-me" concept in life.
One would have to recognize the new entity as being its own separate entity. There is no way to recreate the "nurture" portion of one's life experiences.
If I could relive my past, there are quite a few things that I might choose to change. However, I also know that doing so would certainly change who I am today including aspects of my personality that I would not otherwise choose to alter. And, of course, growing up in today's society necessarily could not be equivalent to growing up in a bygone era.
-
Cheryl - Please discuss the difference between an identical twin and a clone in the sense of genetic identity.
-
The problem with the "mini-me" concept in life.
One would have to recognize the new entity as being its own separate entity. There is no way to recreate the "nurture" portion of one's life experiences.
If I could relive my past, there are quite a few things that I might choose to change. However, I also know that doing so would certainly change who I am today including aspects of my personality that I would not otherwise choose to alter. And, of course, growing up in today's society necessarily could not be equivalent to growing up in a bygone era.
True, you can't go back and change your past nurturing experiences or environmental exposures any more that you can change your genetics. But you can sometimes look at statistical data, to determine whether changing your current environment might have any benefit, by comparing what happens to those who do with those who don't.
-
Cheryl - Please discuss the difference between an identical twin and a clone in the sense of genetic identity.
A clone would have the same genes, like an identical twin, except for a scrap of DNA found in mitochondria, cell organelles that transfer the energy of glucose to ATP. Mitochondria would come from the cell that the clone "parent's" DNA is inserted into. ( Why mitochondria have their own DNA is another question.) But a clone should be no different genetically than an identical twin, except that, as mentioned by others, they are more genetically fragile for some reason, more prone to mistakes. I don't know if that means they are more prone to mistakes in the next reproductive generation or when their own cells divide, or both. Maybe some else here does. But in one article I read it was associated with shorter teleomeres, the ends of chromosomes that protect them from deterioration or from "sticking" to nearby chromosomes during cell division when they shouldn't. In normal, non cloned cells, teleomeres get shorter the more times a cell divides, which might be associated with cell death as we age, but in cloned cells they seem to be already too short from the get go.
-
You would think, though, that there would be tons of head line mileage in showing what is attributable to environment or nurture since that is usually easiest to modify or control. And it's certainly psychologically appealing. If your genes make you more likely to get type II diabetes, but you can also interfere with diet and exercise to stop or reverse it, you have the comfort of knowing "it's not your fault" but the empowerment of being able to change your fate. Too bad more things in life are not that way.
You've put your finger on it. No parent wants to be told that their daughter's serial killing habit is a result of bad parenting, no 30-year-old smoker wants to learn on his deathbed that he has behaved like an idiot. The headline that sells newspapers is "it's written in your genes" because absolution is nice to have, and everyone likes a good news story from the world of medicine.
There is of course a downside. A few years ago a Texas court ruled that "genetic predisposition to murder" was a legitimate defence inasmuch as it was possibly provable, but carried an automatic death penalty as an admission of persistent threat. I don't think it has been offered as a defence anywhere since then.
Pete
so that there'd be at least one person in this universe which I truly understand.
get a dog - they're much less trouble than people, and they understand us in return.
-
In one article I read it was associated with shorter teleomeres, the ends of chromosomes that protect them from deterioration or from "sticking" to nearby chromosomes during cell division when they shouldn't. In normal, non cloned cells, teleomeres get shorter the more times a cell divides, which might be associated with cell death as we age, but in cloned cells they seem to be already too short from the get go.
Telomeres should be able to be extended as part of the cell preparation. Perhaps give the clone a few extra base pairs for good measure.
Perhaps if the DNA for cloning was taken from a germ cell, then it should not have any more mutations than the corresponding egg or sperm cells would have.
In theory, there should be some natural selection, especially for the sperm. "Survival of the fittest". And, even the developmental stage, some embryos and fetuses are naturally aborted. We take some of it out of the equation with IVF, but perhaps damaged clones are more likely to be carried full term than would be the case with naturally fertilized eggs with major genetic abnormalities.
What about DNA methylation? X inactivation?
Presumably over time we'll be able to determine the fundamental differences between a fertilized egg, and adult cells.
-
And, even the developmental stage, some embryos and fetuses are naturally aborted.
"Some" being at least 30% of those that actually proceed to implantation, plus an unknown number of inseminated ova that do not even get that far.
-
There is of course a downside. A few years ago a Texas court ruled that "genetic predisposition to murder" was a legitimate defence inasmuch as it was possibly provable, but carried an automatic death penalty as an admission of persistent threat. I don't think it has been offered as a defence anywhere since then.
Yes, genetics as a defense is a double edged sword. The more you claim a genetic predisposition makes you not responsible for your actions, the less modifiable your behavior is, and less likely the criminal justice system will view you as someone who can be rehabilitated. While it might be cruel to "punish" someone deemed not responsible for their actions, you can't let them loose either.
-
Since young Sheldrake, though a throughly nice guy, is provably wrong in each of his assertions, why don't you tell us, for a moment, what you think. Or better still, what you know and can prove.
-
Since young Sheldrake, though a throughly nice guy, is provably wrong in each of his assertions, why don't you tell us, for a moment, what you think. Or better still, what you know and can prove.
[/quote]
Just read what the guy has to say first , silly , and then , try to prove him wrong .
He's so right about what he has to say regarding that false and unscientific materialism in science at least = reality , life or the universe are not just material physical ...processes .
-
The current "state of the art" in human cloning is to clone the tissue in a damaged organ - usually by creating a "scaffold" by 3D printing, and populating the scaffold with stem cells taken from the patient's body. This replacement organ is then surgically implanted into the patient.
This technique avoids rejection of a transplanted organ, and avoids the need for lifetime immunosuppressant therapy (with resulting risks of infection and cancer).
At present, this is mostly restricted to organs with a simple structure (like a bladder or throat), rather than organs with a microscopic structure like the kidney.
Shorter telomeres are not such a problem here, as the new organ only has to survive as long as the patient.
Is Human Cloning Possible, or is it just Science -Fiction?
It will remain Science-Fiction until someone actually does it - it is really just a question of "When?" and "Where are the ethics committees weakest?".
Copying an existing human has limited benefit if the clone carries the same (or most likely additional) genetic problems when compared to the original model.
I think that a more widely useful technology to develop would be the ability to correct genetic abnormalities in a fetus, which means that the baby would have fewer genetic problems than their parent (whether that parent shares 50% or 100% of genetic material with the baby).
-
it is really just a question of "When?" and "Where are the ethics committees weakest?".
From the point of view of an ethics committee member, I can't see any a priori objection to human cloning if the objective is beneficial to the new human and appears reasonably achievable. What did you have in mind?
-
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree,
the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your
brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.
Re 7. If what you are seeing is actually "out there" how are optical-illusions possible ?
If you see the nuts moving in the still picture below your brain has created an incorrect model of what is "out there" ....
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/10-optical-illusions-that-will-blow-your-mind_n_3307500.html
Re 8. Brain injuries can cause loss of memory => brain is the store of memory.
Re 9. If anyone had developed telepathy they would be rich as Croesus , and wouldn't have to sell tat on TV shopping channels ...
[Uri Geller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller#Career)] designs a range of jewellery that he sells on QVC, creates pottery, exhibits his artwork around the world and he has written 15 books (and is just finishing his fourth novel).
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2003/nov/08/features.jobsmoney1
-
From the point of view of an ethics committee member, I can't see any a priori objection to human cloning
It took several hundred attempts to clone Dolly the sheep - these failed attempts had a wide variety of outcomes from "failure to implant", up to "death immediately after birth". Dolly, as the first published "success" suffered from premature aging.
A doctor's commitment to "do no harm" would usually discourage (in Western ethics committees):
- Creating a baby who would have a severely shortened lifespan [but they will probably find a way around this problem, eventually. I suggest they test it in sheep and monkeys first.]
- Taking hundreds of donated eggs to be used in cloning experiments without explicit permission from the donors
- I have heard that many women making use of superovulation for assisted fertility are unwilling to donate unwanted eggs for use by those in need of donated eggs.
- Potentially creating many deformed babies
- Providing informed consent by the women carrying the cloned child that it would not be genetically their child, that there was a low risk that it would survive to term, and there was a increased risk that the child would be deformed.
- Despite its problems, if someone genuinely wanted a child, the traditional approach is still highly reliable when compared to the initially unreliable technique of cloning. (Or, at least the traditional risks are widely known and generally accepted.)
- In many Western countries, there are laws against reproductive cloning (perhaps for reasons like those mentioned above, or for religious reasons)
-
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree,
the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your
brain.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.
Re 7. If what you are seeing is actually "out there" how are optical-illusions possible ?
If you see the nuts moving in the still picture below your brain has created an incorrect model of what is "out there" ....
[ Invalid Attachment ]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/10-optical-illusions-that-will-blow-your-mind_n_3307500.html
Re 8. Brain injuries can cause loss of memory => brain is the store of memory.
Re 9. If anyone had developed telepathy they would be rich as Croesus , and wouldn't have to sell tat on TV shopping channels ...
[Uri Geller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller#Career)] designs a range of jewellery that he sells on QVC, creates pottery, exhibits his artwork around the world and he has written 15 books (and is just finishing his fourth novel).
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2003/nov/08/features.jobsmoney1
[/quote]
Don't be silly , use your mind :
If consciousness is created by the brain , if memory is stored in the brain , (I don't believe i am discussing this stupid materialist non-sense again ) , then , just think about the analogy of a radio or a tv set :
Do you think that the tv set creates the images it receives ,so, when the tv set is damaged or just some specific parts of it at least , and therefore ceases to function and ceases todisplay those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images it used to receive when it used to function properly ...that's obviously no question = Obama must be living inside the tv set indeed haha
As for memory , check your own radio to see if you can find some traces of what it might have broadcasted yesterday ...inside of it .
Concerning the optical illusions , they can be explained without resorting to that materialist silly false belief assumption that mind is in the brain , or that our representations of reality are in our heads .
Come, on ...
As for telepathy and the rest , just know that reality is not exclusively material physical ,as materialism wanna make you believe it is .
Has science ever proved the "fact " to be "true" , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality is exclusively material physical ? Obviously ...not .
Pfff......Unbelievable
-
It took several hundred attempts to clone Dolly the sheep - these failed attempts had a wide variety of outcomes from "failure to implant", up to "death immediately after birth".
but, as they say, "lessons have been learned". Loss of a blastocyst is not an ethical problem, nor is stillbirth or the death of a nonviable infant. One hopes to avoid such outcomes and indeed successful cloning should do so because we would have full control of the genes and thus the anatomy and physiology of the fetus.
Dolly, as the first published "success" suffered from premature aging.
another problem to be solved. But until it has been, I can't see why anyone would want to make a defective human by cloning. Note my ethical requirement that the intended outcome should be beneficial to the child - nothing new in that. Thus
Creating a baby who would have a severely shortened lifespan
is excluded
Taking hundreds of [indeed any] donated eggs to be used in cloning experiments without explicit permission from the donors
is automatically excluded by the normal rules of ethics: all tissue must be donated under informed consent.
I have heard that many women making use of superovulation for assisted fertility are unwilling to donate unwanted eggs for use by those in need of donated eggs.
true but irrelevant - see above
Potentially creating many deformed babies
a practical problem, but since it is not a desired outcome, the "ethicality" of a procedure will depend on the probable risk of such failure. We already face a routine problem in genetic counselling of those who are at high risk of producing abnormal offspring by the usual process, but have a statutory right to reproduce without limit.
Providing informed consent by the women carrying the cloned child that it would not be genetically their child, that there was a low risk that it would survive to term, and there was a increased risk that the child would be deformed.
see above.
Despite its problems, if someone genuinely wanted a child, the traditional approach is still highly reliable when compared to the initially unreliable technique of cloning. (Or, at least the traditional risks are widely known and generally accepted.)
except that you don't know what you are going to get. The reason we clone plants, and would like to clone animals, is to remove the uncertainty of natural genetic variability.
In many Western countries, there are laws against reproductive cloning (perhaps for reasons like those mentioned above, or for religious reasons)
religion should never be the basis for determining or restricting the behaviour of others. That is contrary to the most basic principles of ethics.
-
Somehow things have gotten side-tracked.
Let's keep to a discussion of cloning & twinning & ramifications of the process.
-
I see no reason , no need , utility or justification whatsoever for any eventual human cloning , especially when one would take into consideration the ethical part of the issue , and the multiple health and other risks that go hand in hand with any attempts to clone animals, let alone humans ...despite that relative "success story " regarding the cloning of Dolly the sheep , after way too many failed attempts to do just that ...
Life is not a game to play with ...
-
One of the reasons for forced twinning or cloning of animals is controlled clinical trials. If your subjects can be identical, then at least initial testing might be able to be done with smaller sample groups.
In farming, there is also a temptation to have a "prize bull", for example. Always have the top quality breeding stock. To some extent this can be achieved through artificial insemination. But, there would be benefits of actually having the animal.
And, even with humans, would there be the temptation to have a "baby Einstein". Or, perhaps a "baby Wilt Chamberlain" ?
But, at this point, I agree that we are better just letting nature run its course.
-
Every medical intervention is "playing" with life. It just happens that in some cases we know the rules better than in others, but only through experience. For a real lottery with a guaranteed uncertain outcome, try sexual reproduction.
Whilst there are certainly practical problems with mammalian cloning at present, it is wrong to confuse these with the fundamental concepts of right and wrong that underpin ethics. We have plenty of spectacular failures of drug trials (and even licensed pharmaceuticals) and a fair number of undesirable outcomes of surgical research programs, but since the 1960's all such failures have had prior approval from ethics committees.
The ethical question is, if we could produce clones with at least the success rate of sexual reproduction, why not? "Why" is a valid question but actually irrelevant: a woman is free to choose any sperm donor from those willing and able, so why not choose the genetics of her offspring with even greater certainty?
Late edit (following CK's posting)
You have indeed posed a valid "why". If the intention of human cloning is to provide subjects for controlled trials, that would be unethical because every sibling would know that his intended fate is not of his choosing. Twin trials are powerful but rare, and (since Nuremberg) they depend on the voluntary informed consent of both twins. Someone knowingly created for the purpose would be considered to be under some degree of coercion to participate and therefore a priori ineligible, even if he actually wanted to!
The notion of creating a twin for spare parts is even easier to dismiss: the nominated donor would in effect be the possession of the receptor, and therefore legally a slave. The essence of antislavery law is that nobody can own another human - no ethical judgement required.
-
the most basic principles of ethics
Ethics are applied differently in various parts of the world. The job of ethics committees and governments is not an easy one, as they need to consider many factors.
- Hopefully, their decisions should be a bit more consistent than "it seemed like a good idea at the time"
- And it should not just be the position of the individual political lobbyist who gets closest to the relevant member of government at the right time
- Ethics committees and governments certainly need to take public opinion into account
- Public opinion and practices differ in different countries; my work trades in many countries, and they insist on all employees taking a common ethics course so there is some consistency in practices across different countries.
- Sources of public opinion are varied and include:
- Committees formed to review and establish policy
- Established legislative frameworks (where those work)
- Perhaps modified by legal precedents established through the courts
- Religious views (including the opinion of influential religious figures)
- Political views (including the opinion of influential political figures)
- Scientific views (including the opinion of influential scientific figures)
- Practices successfully demonstrated in other countries
- Increasingly, discussion on Social Media (including discussion forums like this one)
- Views and Policy are quite distinct from the "scientific facts" (but Policy is hopefully informed by the facts!)
- ...but Public Opinion can be fickle; if a newspaper editor can get an exclusive story, that individual case can be treated differently, regardless of any prior Policy or Precedents; it may even set a new precedent in that country.
Perhaps one day, we may have an objective way to determine what is the most ethical decision to take in a particular situation.
We currently lack the prerequisite omniscient view; for now we must rely on ethics committees and government policies.
Given the risks of early Human Cloning experiments, these are likely to occur in countries where such oversight is the weakest.
-
the most basic principles of ethics
Ethics are applied differently in various parts of the world. The job of ethics committees and governments is not an easy one, as they need to consider many factors.
- Hopefully, their decisions should be a bit more consistent than "it seemed like a good idea at the time"
- And it should not just be the position of the individual political lobbyist who gets closest to the relevant member of government at the right time
- Ethics committees and governments certainly need to take public opinion into account
- Public opinion and practices differ in different countries; my work trades in many countries, and they insist on all employees taking a common ethics course so there is some consistency in practices across different countries.
- Sources of public opinion are varied and include:
- Committees formed to review and establish policy
- Established legislative frameworks (where those work)
- Perhaps modified by legal precedents established through the courts
- Religious views (including the opinion of influential religious figures)
- Political views (including the opinion of influential political figures)
- Scientific views (including the opinion of influential scientific figures)
- Practices successfully demonstrated in other countries
- Increasingly, discussion on Social Media (including discussion forums like this one)
- Views and Policy are quite distinct from the "scientific facts" (but Policy is hopefully informed by the facts!)
- ...but Public Opinion can be fickle; if a newspaper editor can get an exclusive story, that individual case can be treated differently, regardless of any prior Policy or Precedents; it may even set a new precedent in that country.
Perhaps one day, we may have an objective way to determine what is the most ethical decision to take in a particular situation.
We currently lack the prerequisite omniscient view; for now we must rely on ethics committees and government policies.
Given the risks of early Human Cloning experiments, these are likely to occur in countries where such oversight is the weakest.
Well put , bravo .
-
The notion of creating a twin for spare parts is even easier to dismiss: the nominated donor would in effect be the possession of the receptor, and therefore legally a slave. The essence of antislavery law is that nobody can own another human - no ethical judgement required.
I agree, it is likely a bad idea.
Although, a person can be perfectly healthy with a single kidney, or half of their liver.
They could even do quite well with a single lung (although I don't think I'd choose to give up half my lung capacity, but I might if it meant the life or death of my father). Taking some skin off the back?
One could engineer a donor with no self awareness, sentience, whatever, less intelligence than the average garden slug. Certainly far less intelligent than what was your average meal before it became a meal. Is it still "slavery"?
-
Such a donor would not be a clone. We do culture some organs in vitro for autoregrafting - skin works fairly well - but the donor is also the recipient, so no question of coercion arises. There's always a suspicion around live donor allografts and even some supposed cadaver organs. Slavery is about ownership of a person (regardless of he presumed intelligence, sentience or whatever of that person) , not ownership of a gift. So you can donate a bit of yourself, but not a bit of somebody else.
I'm always very suspicious of religious arguments in ethics committees. Fortunately those of my colleagues who are religious professionals don't raise them as such, since faith is indefensible, but often bring forward useful examples and lessons from their pastoral work.
Should ethics reflect political views or public opinion? Josef Mengele's experiments certainly did, so I think the answer is no. The simplest ethical test is "would you do it to your wife?" That usually closes the debate.