Whats the problem with Cloning???

[Vintersorg]

I would just like to hear some peoples opinions on cloning....

To me cloning isnt wrong. Im an athiest and I look at it from this stand point. Some people say that cloning is "playing god". Well for one since i dont believe in God i dont believe cloning is "playing god" but from a religious stand point. God gave us the brains to think up cloning and to have free will, so whats the problem?

 

[lucaspa]

I would just like to hear some peoples opinions on cloning....

To me cloning isnt wrong. Im an athiest and I look at it from this stand point. ...God gave us the brains to think up cloning and to have free will, so whats the problem?

The problem from both a theist and atheist standpoint is: what is the status of the clone? Is it a human with all the rights and priveledges we assign to other humans in our society? Or is it a repository of spare parts for the original or an indentured servant to work off the cost of the cloning procedure?

This was brought to light in a recent case in England. A couple had a second child for the express purpose of making a bone marrow match for the first child, who needed a bone marrow transplant. Now, did the second child have the right to refuse to be a donor? What happens to that child once it fulfills its "purpose" of being a donor?

The problem is magnified with a clone. If you or I make a clone, do we get to harvest that clone for organs that are failing in us? After all, it's a perfect match!

Or, say someone clones 10 Michael Jordans with the intent of making a great basketball team. Does he then own the clones? They wouldn't exist except for the huge outlay of money to create them and raise them. Does the cloner have the right to get a return on his investment? That is, does he have the right to compel the clones to learn basketball and play it professionally for him until their debt is worked off?

This isn't about religion. It's about ethics.

Also, if your ethic is that human life -- with those rights and priveledges -- begins at conception, then it is unethical to create a clone in order to harvest the embryonic stem cells. You are killing one human being in order to save another. Your ethic may be different, in which case you must either convince others of the rightness of your ethics or enforce your ethics via law.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Personally I don't see a problem with cloning. If we just classify them as citizens, which is what they would be, and grant them all the rights of the average human, which they are, then there is no problem.

Obviously the parents can't use the second child unless the child consents, it would violate the childs rights to force them. Same with the Michael Jordon clones. Just because somebody spent the money to make them doesn't make the clone property for the same reason that just because you spend money on fertility drugs the child is not property. It is a human being who has rights that will be protected.

As for organ harvesting clones would be a highly inefficient way of going about it. Odds are we'll be able to clone organs seperate of complete, human clones.

 

[davyuk]

Yup, you don't need to create a human just for a new kidney.

As for cloning whole humans, well I don't see the point. I have nothing against clones – I'm sure a clone would be fairly upset if approached by someone saying he/she didn't have a right to exist – but why would someone make a clone if not just to prove it possible?

From a religious viewpoint, I don't know which passage of the Bible condems cloning. Jesus allegedly practiced medicine, and was even resurrected, so I can only see advances in medicinal science a good. As long as the rights and quality of life of the clone are equal to you or I, there shouldn't be a problem.

There is one hurdle though, that until a human is cloned we have no certain idea whether they will lead a healthy, normal life.

Going back 20-something years, we have to remember the protests to 'test-tube' babies, and how that was percieved by many as playing God.

 

[lucaspa]

Personally I don't see a problem with cloning. If we just classify them as citizens, which is what they would be, and grant them all the rights of the average human, which they are, then there is no problem.

That would solve the problem. But until that is done explicitly, I think there is cause for concern, because ...

Obviously the parents can't use the second child unless the child consents, it would violate the childs rights to force them.

unfortunately it wasn't obvious. The court did authorize both the child and the donation because the child is a minor and such decisions are legally made by the parents!

So, instead of being "obvious" (to you and me), the situation is obscure. We have the authority of the parent colliding with the rights of the minor child/clone. So both atheists and theists can call for a ban on cloning until society gets its act together.

Just because somebody spent the money to make them doesn't make the clone property for the same reason that just because you spend money on fertility drugs the child is not property. It is a human being who has rights that will be protected.

That's a good argument. However, the part about the parents is implicit, not explicit. We are relying on the love, good will, and ethics of the parents to view the child as human with rights. However, legally the parents have control over a minor child and make decisions for it. Children don't consent to surgery, for example, their parents do. Remember the fuss about forcing children of Jehovah's Witnesses to get blood transfusions? So, if the owner of a basketball franchise orders 10 Michael Jordan clones, as minor children with the owner as guardian, he can do pretty much what he bloody well pleases with them. The law isn't ready.

As for organ harvesting clones would be a highly inefficient way of going about it. Odds are we'll be able to clone organs seperate of complete, human clones.

I wouldn't bet on those odds. Unless, of course, you are betting with me and you put up a lot of money. I have college tuition to pay!

Remember, I'm in tissue engineering and the problem is very complex. Organs are composed of many cell types and getting the right signals such that the correct types of cells are present in the correct 3 D structure is far from easy. The best bet is to use stem cells to get the organ to grow in the person. But then, a clone does that for you.

 

[Data]

A clone is no different to a identical twin, they're are as unique and human as the original. Growing them for organs is not something i can ever see happening.

Lucaspa, forgive my ignorance, even though you're the expert, wouldn't you say that no matter what current research is like, having the information and technology to grow individual organs without a clone will be pretty much definate at some point?

 

[Jet Black]

Or, say someone clones 10 Michael Jordans with the intent of making a great basketball team. Does he then own the clones? They wouldn't exist except for the huge outlay of money to create them and raise them. Does the cloner have the right to get a return on his investment? That is, does he have the right to compel the clones to learn basketball and play it professionally for him until their debt is worked off?

well this amounts to "just another human production method" really, so I can't see how the cloner would have an argument to defend his ownership of the clones; (I have edited your post to make a parallel case, I hope it is ok.)

Say someone has 10 children with the intent of running a farm. Does he then own the children? They wouldn't exist except for the huge outlay of money to create them and raise them. Does the parent have the right to get a return on his investment? That is, does he have the right to compel the work on the farm for him until their debt is worked off?

 

[Doctrine1st]

The main problem is, those animals that have been cloned, didn't last very long.

 

[lucaspa]

A clone is no different to a identical twin, they're are as unique and human as the original. Growing them for organs is not something i can ever see happening.

In the English case, the couple needed to go to the British health system for permission to go thru in vitro fertilization. The embryos were screened for the one(s) that matched the first child so that the second would serve as a donor. That embryo would be implanted and the others destroyed. The health system approved.

As individuals and thinking of personalities, yes, the clones would be different. But at the biochemical level, particularly for the Major Histocompatibility Complexes I and II that determine tissue rejection, clones are identical. That's why they would be used as organ donors. No need to put the patient on immunosuppressants because the new organ would be his organ. At the biochemical level.

Lucaspa, forgive my ignorance, even though you're the expert, wouldn't you say that no matter what current research is like, having the information and technology to grow individual organs without a clone will be pretty much definate at some point?

Some point. Yes. But the question is when? At least 50 years. The complexity is immense. Remember that in development, with 3.8 billion years of research to do it right, it fails 25% of the time (spontaneous abortions of defective fetuses in humans). What do you do in the meantime when you have another technology that will work and people who will die without organ transplants? And that population will include each of us unless we are killed by trauma. At some point we are going to face organ failure that will kill us. A large political group with incentive to approve growing clones for spare parts.

And the clone doesn't have to be adult. A newborn clone's organs would work fine. Theoretically, they would continue to develop in the adult. This has been done for kidneys in mice.

So instead of a 20 year lag, you only have 9 months. Most waiting times on organ recipient lists is longer than that now.

 

[lucaspa]

well this amounts to "just another human production method" really, so I can't see how the cloner would have an argument to defend his ownership of the clones; (I have edited your post to make a parallel case, I hope it is ok.)

You just provided the justification for cloning! If you look at history, that's exactly what farm families did! Children were an investment to help work the farm! And they were forced to do so thru their adolescent years. The same happened at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when parents forced their kids into child labor to help with income. We needed child labor laws to stop that.

The current US situation, particularly the middle class, where kids and teenagers get to be idle and go to school, is recent and atypical.

Now that I remember it, summer vacation started because the kids were needed to work the farm. Kids went to school only in winter when there was little farm work. And in the 19th century there was often a 2 week break at harvest season and plowing time.

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

Stupid question: will it ever be possible to clone historic figures from the past , or is the DNA too damaged to do it, also who knows the status of the Mammoth cloning I heard about a few years ago?

 

[Vintersorg]

Cloning a person purposly for an organ will never happen. Its like growing a person and telling them that they were only grown to produce and organ, and then telling them that they will be put to sleep. We have the technology now to just clone single organs themselves....But to me there is nothing wrong with cloning, its no different than artificial insemeniation or neucleus transferring, or even making a test tube baby. What im trying to say is that cloning a person is just like giving them birth, except in a little bit different way. But I agree with the person who said that the human that is cloned my grow up with severe health problems...so the answer for that is, discover more about cloning and try to perfect it...for all we know the US govt could be cloning right now...

 

[rbrown0049]

Read Year Zero by Jeff Long. If we can locate the bones of Christ we may even be able to clone him!

 

[ZaraDurden]

If you cloned Christ, would he be god? What if he wasnt? Haha actually that sounds like a pretty good storyline for a movie.

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Wow, can't believe that they ruled in favor of the parents. Would have thought that harming your child, taking out a vital organ, would constitute at the very least child abuse. I wonder how the court would have ruled if they wanted to take an arm or a leg? No pun intended. What those parents did was sick but that alone is not enough to make it a crime. Having a child with the intent of harming them (taking body parts) seems like it would constitute child abuse. I just wonder if the second child will have the same health problems as the first, then who will give the kidney to the kid who only has one?

Isn't there currently research going where we're trying to grow human parts in animals? I seriously doubt we'd be able to just make an organ from scratch and in a labarotary. There are probabbly many more promising ways of growing body parts aside from having to make an entire clone.

 

[rbrown0049]

"They've cloned a sheep; let's clone the Shepherd."

Why not all we need is some bones, or some blood from the Shroud, and we are in business. Then all we need is someone willing to risk all possible outcomes to perform the actual clone.

 

[gladiatrix]

Stupid question: will it ever be possible to clone historic figures from the past , or is the DNA too damaged to do it, also who knows the status of the Mammoth cloning I heard about a few years ago?

To answer this one has to ask==>What is this clone anyway? Just the TWIN brother or sister of the person whose nucleus was fused with the eggs cell. The only difference here is one of age (naturally occurring identical twins are the same age).

People have this scary sci-fi image of nefarious scientists cloning wicked people to revive their particular "evil de jour". They seem to "think" (I use the word loosely) that just "cloning" the person is all it takes... OHHH! CONTRAIRE!! a person is not just the product of his/her genes, but all of the experiences, memory, and learning that has happened to them. To create a true "clone" of a historical person, like Hitler, one would have to not only have a set of Hitler's genes but also "program" the childs brain with all of Hitlers 'ingrams". The only story that has come even close to what it would take to truly 'replicate" an individual is the story "Boys from Brazil" (yes, you guessed it, it you don't already know). Evil Nazi scientist a (ENS) and ODESSA-like group want to clone Hilter in order to get another shot at the Thousand Year Reich. ENS knows that Hitlers' "ideals" were not in his genes per se, but were also the result of his upbringing, and placed the "baby Hitlers" with families that fit the profile of Hitler's original family (let the "programming" begin!). For those who haven't read the book or seen the excellent movie, I won't say any more.

For those who might say, well what about eugenics (building the better human, whatever, through genetic alteration)? That is so far off that it isn't even funny!!! The reason for this is that the product of a gene, usually a protein, may be involved in more than one cellular pathway, hence performing more than one function. Let me give you a simple example:

There is a gene in cats that is involved in processing pigment. A common mutation in the gene results in a protein that doesn't function well at body temperature, hence the hairs on the cat will only have pigment at the tips of the hair where the body is coolest ("shaded silvers, chinchillas). Now these cats are notorious for their short tempers.... Why? Unfortunately for them, this gene is also involved in the pathway that producing the neurotransmitter, dopamine. They don't have as much of it as their "normal' cousins and a shortage of this NT results in a "short temper". Who would think that a protein involved in a pigment pathway would also be involved in a neurotransmitter pathway!!!

If one tries to alter the function of X gene without knowing exactly and precisely the functions that it performs, the outcome might be unexpected. Molecular biophysicists may have sequenced the human genome, but they don't know what all of those genes do (not by a long chalk!). For instance, we don't have much of a clue about the genes involved in developing intelligence. A would-be eugenicist would be very stupid to try and alter any of them without a COMPLETE understanding of the possible outcomes that might result from such an alteration.

I really hate all the hysteria surrounding "human cloning"!!! It's just plain ignorant (many seem to have ODed on the movies " Frankenstein" and 'GATTACA")

It may be possible to make a "genetic" copy of that mammoth (a twin). The problem is going to be where you get the DNA from because the chromosomes "age" (Ex. the teleomere wear away). HERE is another site that explains the telomere theory of aging. This is problem the scientists faced when they cloned Dolly. The DNA was "old", in other words the donor DNA reflected the age of the donor so Dolly was born "aged". As a consequence she died (was euthanized) without living a normal lifespan that one would expect from a normal sheep.

To make an exact copy of say Chopin (to really 'clone " ANOTHER Chopin), you would not only need his DNA, but also be able to "program" the clone with all of Chopin's experiences/memories or that clone would just be an identical twin brother, removed from Chopin (a distinct, unique individual) in time (identical twins are the same "age"). Also remember that a clone of Chopin would also face the same problem as Dolly (the "aged" chromosomes from an adult Chopin). Cloning a historical figure?--> not until these problems (personality transfer, "aged" DNA, etc.) are solved. Such problems may be insoluble, but one doesn't proceed from the mindset that a problem is necessarily insoluble (no assumption up front that these problems are impossible to solve). Does that answer your questions?

 

[gladiatrix]

"They've cloned a sheep; let's clone the Shepherd."

Why not all we need is some bones, or some blood from the Shroud, and we are in business. Then all we need is someone willing to risk all possible outcomes to perform the actual clone.

Unfortunately there are no sources of DNA for cloning Jesus. The shroud in nothing but a medieval painting and a fraud.

Post #45--Why the Shroud's a Fake/Part 1

Post #46--Why the Shroud's a Fake/Part 2

So no "cigar" (a replicant of JC)......

 

[Jet Black]

"They've cloned a sheep; let's clone the Shepherd."

Why not all we need is some bones, or some blood from the Shroud, and we are in business. Then all we need is someone willing to risk all possible outcomes to perform the actual clone.

a faraday cage should do it.

 

[lucaspa]

Cloning a person purposly for an organ will never happen. Its like growing a person and telling them that they were only grown to produce and organ, and then telling them that they will be put to sleep. We have the technology now to just clone single organs themselves

We do? I'm in regenerative medicine/tissue engineering and I don't know anything about this.

As I said, a couple in England as already used in vitro fertilization to make several embryos, picked one that would serve as a spare parts donor to an existing child, and then killed the rejected embryos. So, guess what? That baby is was only conceived to supply spare parts. Now, the child may not be put to sleep, but the embryos that were not up to the spare parts were destroyed.

It's a danger. You can't dismiss the possibility but must be on guard that the ethics you think are rock solid don't slip.

What im trying to say is that cloning a person is just like giving them birth, except in a little bit different way.

That's a noble attitude on your part but it is not certain that your attitude will be the only attitude out there.

But I agree with the person who said that the human that is cloned my grow up with severe health problems...so the answer for that is, discover more about cloning and try to perfect it...for all we know the US govt could be cloning right now...

And that last sentence gives you a problem, doesn't it? Why would a gov't be cloning in secret? What's the status of those clones.

Actually, the government is not cloning because you can't get a human clone to divide the first few times. The enzymes needed are in the sperm's cytoplasm and don't come with the nuclear transfer.