| Quote: |
Cloning can be a very sensitive subject. It seems that it?s a battle between science and ethics. Does the ladder outweigh the former or vice versa? Maybe a few definitions will shed some light on the subject. ?Cloning is to create a genetic duplicate of an individual organism through asexual reproduction, as by stimulating a single cell? (Webster?s 211). ?Parthenogenesis is reproduction of organisms without conjunction of gametes of opposite sexes.? (Webster?s 800). Cloning has its medical uses, but do the ethical implications outweigh the advantages? The goal of genetic engineering is that every child be born strong, healthy, and well suited to make its way to the world. If genetic engineering would be used in this way the world would probably be a place of less disease. Sure it may be unethical to do some tests on humans, but without them medical progress would come to a halt. Cloning might also directly offer a way of curing diseases or a technique that could extend means to acquiring new data for the sciences of embryology and how organisms develop as a whole over time. Science has been trying for years to come up with cures for genetic diseases and so far haven?t really come up with anything that is truly helpful. On the other hand, with the technology of genetic engineering scientists may finally be able to start to understand the causes of diseases and to develop possible treatments and even prevention. For instance, the most studied disease is Cystic Fibrosis. Although, we have not found a cure yet, science ! might be getting close to coming up with a way of preventing Cystic Fibrosis. Science has made some major discoveries in the past forty years. In the 1960?s two French scientists by the names of Jacques Monod and Francois Jacob showed that genes can be turned on and off by what are called regulator genes. If it were possible to manipulate the regulator genes, than it would be possible to turn Cancer cells off and prevent it. It is expected that 185,000 people will be diagnosed with a brain tumor alone in 2000. That?s just brain Cancer, imagine how many lives would be saved if all Cancer cells could be turned off. Cloning isn?t just an advantage to the medical field. It would provide a link for a replacement to artificial insemination. Couples, who are unable to have children, or have genetic disorders, could use cloning to produce a child. Plus, women who are single could have a child using cloning instead of artificial insemination.
Natural cloning occurs too. All plants, some insects, algae, unicellular organisms that conduct mitosis or binary fissions, and identical twins are all clones of each other. As long as genetic make-up is the same they are clones, and a splitting embryo that creates two identical embryos produces twins. The difference between twins and clones, however, is that twins are new in genetic variation and unique from anything that came before them. Even if clones don?t have genetic variation they would closely resemble identical twins and more than likely would be accepted by the world as twins would. After all, there are some eight million identical twins alive today, so it is safe to say that about eight million ?human clones? are alive today. Plus, who is to differentiate between a clone and an identical twin? The world isn?t going to be able to distinguish between the two anyway.
Cloning is going to continue to be the subject of books, television shows, and movies. It has already been featured numerous times on the Discovery Channel and TLC. Dolly, the cloned sheep, was featured on the news for about four weeks. It is easy to get carried away and start thinking about what cloning will do to our future. However, it?s better to stop fantasizing about how human clones are going to take over the job market, but to look at what cloning has already done.
Thus far only the advantages of cloning have been described. It is only fair to know that cloning possesses some bad aspects as well. In case one didn?t know already genes are the basic units of inheritance. They are what make a plant, an animal, or a human being resemble its parents. Clones are carbon copies. They have the genetic information of only one parent. There is no mixing of genes with the chance of change. Therefore, clones would be deprived of a feeling of individuality and uniqueness. At least with natural reproduction genetic variation occurs and makes every person an individual. Without genetic variation everyone would be exactly the same and the world would be boring.
Not only will it erase individuality, which is almost bad enough in it, but also it will also eliminate the ?bad genes? and lead to dangerous narrowing of diversity in the gene pool. What does that mean? It means that if everyone is cloned over and over again off the same genes, there is a bigger chance of a mutated gene being prominent and then there would be no way to get rid of it. This is the main reason that science is reluctant to clone humans. So, what happens when we decline genetic diversity and the gene pool and we lose the ability to clone? Well, that?s simple we resort to a little process known as inbreeding. Inbreeding also increases the chance of transmitting mutated genes. In fact, zoologists and environmentalists trying to save endangered species are not having problems keeping population numbers up, but finding animals to breed that are not cousins.
Most scientists believe that cloning would create deformed or otherwise defective babies. For instance, some of the lambs produced by cloning before Dolly were larger than normal. It is very likely that defects would arise indeed for no other reason than the fact that the ability isn?t good enough to clone humans. ?The nucleus of a skin cell could have accumulated many genetic mistakes of no consequence to its role in the skin, but when asked to make a brand new organism these could prove deleterious in other tissues, or greatly increase the probability of developing cancer? (Beddington np).
Now that the advantages and disadvantages have been expressed the author feels that an example of the processes of cloning would be appropriate. The first example is the cloning of a frog.
1. The nucleus is removed from a frog egg. It is now called an enucleated egg. 2. A section of intestine is taken from a tadpole.
3. A cell from that intestinal tissue is taken and its nucleus removed. 4. The nucleus from the tadpole cell is put into the enucleated frog egg. 5. The egg, with its new nucleus, begins to divide and develop into a tadpole and then an adult frog. The frog?s genes are exactly like those of the tadpole because its instructions came only from the nucleus of the tadpole. The frog is a clone.
The next example of how cloning may be used is a cow embryo being shipped in the uterus of a rabbit.
1. Eggs are taken from a cow.
2. They are fertilized in a laboratory dish and begin to grow in the nutrient solution.
3. When they reach the hollow ball or blastula stage, each embryo is placed in a rabbit uterus.
4. The rabbit is shipped to another country...
5...and the embryo taken from the rabbit and replaced in the uterus of a cow. Thus far, the paper has listed the medical uses and ethical implications for cloning. Plus, an added bonus of processes in which cloning has been successful. Now, most people probably already have strong opinions about cloning and maybe this paper gave readers something on which to base their opinions. The goal of this paper wasn?t to convince the reader of cloning being advantageous or not, but instead to help people realize that the world is in store for some major technological advances and everyone must be prepared to deal with controversial issues such as the one presented above. If one is not able to deal with change then technology is just going to leave them behind. Like it or not technology is not going to stop progressing, so the world is going to have to learn to accept what is happening.
|
Technology of Cloning
| Quote: |
Nuclear transfer involves transferring the nucleus from a diploid cell ( containing 30-40,000 genes and a full set of paired chromosomes) to an unfertilised egg cell from which the maternal nucleus has been removed. The technique involves several steps (see diagram below). The nucleus itself can be transferred or the intact cell can be injected into the oocyte. In the latter case, the oocyte and donor cell are normally fused and the 'reconstructed embryo' activated by a short electrical pulse. In sheep, the embryos are then cultured for 5-6 days and those that appear to be developing normally ( usually about 10%) are implanted into foster mothers.
Nuclear transfer is not a new technique. It was first used in 1952 to study early development in frogs and in the 1980's the technique was used to clone cattle and sheep using cells taken directly from early embryos. In 1995, Ian Wilmut, Keith Campbell and colleagues created live lambs- Megan and Morag - from embryo derived cells that had been cultured in the laboratory for several weeks. This was the first time live animals had been derived from cultured cells and their success opened up the possibility of introducing much more precise genetic modifications into farm animals.
In 1996, Roslin Institute and collaborators PPL Therapeutics created Dolly, the first animal cloned from a cell taken from an adult animal. The announcement of her birth in February 1997 started the current fascination in all things cloned. Until then, almost all biologists thought that the cells in our bodies were fixed in their roles: the creation of Dolly from a mammary gland cell of a six year old sheep showed this was not the case and the achievement was voted Science Breakthrough of the Year at the end of 1997. |
Thanks for the info on cloning. But this doesn't change the fact that cloning is (in my view) fundamentally wrong. Although it does have some medical properties I feel that it will only be abused if people are allowed to clone whatever or whoever the want. Additionally I think that there will be severe consequences to us cloning life forms - the advent of genetically identical clone armies capable of causing the next world war. However, will clones be respected and loved throughout the world? I think not.
^Why would you want to clone armies? It's much easier and cheaper to produce them the old-fashioned way.
Cloning is good and bad at the same time. The good is that it can be used for food. Cloning animals can help cut down costs of food by miles. Cloning can also help animal species that are about to become dead. If we had cloning in the past, we could have saved the dodo.
The bad is that we have no clue how the clone might turn out for humans. If we make a clone of ourself, could it turn bad and try to kill us? That is the main reason why I am against cloning humans. Cloning should be left for animals.
Interestingly, why is the general consensus that all human clones would turn out evil?! Are we so paranoid about new technologies that we must assume a worst case scenario? What if a populous of clones decided to be really nice and end world poverty? Human clones are clones of ourselves, so would reflect our own personalities. There would be good ones and bad ones, just like ourselves. And do you really think that the technology would be available to everyone? It will be in controlled laboratories carried out by scientists. This isn't The Matrix or I, Robot, there won't be mass armies of evil-clone henchmen, it would be the same as more babies being born. That's it.
| Liambaby wrote: |
| Interestingly, why is the general consensus that all human clones would turn out evil?! Are we so paranoid about new technologies that we must assume a worst case scenario? What if a populous of clones decided to be really nice and end world poverty? Human clones are clones of ourselves, so would reflect our own personalities. There would be good ones and bad ones, just like ourselves. And do you really think that the technology would be available to everyone? It will be in controlled laboratories carried out by scientists. This isn't The Matrix or I, Robot, there won't be mass armies of evil-clone henchmen, it would be the same as more babies being born. That's it. |
Well, I guess you could say we are afraid of ourself then....
Anyway. I think the main thing is that Cloning is scary science. For the most part, Science has been minipulating other things, maybe medicine for a patient, robots, etc. In the long run it's been some inanimate thing that is being manipulated. This time it is life itself. What happens if there is a terrible deformation with the clone? What does that mean for it? for us? How do we respond to it?
While these might be fairly unlikely situations, they are still a concern for us, so alot of people are going to overcome their fear of this science before it's going to be able to progress very far.
I think the main reason why there's so much opposition with cloing, though, is it feels like we are playing god. When it comes to all the other sciences, we are simply exploring; understanding what it takes to kill microorganisms, ect. In this case, however, we are "creating" life; something left for only God. When this becomes an option for us, it can get scary. I'm excited about the science, but yet petrified. I'm not sure what this is going to mean to me as a Christian.But, in actuality, we would not be creating life, merely copying it, copying nature, one of the most fundamental things that defines us as humans. What could be more human than seeing what nature has created, and recreating and manipulating it, as we have been doing in laboratories for hundreds of years. For example, the experiments concerning the slowing down of light and using these slower particles, to be playing god, as it is fundamentally changing the state of nature. Is global warming playing god, as we are permanently changing the face of the planet? If we were never to play god, then we wouldn't have science, only the study of nature, and never putting our findings to use. Either every experiment is playing god, or nothing is.
I'm all for cloning. Got lung cancer? Come down to Wal-greens, get urself a nice pair of new lungs. That would be pretty rediculous, but point is, it could save lives. Plus, it's a new discovery, we should always take advantage of new technologies and try them out.
| Liambaby wrote: |
| Is global warming playing god, as we are permanently changing the face of the planet? If we were never to play god, then we wouldn't have science, only the study of nature, and never putting our findings to use. Either every experiment is playing god, or nothing is. |
Yes, I understand. But when it come to messing with DNA, then I feel like it's different. Maybe it's just me....
If it was mearly copying, then like you said, it's just nature. But messing with DNA seems like....
Well, it's probably just me not used to the idea yet.Religion aside, I really this this is just something we as humans should not do, sure maybe the clones will be like everyone else, but more than likely we will have quite a few screw ups along the way. It's just not ethical to bring something into a world where it has no place but to be a lab rat to be discarded when it is no longer useful, and when it is it more than likely won't be able to function normally in society.
Let's not kid ourselves--we're not "creating" anything here, anymore than in vitro fertilization "creates" life. The truth is, we can only take existing material and reorganize it, and imperfectly at that. Also, what is the end of this cloning? Would we use this to make new "blanks" of ourselves from which to harvest organs, etc.? Would their sole purpose in life be to supply us with raw biological material? Even if they weren't harvested and used, isn't our uniqueness part of what makes each life valuable? Human life is sacred. Maybe we should worry more about the over 50,000,000 healthy, natural babies killed annually before they are even born, rather than trying to copy life on our own for questionable purposes.
The technology of cloninig has good reasons in the medical world as long as the esthetic rules will allow this.
Because cloning technology in the wrong hands and you can create a massive disaster in the world. Therefore i choose that the knowledge of this technology must be secured.
I think that the most people will agree with my opinion in this matter.
First of all, human cloning is NOT this new thing and the horror of horrors that must be avoided at all costs. Ever heard of bone marrow transplants? Yup, that's cloning at work. Cloning just means making a copy of something (in this case, from stem cells). It does not specify where the stem cells come from.
This article is inaccurate.
| Quote: |
| Couples, who are unable to have children, or have genetic disorders, could use cloning to produce a child. |
With our current technology, they can't. By the time cells reach adulthood, certain genes will be imprinted (or silenced). Also, as DNA gets replicated, telomeres (the sequences at the end) get shortened. Unless we can reverse those affects, the clones that we produce will be defective and won't live a life beyond the embryonic stage. Also, if you knew that you had a genetic disorder, WHY would you use cloning to produce and condemn your progeny to that fate? ...
| Quote: |
| Plus, women who are single could have a child using cloning instead of artificial insemination. |
Probably won't happen. Studies have shown that gynogenetic (both sets of chromosomes originate from the mother) and androgenetic (both sets of chromosomes originate from the father) mammalian embryos (of mice) develop abnormally. The expression of genes in the mother and father are different, due to gene imprinting in the embryo. Gynogenetic embryos result in a small placenta with a normal embryo while androgenetic embryos result in a normal placenta with an underdeveloped embryo. Neither produce living offspring.
| Quote: |
| Clones are carbon copies. They have the genetic information of only one parent. There is no mixing of genes with the chance of change. Therefore, clones would be deprived of a feeling of individuality and uniqueness. |
Is this article saying that identical twins, which were mentioned earlier as genetic clones, are deprived of a feeling of individuality and uniqueness?!?
As little as scientists may know about successfully cloning mammals, it saddens me to see that the general public knows even less. Furthermore, they take what they know and distort it in such a way that it is beyond comprehension. As far as I see it there is no moral concern with cloning, especially if it can be done with somatic cell nuclear transfer. However as an effective medical treatment it is never going to be anything other than something for those with bags of cash. Dont forget that TB and malaria are the worlds biggest killers and cloning isnt going to do much for them.
1) cloning is just making cheep copies
2) can be bad or good depends on the use
3) there will propably always be limits on cloning do moral reasons
For now i am still neutral when it comes to cloning mostly because it doubt in what way it will continue to grow. It can save a lot of lives, but lets not kid our selves here we hardly understand the things that 'might' happen it cloning would be used on a large/major scale
trousersalive: It's currently very very very very VERY hard, if not near impossible, to clone mammals from somatic cells at the moment. And no, that's not an overstatement.
great for organ replacement from stem cells and should be allowed. This is just too good a mediacal technology to let slip.
However the prospect of making an identical twin of yourself x years apart is a bit spooky. I guess it will eventually be possible - I understand Dolly was a lucky fluke.
The number of genii or world beaters that have come from very ordinary families means that even if 2 v. ordinary people have a child in the traditional way there is a possibility that child may rise to greatness in some way.
If a child is cloned from a single person then that child will only ever be as good or bad as that person - possibly you could tailor their envionment in advance as you know the type of person they will be - but a society of people made this way will be a stagnant one.
There is also the 'boys from brazil' scenario.
| loryl wrote: |
| trousersalive: It's currently very very very very VERY hard, if not near impossible, to clone mammals from somatic cells at the moment. And no, that's not an overstatement. |
Youre absolutely correct, it is currently very difficult, but certainly not impossible (Hello Dolly). But the difficulty is likely to change in the very near future - there is a LOT of money going into this direction of research.There is also a lot of opposition going into this area of research...
And there's much more we don't know.
"to further the advancement of humanity" this seems to be the age old shield that controversial techonolgy hides behind. no doubt that cloning will further advance humanity to levels previously unkown. Medical benefits seem to be the mainstream focus that the media is taking, focusing on stem cell research for our disabled. But what about military applications. We all know that the military is going to adopt the techonolgy first before public interest.
reminds you of star wars?
soon there will be no need for army recruiters, we will be able to clone soldiers; perfect soldiers all alike. Are they real people or simple pawns of the military to be disposed of like machines?
| Dwyer17 wrote: |
| I'm all for cloning. Got lung cancer? Come down to Wal-greens, get urself a nice pair of new lungs. That would be pretty rediculous, but point is, it could save lives. Plus, it's a new discovery, we should always take advantage of new technologies and try them out. |
I agree to an extent, single organ/limb cloning should be allowed if and when such things are possible , and as long as the recipient is also the donator I see no new moral issues | llobo1 wrote: |
| Additionally I think that there will be severe consequences to us cloning life forms - the advent of genetically identical clone armies capable of causing the next world war. However, will clones be respected and loved throughout the world? I think not. |
There is no reason that clones wouldnt be respected and loved. Identical twins are genetic clones of each other and I am pretty sure they get along alright in society.
And clones still take just as long as normal people to grow so there really is little advantage of making clone armies vs normal armies anyway.Cloning happens all the time in molecular biology research. It is, in fact, standard, boring, scientific practice. I've cloned bacteria hundreds of times, and have also engineered novel DNA sequences and inserted them into organisms. They probably use cloning techniques on CSI, for example.
The trouble is, people have a warped view of cloning that comes from fantasies like science fiction and misinformation spread by the popular media. In real life cloning is pretty mundane, and only arch-fundamentalists would have a problem with the sort of cloning I used to do on a weekly basis. There's nothing wrong with the technology of cloning. It's all in what you do with it.
well one thing i wonder that al though cloning is taking place but i just dont know from where the soul comes into them... i mean then the whole idea of religion and god is nullified.....
we cant create souls..... can we?
When people have sex, their gametes fuse and a new life form is created. Now, we have the technology to do that in the lab (in vitro fertilization). We can get eggs to grow by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg. The fertilized egg is then placed in the correct part of the mother's uterus. The actual process of creating life isn't different whether it occurs in the lab or in a test tube, so where to we draw the line? Say that next time instead of adding half of a genome, we remove the genes from the egg and add an entire genome. How is that really different?
