0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
"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?
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.
QuoteI 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.
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 might be possible, but I suppose the obvious question would be, why?
Quote from: cheryl jIt 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 takes 2 to make a baby , as you know,
The ethical part of human cloning must also be somehow resolved , before any ethical attempts to clone humans can be allowed to proceed .
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.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/10/2013 16:49:31It takes 2 to make a baby , as you know, Apparently not. That's what we mean by cloning.
Even cloning needs a second donor to be applied ....don't you think ? = via the nucleus or DNA of an adult cell
Quote from: Pete on 22/10/2013 04:42:55 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).
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.
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.
so that there'd be at least one person in this universe which I truly understand.
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.
And, even the developmental stage, some embryos and fetuses are naturally aborted.
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.
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.
Is Human Cloning Possible, or is it just Science -Fiction?
it is really just a question of "When?" and "Where are the ethics committees weakest?".
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 yourbrain.8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.
[Uri Geller] 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).
From the point of view of an ethics committee member, I can't see any a priori objection to human cloning
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 27/10/2013 17:46:277. 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 yourbrain.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" ....[attachment=18056]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 ...Quote from: theguardian.com [Uri Geller] 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
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.
Creating a baby who would have a severely shortened lifespan
Taking hundreds of [indeed any] 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)
the most basic principles of ethics
Quote from: alancalvardthe most basic principles of ethicsEthics 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 timeEthics committees and governments certainly need to take public opinion into accountPublic 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 policyEstablished legislative frameworks (where those work)Perhaps modified by legal precedents established through the courtsReligious 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 countriesIncreasingly, 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 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.