human cloning

[Tao_Equus]

Livestock?

That's a rather dire prognosis.

I'll bet they're just like people. Exactly like 'em to be precise.

I would have to agree with citizenzen. Dehumanization of others is often used to rationalize exploitation of others.

Is it so unrealistic? As the technology advances a clone need not, indeed will never be, an exact copy. Growing a cloned body double for the harvesting of spare parts you need not create a concious person, but a thoughtless, mindless drone. Our sense of ethical discomfort with such a notion is palpably irrational because the technology is new and we still emotionally link physical form with individuality. But you need not create an individual that is ever concious or aware. Not an individual at all, just a collection of cells copied from our own DNA. Not a human that can be dehumanised but a bank of parts ready for use if and when required. It is the psychological difficulty of seeing anything that looks human being given the whole gamut of human attributes that needs to be overcome and it will be. It will just take time.

 

[seattlegal]

Is it so unrealistic? As the technology advances a clone need not, indeed will never be, an exact copy. Growing a cloned body double for the harvesting of spare parts you need not create a concious person, but a thoughtless, mindless drone. Our sense of ethical discomfort with such a notion is palpably irrational because the technology is new and we still emotionally link physical form with individuality. But you need not create an individual that is ever concious or aware. Not an individual at all, just a collection of cells copied from our own DNA. Not a human that can be dehumanised but a bank of parts ready for use if and when required. It is the psychological difficulty of seeing anything that looks human being given the whole gamut of human attributes that needs to be overcome and it will be. It will just take time.

Deliberately imparting a disability to a clone in order to justify harvesting their organs? How is this any different from beating someone to the point of putting them in a brain-dead coma, and then stealing everything they own? After all, they won't miss their belongs, now that they are in a coma.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Deliberately imparting a disability to a clone in order to justify harvesting their organs? How is this any different from beating someone to the point of putting them in a brain-dead coma, and then stealing everything they own? After all, they won't miss their belongs, now that they are in a coma.

Every difference. It is only an emotional argument. If a body is grown for harvesting that is its purpose for ever being in the first place. A far cry from what you suggest. It is the future....better get used to it.

 

[juantoo3]

Every difference. It is only an emotional argument. If a body is grown for harvesting that is its purpose for ever being in the first place. A far cry from what you suggest. It is the future....better get used to it.

I see. You are on the side of the Morlocks then?

Frankly, I don't see how such a "mindless" being could be created. If it has a brain and develops normally, that brain too will develop normally. It must have some semblence of normalcy, the brain afterall includes the autonomic cues for breathing, heartrate, etc., without which such a being cannot maintain life. A vegetative state would have to be induced. Can you turn your grandchild into a vegetable for your own convenience? I think it is a reasonable question to ask.

 

[seattlegal]

Every difference. It is only an emotional argument. If a body is grown for harvesting that is its purpose for ever being in the first place. A far cry from what you suggest. It is the future....better get used to it.

Have fun with the apoptosis you'll get.

 

[juantoo3]

Have fun with the apoptosis you'll get.

Oooo, had to look that one up.

It does make one wonder what other disease processes could proliferate.

 

[citizenzen]

Every difference. It is only an emotional argument. If a body is grown for harvesting that is its purpose for ever being in the first place. A far cry from what you suggest. It is the future....better get used to it.

Will there be fields of babies?

Herds of livestock children?

Will they run on the plain like the buffalo?

Or will we keep them in lots like we do cattle?

 

[juantoo3]

Or will we keep them in lots like we do cattle?

Walking around ankle deep in their own excrement?

 

[citizenzen]

Walking around ankle deep in their own excrement?

Exactly!

What kind of standards would we apply to the living conditions of this shadow population? What would the pro-lifers think? What would the ACLU find acceptable? What does the constitution allow?

 

[seattlegal]

How would you keep the sheep shaggers from spreading STD's among them? {What would you do if your daughter's clone got pregnant? The females would be a valuable source of eggs and surrogate services, as well...}

 

[Avi]

Well, the thing is, so far it seems more practical to clone an entire organism than to clone and culture a complex organ process...like a limb (as Seattlegal pointed out). Simpler organ processes, like a heart valve or similar, can be processed but the culture medium and "flask/tank/container" are fairly complex and difficult machinery to maintain and upkeep, and there are a zillion things to go wrong. All it takes is a power outage for a few hours and months of work goes down the tubes...

Whereas, in super simplistic terms, cloning an entire critter is as "simple" as fertilizing and implanting an egg into a host mother and letting her do the culturing...pretty much a "set and forget" process, let nature run its course.

All ethics aside of course, , because then we enter the realm of creating a life to kill it to preserve other life...blah blah blah...which is one thing when speaking of cattle, bred and raised to feed us...and quite another when thinking of raising spare parts for aging human beings. Would you raise your grandchild for spare parts to keep yourself alive a bit longer? Could you give the order to harvest an organ from your grandchild raised for this purpose, knowing it would end their life? Would it be any easier if you don't have to look behind the curtain, and don't have to wield the scalpel yourself? Do we become Morlocks, or do we become Eloi?

Isn't medical ethics a wonderful meditation?

Juan, for exactly the reason you point to, initial development of artificial organs will be done in bioreactors and as hybrid devices. For example, artificial hearts were developed as early as the 1960's (Dr. Christian Bernard) but they did not work very well. The current generation of heart devices are really more of the assist type and the next generation are expected to be hybrid systems of a synthetic / biological nature.

Other organs, such as artificial skin, are being development in bioreactors, with artificial and natural scaffolding and the relatively new fields of "tissue engineering" and "cellular engineering" are moving these technologies forward. Very sophisticated bioreactors have been developed to create artificial organs. A good example of an artificial organ is the artificial pancreas. Devices of this nature have been created from hollow fiber membranes and have been successfully implanted already.

With Obama's approval to re-initiate genetic research these technologies will move ahead rapidly.

Because of the hesitation that people have (and for good reason) these bioreactors will not resemble people for decades or even hundreds of years. There are serious bioethics issues which need to be resolved. But in the long run, the most efficient bioreactor designs will be the ones which succeed, even if they ultimately do resemble people (this is analogous to natural selection for bioreactors ).

 

[Tao_Equus]

I see. You are on the side of the Morlocks then?

Frankly, I don't see how such a "mindless" being could be created. If it has a brain and develops normally, that brain too will develop normally. It must have some semblence of normalcy, the brain afterall includes the autonomic cues for breathing, heartrate, etc., without which such a being cannot maintain life. A vegetative state would have to be induced. Can you turn your grandchild into a vegetable for your own convenience? I think it is a reasonable question to ask.

Have fun with the apoptosis you'll get.

Will there be fields of babies?

Herds of livestock children?

Will they run on the plain like the buffalo?

Or will we keep them in lots like we do cattle?

I do not know how it will be done but I am pretty certain it will be done. When a technology is developed it is utilised and with the global shortage of transplant organs and tissues the pressure to develop this to a workable technology is there. Now you can use emotive arguments to your hearts content but they will not stop anything. It may well be that they will use pig/human hybrids, hope that does not put you off your bacon sandwiches.

There is this kind of implication in all 3 posts that I am ignoring the ethics, I am not. I was merely stating this is going to happen, so get used to it. It still confounds my sense of right and wrong but all 3 of you paint some sick unpalatable injustice when all rationality says it will be nothing like that. You are all playing to farcical emotive caricatures, and this is so typically American. No country on Earth has the kind of highly charged emotive discussions on ethics as the Americans, which is kind of weird since you are the biggest exporters of the machinery of death and misery, demand the means to be able to shoot each other and are incapable of putting together a decent healthcare system for all your citizens. But a poor ickle bunch of cells grown in a petri dish and you hunt down and kill the scientist. Nuts. Yeh I know you may not support the insane christian right doctor killers but your emotive caricatures display that the debate is so charged in the US that even otherwise rational people throw balance out the window on this issue.

 

[greymare]

My opinion.
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
I mean, honestly, what is the bottom line here? We are desperately trying to avoid death.
I am all for vaccines/immunizations etc. BUT there is a HUGE difference between cure for terrible diseases and cloning.
Oh yes, someone could clone a loved one to replace the diseased parts of their dying body.(in the future i suppose), but we are really only just putting off the enevitable.
We ARE all going to die some day. EVERYONE of us. Hopefully our families and friends will morn us and it doesnt matter what our age, we mostly would have like to have MORE time to do MORE things.
But, regardless, it happens, to all of us, sooner or later.
I honestly despise the idea of cloneing.

 

[greymare]

dont we have the technology to grow some parts of our body without cloneing?

I have a really hard time with this.

yes, i would want medical science to do all it could to save my sons life, if he were ill, but in no way would i agree to a clone of a loved one. Either way, my heart would be broken.

I dont know , maybe ive watched too many movies on this subject

 

[17th Angel]

You'd be immortal...... Like me.

The 6th Day (2000)

 

[Tao_Equus]

Each drawn breath is "putting off the inevitable". The advantage of cloning tissues is there are no rejection issues unlike currently where even the best 'matches' of recipient and donor eventually fail due to rejection. There is a lot of Frankenstein scaremongering on this issue, usually from the religious who have a long history in creating fear and invoke their fictitious gods infallibility. Well we are developing the technology to improve on nature and this should be seen as a huge milestone, and will be. the cat is out of the bag.

 

[shawn]

It may well be that they will use pig/human hybrids, hope that does not put you off your bacon sandwiches.

Monsanto has been spending millions in their efforts to patent the common pig.
Everyone thought it was just for the royalties, but now we see where they will find their axlotl tanks eh?

 

[seattlegal]

I see. You are on the side of the Morlocks then?

Frankly, I don't see how such a "mindless" being could be created. If it has a brain and develops normally, that brain too will develop normally. It must have some semblence of normalcy, the brain afterall includes the autonomic cues for breathing, heartrate, etc., without which such a being cannot maintain life. A vegetative state would have to be induced. Can you turn your grandchild into a vegetable for your own convenience? I think it is a reasonable question to ask.

Have fun with the apoptosis you'll get.

Will there be fields of babies?

Herds of livestock children?

Will they run on the plain like the buffalo?

Or will we keep them in lots like we do cattle?

I do not know how it will be done but I am pretty certain it will be done. When a technology is developed it is utilised and with the global shortage of transplant organs and tissues the pressure to develop this to a workable technology is there. Now you can use emotive arguments to your hearts content but they will not stop anything. It may well be that they will use pig/human hybrids, hope that does not put you off your bacon sandwiches.

There is this kind of implication in all 3 posts that I am ignoring the ethics, I am not. I was merely stating this is going to happen, so get used to it. It still confounds my sense of right and wrong but all 3 of you paint some sick unpalatable injustice when all rationality says it will be nothing like that. You are all playing to farcical emotive caricatures, and this is so typically American. No country on Earth has the kind of highly charged emotive discussions on ethics as the Americans, which is kind of weird since you are the biggest exporters of the machinery of death and misery, demand the means to be able to shoot each other and are incapable of putting together a decent healthcare system for all your citizens. But a poor ickle bunch of cells grown in a petri dish and you hunt down and kill the scientist. Nuts. Yeh I know you may not support the insane christian right doctor killers but your emotive caricatures display that the debate is so charged in the US that even otherwise rational people throw balance out the window on this issue.

Yes, go ahead and lecture us with an ad hominem attack.

I think juantoo3's post did address ethics, but mine and citizenzen's were more of a practical nature.

You are sure to run into apoptosis dysfunctions and other mitochondrial mayhem unless you get your mother to donate the egg to produce the clone. (By the time you are ready to start a clone, mom's eggs would probably be too old to use.) It's ironic that the answer you propose to apoptosis related problems--cloning--will open the doors wide open for a whole new slew of these types of problems to develop. Go figure.

I think citizenzen made a good point about the maintenance of these clones who would contribute nothing more to society than being organ banks. Widespread use of clones would be a huge drain on the planet's resources as well as human labor to maintain them. They will not be able to pass along any human discovered knowledge to future generations, to boot.

I would say that this option is neither cost-effective nor ethical. The worst of both worlds. The whole scenerio is a sirens' song that is bound to end in a shipwreck, imo.

 

[seattlegal]

Juan, for exactly the reason you point to, initial development of artificial organs will be done in bioreactors and as hybrid devices. For example, artificial hearts were developed as early as the 1960's (Dr. Christian Bernard) but they did not work very well. The current generation of heart devices are really more of the assist type and the next generation are expected to be hybrid systems of a synthetic / biological nature.

Other organs, such as artificial skin, are being development in bioreactors, with artificial and natural scaffolding and the relatively new fields of "tissue engineering" and "cellular engineering" are moving these technologies forward. Very sophisticated bioreactors have been developed to create artificial organs. A good example of an artificial organ is the artificial pancreas. Devices of this nature have been created from hollow fiber membranes and have been successfully implanted already.

With Obama's approval to re-initiate genetic research these technologies will move ahead rapidly.

Because of the hesitation that people have (and for good reason) these bioreactors will not resemble people for decades or even hundreds of years. There are serious bioethics issues which need to be resolved. But in the long run, the most efficient bioreactor designs will be the ones which succeed, even if they ultimately do resemble people (this is analogous to natural selection for bioreactors ).

Got any links?

I've heard about an artificial (synthetic) pancreas in development that will measure blood sugar and inject the correct dosage of insulin to treat diabetes. It does not produce insulin, but is an insulin delivery system.

I've also heard of treatment involving destroying the patient's immune system to "reset" the immune system (so the body's own immune system will no longer attack the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas,) followed by an injection of the patient's own adult hematopoietic stem cells to regrow the beta cells in the pancreas.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yes, go ahead and lecture us with an ad hominem attack.

Well you may view it as such but I believe my point was and remains pertinent.

I think juantoo3's post did address ethics, but mine and citizenzen's were more of a practical nature.

You are sure to run into apoptosis dysfunctions and other mitochondrial mayhem unless you get your mother to donate the egg to produce the clone. (By the time you are ready to start a clone, mom's eggs would probably be too old to use.) It's ironic that the answer you propose to apoptosis related problems--cloning--will open the doors wide open for a whole new slew of these types of problems to develop. Go figure.

I think citizenzen made a good point about the maintenance of these clones who would contribute nothing more to society than being organ banks. Widespread use of clones would be a huge drain on the planet's resources as well as human labor to maintain them. They will not be able to pass along any human discovered knowledge to future generations, to boot.

I would say that this option is neither cost-effective nor ethical. The worst of both worlds. The whole scenerio is a sirens' song that is bound to end in a shipwreck, imo.

I am no expert in the field but I believe the current best method is via extraction of stem cells from the umbilical cord. Egg extraction is no more invasive than, and indeed almost identical to, an enema. And thus a procedure any mum would happily undertake to 'grow' their child a new heart for example. But this is still virgin territory and the issues you raise are technical ones that will be overcome. The issue is for me the question "is it acceptable to clone" and all I see are a combination of emotional responses based on a kind of perverse logic that it can only be frankensteinian and a narrow minded view based on the failures of a very new science. Failures that are sure to be overcome. The truth is I am unclear on where I stand on the ethics of it but I do rail against the kind of simplistic and emotive kneejerk reactions I see here.