Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cloning in Humans

Announcements Posted on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Yes, but you are just picking a certain example and implying that that is the only course of action. We may need to clone humans for scientific research, this could then allow us to clone organs in isolation. I don't believe that cloning a slave race is a good idea, but it isn't the inevitable outcome of cloning experiments.
    But the problem with the argument remains the same. You can't take a person and just to lock him up and perform experiments to understand a disease better. If clones are humans, then they are entitled to the same rights as other humans, so the use of clones for research would not be ethical.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Quote) There are differences in the DNA of twins. Twins are not an exact copy of each other. Similar yes, but not exact.

    Yes, there are differences in the DNA of fraternal twins. However, I was talking about identical twins. Why do you think identical twins are called 'identical'? Even if I didn't naturally take a personal interest in this, I know enough from Science GCSE to tell they are called this because they originate from the same egg cell which split, therefore giving each baby identical DNA.

    I know even identical twins aren't exactly the same, that was my point. Even with identical DNA, as artificially cloned humans would have, they are still individuals.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrisbeeFan)
    (Quote) There are differences in the DNA of twins. Twins are not an exact copy of each other. Similar yes, but not exact.

    Yes, there are differences in the DNA of fraternal twins. However, I was talking about identical twins. Why do you think identical twins are called 'identical'? Even if I didn't naturally take a personal interest in this, I know enough from Science GCSE to tell they are called this because they originate from the same egg cell which split, therefore giving each baby identical DNA.

    I know even identical twins aren't exactly the same, that was my point. Even with identical DNA, as artificially cloned humans would have, they are still individuals.
    Actually this was discussed in my genetics class, and identical twins start out as identical, but oftentimes during development a few nucleotides differ just from random mutations that occur during genetic recombination for cell division. I mean, it's a nominal difference, of course, but there are a few differences in the DNA.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Cloning humans is just begging for trouble. Would they have the same rights as the "original"? If so, what possible purpose could they serve? I understand the idea of using a clone to harvest organs for transplant, but you can't really kill a person to just obtain their organs. It is a practice that would inevitably be misused and abused.
    Clones are individuals with equivalent DNA. As an example, single-egged twins are clones because they have the exact same DNA. In fact, those clones created artificially are LESS similar to each other than two identical twins because artificial cloning merely transfers the nuclei of a cell, meaning the two clones have different mitocondria , and thsoe contain some DNA. Single egged twins, on the other hand, have equivalent mithocondrial DNA since they get it from the same mother.

    Anyhow, two clones are completely independent humans. A clone is just as much a human as the "original". I put the word "original" in qoutation marks because technically a clone is not a copy of another individual, but rather an individual built from the same set of instructions. Because the DNA do not determine all our features (e.g. the instructions are ambigious or incomplete) peopel with equivalent DNA are still distinct individuals.

    In my opinion there is no real reason to prohibit cloning. One should, however, not allow cloning techniques with high failure rates (e.g those available today) as there is a very large probability that the featus will spontaneously abort, and/or develop serious misgrowth (Note that it is with todays techniques practically impossible to clone Humans because of the technical difficulties involved. Monkeys are, for some reason, eaven more difficult being the most difficult animals to clone).

    What are the arguments in favour of cloning humans then? Well, firstly it could help people who are sterile to have a child. I see no reason why you should not allow someone unable to reproduce (as an example due to medical damage) to clone him/her-self as long as the failure rates and chances of misgrowth were comparable to those during natural pregnancies and IVF. The "messing with nature" argument is just daft, because any action we chose to make interferes with nature. Take painkillers or anesthetics as examples. Those certainly interfere with our neural system, but we do not prohibit them for that reason...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    psychic_satori, I bow to your superior scientific knowledge! I had a vague idea something like that happened but didn't know the details...anyway, to relate this to the original point of the thread - wouldn't the same thing happen to artificial clones? If so, they still wouldn't be any more identical than identical twins.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    But the problem with the argument remains the same. You can't take a person and just to lock him up and perform experiments to understand a disease better. If clones are humans, then they are entitled to the same rights as other humans, so the use of clones for research would not be ethical.
    The point was that you coudl cloen humans in order to understand how cloning mechanisms work. It was not suggested that you should create a "reasearch rabbit", merely that the techniques may have to be tried out in practice before they could be developed further.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrisbeeFan)
    psychic_satori, I bow to your superior scientific knowledge! I had a vague idea something like that happened but didn't know the details...anyway, to relate this to the original point of the thread - wouldn't the same thing happen to artificial clones? If so, they still wouldn't be any more identical than identical twins.
    They are less identical because they have different mitocondrial DNA. Mithocondria are small bacteria-like organells within the cell which are responsible for the combustion of carbo-hydrates to give us eenergy. They are a kind of "cells within the cell". When you clone an animal with todays technique, only teh nucleus of teh cell is transfered to the new egg, thus the mitocondira (and their DNA) is not transferred (mitocondria are not present in the nucleus of a cell) and hence teh clone would have mitocondria identical to the womman who donated the eggcell, rather than that of the person being cloned. Identical twins, however, are teh result of teh splitting of an early featus (eaven before blastocyte stadius I beleive) and thus have identical mitocondrial DNA. Thus identical twins are more similar, as far as DNA is concerned, than two artificially cloned individuals.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I posted my last post before I read your reply explaining this to psychic_satori, but thanks anyway that's interesting.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Anyhow, two clones are completely independent humans. A clone is just as much a human as the "original". I put the word "original" in qoutation marks because technically a clone is not a copy of another individual, but rather an individual built from the same set of instructions. Because the DNA do not determine all our features (e.g. the instructions are ambigious or incomplete) peopel with equivalent DNA are still distinct individuals.
    Exactly, which is why I'm against the idea of cloning humans for research purposes and organ harvest.

    In my opinion there is no real reason to prohibit cloning. One should, however, not allow cloning techniques with high failure rates (e.g those available today) as there is a very large probability that the featus will spontaneously abort, and/or develop serious misgrowth (Note that it is with todays techniques practically impossible to clone Humans because of the technical difficulties involved. Monkeys are, for some reason, eaven more difficult being the most difficult animals to clone).
    The problem is that they have been unable to perfect a cloning technique that does not cause premature aging to the clone. As you age, your DNA experiences slight changes, mostly in the expression of genes present. When a clone is produced, degeneration occurs much earlier in life than normal. So, if you take the DNA of a 50 year-old woman, the generated clone would have the tendency to develop osteoporosis around the age of 20. I think most people would rather adopt, use invitrofertilization, or get a surrogate rather than invest the money and time that human cloning would require, for the human generated.

    What are the arguments in favour of cloning humans then? Well, firstly it could help people who are sterile to have a child. I see no reason why you should not allow someone unable to reproduce (as an example due to medical damage) to clone him/her-self as long as the failure rates and chances of misgrowth were comparable to those during natural pregnancies and IVF. The "messing with nature" argument is just daft, because any action we chose to make interferes with nature. Take painkillers or anesthetics as examples. Those certainly interfere with our neural system, but we do not prohibit them for that reason...
    I think maybe you're mixing up my posts with some others, as I've never said anything about "tampering with nature" or any other soft arguments. The problem that I have with human cloning is that it raises too many controversial ethical questions, which our current scientists are reluctant to think about, preferring the glory of achievement over consequences of their actions.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    A human must have a soul and that is not cloneable.
    Wait and see....

    One has already managed to clone huma featuses, but because of the controversity surrounding the issue, one has not tried to let that featus grow into a human being yet. Btw, Identical twins are clones, so in a way they already exist.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    The problem is that they have been unable to perfect a cloning technique that does not cause premature aging to the clone. As you age, your DNA experiences slight changes, mostly in the expression of genes present. When a clone is produced, degeneration occurs much earlier in life than normal. So, if you take the DNA of a 50 year-old woman, the generated clone would have the tendency to develop osteoporosis around the age of 20. I think most people would rather adopt, use invitrofertilization, or get a surrogate rather than invest the money and time that human cloning would require, for the human generated..
    Well, I never said that you should be allowed to do it using the technologies available today (in fact, with the technologies available today it is not eaven possible). As I mentioned, one condition of legalising cloning would have to be that there is sufficient evidence to sugest it will not be more risky than IVF or normal pregnancies (which are in fact quite risky if you considder the statistics of complications during pregnancy)



    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    The problem that I have with human cloning is that it raises too many controversial ethical questions, which our current scientists are reluctant to think about, preferring the glory of achievement over consequences of their actions.
    Organ donation, and eaven the concept of "cutting in humans" were controversial and raised lots of questions when those medical techniques first came along, but today they are an essential part of our healthcare. Tony Blair recently had a procedure to stabilize his hearth rhythm as an example. In teh future, cloning and genetical technology will most likely be an indespensable medical tool. One has already showed that cloned stem-cells can repair broken spines in mice, and there is evidence to sugest the same technique will be applicable to humans.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The point was that you coudl cloen humans in order to understand how cloning mechanisms work. It was not suggested that you should create a "reasearch rabbit", merely that the techniques may have to be tried out in practice before they could be developed further.
    That doesn't change the fact that the clones will not have the benefit of a normal life or normal health. Scientists need to better improve their methods for cloning creatures with simpler genomes before experimenting with humans. Otherwise, the results will just be ghastly failure upon failure.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    There are differences in the DNA of twins. Twins are not an exact copy of each other. Similar yes, but not exact.
    No. Identical twins are exactly the same, bar environmental effects.


    Ok reproductive should be illegal. This is mainly because the child born could be discriminated against to being inferior. Or, if the child may feel used, if he was born to, say, save his older brother's life, as has already been done.
    Reproductive cloning also limits our gene pool, so we humans may be unable to evolve quickly enough in the event of an environmental change.
    Also,s upposing a particular embryo turns out to be very good - someone could patent its genes and use it to manufacture lots of similar clones for profit. That would degrade people. Cloning also involves mass killing of embryos- some believe this is unacceptable. I think it took about 250 tries before Dolly the sheep was cloned.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Organ donation, and eaven the concept of "cutting in humans" were controversial and raised lots of questions when those medical techniques first came along, but today they are an essential part of our healthcare. Tony Blair recently had a procedure to stabilize his hearth rhythm as an example. In teh future, cloning and genetical technology will most likely be an indespensable medical tool. One has already showed that cloned stem-cells can repair broken spines in mice, and there is evidence to sugest the same technique will be applicable to humans.
    Yes it seems cloning is inevitable. But it must be very tightly regulated.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    i sorry i just realised my thread poll don't make sense you can't answer right or wrong with yes or no or can u lol
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Organ donation, and eaven the concept of "cutting in humans" were controversial and raised lots of questions when those medical techniques first came along, but today they are an essential part of our healthcare. Tony Blair recently had a procedure to stabilize his hearth rhythm as an example. In teh future, cloning and genetical technology will most likely be an indespensable medical tool. One has already showed that cloned stem-cells can repair broken spines in mice, and there is evidence to sugest the same technique will be applicable to humans.
    Stem cell research and human cloning are two different things. I have no problems with cloning stem cells to create tissues of various organs. However, that's a far cry from making a living, breathing, thinking person for scientific use.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    They are less identical because they have different mitocondrial DNA. Mithocondria are small bacteria-like organells within the cell which are responsible for the combustion of carbo-hydrates to give us eenergy. They are a kind of "cells within the cell". When you clone an animal with todays technique, only teh nucleus of teh cell is transfered to the new egg, thus the mitocondira (and their DNA) is not transferred (mitocondria are not present in the nucleus of a cell) and hence teh clone would have mitocondria identical to the womman who donated the eggcell, rather than that of the person being cloned. Identical twins, however, are teh result of teh splitting of an early featus (eaven before blastocyte stadius I beleive) and thus have identical mitocondrial DNA. Thus identical twins are more similar, as far as DNA is concerned, than two artificially cloned individuals.
    I just wanted to tack on another factor to what Jonatan said. Clones would be less identical than twin because clones would be developed in different wombs. This would result in different nutrients to the developing fetus, causing a variation in gene expression from birth. Since twins develop in the same womb with the same nutrition, they have less variation in gene expression at birth.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Stem cell research and human cloning are two different things. I have no problems with cloning stem cells to create tissues of various organs. However, that's a far cry from making a living, breathing, thinking person for scientific use.
    There are more reasons for cloning than "making a person for scientific use" you know... Assuming the procedure could be improved to have lower failure rates, and was less risky than IVF, then why should it not be justified cloning humans? All humans have DNA identical to their parents, the only thing that makes clones unique is that they share a much greater percentage (100 rather than 50) of their DNA with one single parent.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    not sure i'd want copies of myself, or other people walking about.

    altering the genes of people and sterilisation of certain types of people would be acceptable to me.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hihihihi)
    Yes it seems cloning is inevitable. But it must be very tightly regulated.
    Why should it be more tightly regulated than other medical procedures? All medical procedure performed on humans are already regulated. As an example, you can't just go in and cut-n-paste human organs anyhow you like. I don't see what makes cloning worthy of more concern than say brain-cirgury. In fact, it is rather likely that the latter will prove far more difficult and risky in just a few decades of time as cloning techniques improve.
Updated: October 11, 2004
New on TSR

Student crowdfunds degree

Graduate raises £26,000 online for Masters course

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.