Cloning

[cmac]

Cloning a human, to me, does not seem morally objectionable. I support genetic research, considering its benefits outweigh its negative factors.

 

With knowledge of a human clone, we can identify and elimenate genetic diseases and undesireable traits. We could flash-clone new organs, glands, skin, and even blood. We could choose exactly what out children would look like, and what traits they would have. We could produce more complex protiens used in medicine to eliminate protein-difficiency diseases, such as diabetes and TESACS.

 

The list could go on for a while. Unfortuately, religious and self-appointedly 'moral' people have taken it into their hands to argue against this research, saying that it goes against god's word (that seems to be an argument for quite a few things nowadays) and that a human life is a precious thing, not to be manuipulated.

 

I am not a religious person. I would put cloning research for everyone's sake over my beliefs, even if I were religious.

 

I believe that cloning and genetic research on humans is a great step for the world, and that it should continue unhindered. After all, humans have already cloned a sheep, and the sheep had no forseeable diseases for many years after its birth.

 

The only possible bad thing that can be said about cloning or genetic manipulation is that it causes unforseeable diseases in the clone's later years. This is exactly why we should continue with the research- so we can eliminate these faults, and make genetic research something that can save lives, or prevent stunted ones. everywhere.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

good idea to a point. but, it would also create some strange things to happen. youd need a surrogate mother, the exact Dioxide-riboNeucleic-Acid for the clone you want, and someone to submit their own DNA might not be a choice person. or, we could do it the good, old abduct them and perform wacky experiments way. that way, we'd create a whole mess of contraversy. its a good idea, but we arent redy for it as a race, what with all the psychos, religious fanatics, industrialists, and just plain conservatives. and with who we have currently as president, our country (though maybe not yours, im not sure) will never see it soon. they are probably gonna just keep it a secret till its seven or so, and then release the whole ordeal.

[cmac]

good idea to a point. but, it would also create some strange things to happen.

No- DNA is like a computer program- it can be precisely coded for a certain result. Now that we have the human genome completely decoded, we know exactly what each nitrogen base will do. There won't be any surprises, apart from some undetectable diseases.

 

youd need a surrogate mother

Yes, this is a big problem. Everything is already "set" (DNA would be fixed into chromosomes and divided) when the embyros are inserted into the mother's uterus, so there is no possibility of the mother's traits affecting or having anything to do with the baby's traits, but there are probably precious few women who would volunteer for that.

 

the exact Dioxide-riboNeucleic-Acid for the clone you want, and someone to submit their own DNA might not be a choice person.

No- that's the beauty of genetic engineering- we can use restriction enzymes and genetic markers to highlight and physically chop the pieces of DNA that correspond with certain traits. We can put in new alleles, or remove bad ones.

 

or, we could do it the good, old abduct them and perform wacky experiments way.

 

I do hope you're joking. <_<

 

its a good idea, but we arent redy for it as a race, what with all the psychos, religious fanatics, industrialists, and just plain conservatives.

 

Very true. As I said, there is an unfortunate number of religious fanatics who would do anything to keep scientists from "tampering with god's creation."

 

and with who we have currently as president, our country (though maybe not yours, im not sure) will never see it soon. they are probably gonna just keep it a secret till its seven or so, and then release the whole ordeal.

 

You've got presidential elections coming up. It will be interesting to see if the new president will counteract Clinton's 1996 cloning ban.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

or, we could do it the good, old abduct them and perform wacky experiments way.

 

I do hope you're joking. <_<

 

first off, yup, joking. But there are some who would cross that bridge even BEFORE they come to it.

 

good idea to a point. but, it would also create some strange things to happen.

No- DNA is like a computer program- it can be precisely coded for a certain result. Now that we have the human genome completely decoded, we know exactly what each nitrogen base will do. There won't be any surprises, apart from some undetectable diseases.

 

By strange things, i mean how people would react to it. otherwise, its ok with me and probably relly worthwhile. but what if we manipulated the DNA to the point that our perfect people were all the same? we'd have to diversefy much. but it would probably be possible to change DNA to a point that we could have a white mans sample DNA used to clone him Asian

 

and with who we have currently as president, our country (though maybe not yours, im not sure) will never see it soon. they are probably gonna just keep it a secret till its seven or so, and then release the whole ordeal.

 

You've got presidential elections coming up. It will be interesting to see if the new president will counteract Clinton's 1996 cloning ban.

 

Of course, no president seeking reelection would be for cloning, because too many people here are ignorant.

[Peregrine]

1) Cloning would never become that common, so all these thoughts of "It'll be massive disaster, the whole species will be destroyed" are exaggeration to get the attention of ignorant voters. No matter how easy cloning gets, it'll still be harder and more expensive than making children the traditional way. At most, it might be a toy for the rich, or used in limited circumstances where there's a benefit you can't get any other way.

 

2) I object to it, not because the idea of cloning is wrong, but because it is far from perfect. Until the process works more reliably, and the full effects of genetic changes are understood, it is wrong to sacrifice humans as expirements. Do all the cloning you want with animals, but as it is, it's far too dangerous to risk on humans.

 

You've got presidential elections coming up. It will be interesting to see if the new president will counteract Clinton's 1996 cloning ban.

 

About when hell freezes over... unfortunately, Bush is going to win. And his position on the issue is clear.

[NCBeachBum]

Also, you can't really say that we've perfected the process..... it takes an average of 130 attempts at cloning a large animal before we successfully do so right now, and that's just a straight clone, not the large scope genetic engineering you're discussing when you mention 'chopping off' and 'adding' alleles. Those 1st 129 or so attempts end up in miscarriages, deformed births(immediately euthanized), and the like. Also, the 'successful' cloned animals live only roughly 2/3 of the normal life-span for that animal, and at this point, scientists have no clue as to why that is. So would all that translate? Would we be destroying deformed fetuses by the thousands regularly, only to create a clone with a life expectancy of 50? I would find that very difficult to put my support behind.

[Darnoc]

OK, there are a lot advantages to cloning and genetic engineering (the ones mentioned) and I accept these (even when I am a Christian). What I fear is a scenerio like in "Gattaca", where there is racism against not genetic-engineered humans, they are considered "handicaped" and are discriminated. Such a thing should never be allowed to happen!

 

Also I don't really like the idea of someone looking the same way as I coming up to my house and saying "Hey, I'm Darnoc!" and then I say "No, I'm Darnoc! Why the hell do you look the same as I do?" Then my clone responds: "Well, I'm your clone, now there are two of us!" :blink:

 

What I also think is that cloning takes away the uniqueness of every human being. When suddenly a hundred Darnocs are walking around, who can tell then if there is any difference at all between the different Darnocs? No, I like the way it is, when every human being is unique.

 

And I also think that there shouldn't be any other lifeforms harmed in the process of scientifical exploration. I am against any animal experiments (I am Green). Also you shouldn't forget how complex the genetic code is. It is million times more complex than any computer program. Even in a computer programm no one can tell what will happen when you change something. When you can't tell it in a computer programm, how can you tell then what will happen when you experiment with genetic codes? (that's the reason why geneticly altered food is not allowed in the European Union)

 

But when you can save lifes with genetic engineering, go ahead, with this I don't have any problem. When genetic engineering can improve our way of living, I also don't see any problems. But when we begin to discrimate people for not being geneticly altered, I am against it. Also when any lifeforms (humans, animals and plants) are harmed in the process of scientific research, I am against it. And of course I'm against any wild, uncontrolled experiments which could endanger other people. In genetic engineering we should be very careful. It is better to be cautious and have a little longer than making a rush and then something really bad happens (I can imagine some really bad accidents :P Oh, I'm such a sadist)

[cmac]

Also, you can't really say that we've perfected the process..... it takes an average of 130 attempts at cloning a large animal before we successfully do so right now, and that's just a straight clone, not the large scope genetic engineering you're discussing when you mention 'chopping off' and 'adding' alleles. Those 1st 129 or so attempts end up in miscarriages, deformed births(immediately euthanized), and the like. Also, the 'successful' cloned animals live only roughly 2/3 of the normal life-span for that animal, and at this point, scientists have no clue as to why that is. So would all that translate? Would we be destroying deformed fetuses by the thousands regularly, only to create a clone with a life expectancy of 50? I would find that very difficult to put my support behind.

I didn't say we have perfected the process; we need more experience to perfect it. As it is, nobody can legally clone anything. Without experimentation, how can we perfect the process?

 

And the

chopping off and 'adding' alleles

is done every day, millions of times. A strand of DNA with a codon for a particular enzyme/protien/what have you is inserted into a plasmid, and from there into a bacteria. The bacteria produces copies of whatever the DNA strand has the code for.

 

Yes, most lones do have 2/3 the lifespan of a normal animal. However, a positive side is that they can reproduce, which is very important. And there were no deformities.

 

As to the movie Gallata, is is very unrealistic. The science is real, but discrimination is a fantasy. I doubt that people would discriminate against non-enhanced people. Not to say that hasn't been done in they past, under different circumstances, but, unlike skin color, it is very hard to tell if someone is a clone or not.

 

Also, there would never be any injury to the unqiueness of an indivudual. If that were so, a complete copy of the same DNA from the embryos would have to be copied and inserted into a surrogate mother at the same time as you were developed. That is the only way there could be two of the same person walking around.

 

Unless we develped a short term flash-cloning procedure. But that would take quite a long time.

[Darnoc]

Ah, then I am relieved. But still I think that cloning (like everything else) will be used for not so good purposes. But this we probably can't prevent. Like the theory of relativy was used to create the atomic bomb. It is a sad fact that every scientific discovery is abused for something. Cloning and genetic engineering are something really powerful and just imagine the technology would fall into the wrong hands...

 

But still I think that you should be very cautious when dealing with genetics and shouldn't rush things too much. Who knows what will happen when we make a mistake because we didn't take our time? We should always be aware of the consequences when we fail and sometimes I think that scientists aren't aware at all, they are only interested in quick results.

[NCBeachBum]

Well, I didn't make my point clear, I suppose.... As long as we are still successful less than 1% of the time, we shouldn't start 'practicing' on humans. We must perfect the process by practicing on animals. Then we can try to begin experiments on humans and see what differences there are in the process.