human cloning

[seattlegal]

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



I am no expert in the field but I believe the current best method is via extraction of stem cells from the umbilical cord.

What's this have to do with cloning?

Egg extraction is no more invasive than, and indeed almost identical to, an enema.

ROFLMAO! Tell me, do you have to take a course of hormones that make your gonads swell up and become quite tender, followed by a series of ultrasound procedures before having your enema? (and no, transvaginal ovarian aspiration is nothing like having an enema.)

And thus a procedure any mum would happily undertake to 'grow' their child a new heart for example.

Are you talking about producing a clone here?

But this is still virgin territory and the issues you raise are technical ones that will be overcome.

Don't bet on it.

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.

Which answers did you consider to be emotive kneejerk reactions?

 

[citizenzen]

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.

Nice.

We respond to your thread, bring up pertinent counter arguments, and you accuse us of simplistic emotive kneejerk reactions.

You really know how to draw people out in a debate. Bravo, Tao. Well played.

 

[Tao_Equus]

What's this have to do with cloning?

I will work on the presumption that you did not intend to quote the first sentence. Like I say I am no expert and will never pretend to be but my understanding is that stem cells taken from the umbilical cord are currently considered to be the best to harvest for the purpose of growing cloned organs.

ROFLMAO! Tell me, do you have to take a course of hormones that make your gonads swell up and become quite tender, followed by a series of ultrasound procedures before having your enema? (and no, transvaginal ovarian aspiration is nothing like having an enema.)

Of course not....I was born with dangling bits and cannot produce eggs even when I try really hard. But as I said, the actual procedures are negilgible when compared to the terror of experiencing 'no hope' and then the actuality and then anguish of losing your child.

Are you talking about producing a clone here?

A clone of me Would not wish that on my worst enemy!! (If I had one).

Don't bet on it.

Bet you 100 of them there yankee dollars that every stumbling block you note will be overcome within 20 years!!

Which answers did you consider to be emotive kneejerk reactions?

The ones I quoted You, Juantoo and CZ in.

 

[Tao_Equus]

We respond to your thread, bring up pertinent counter arguments, and you accuse us of simplistic emotive kneejerk reactions.

Not my thread

"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?" ......

Simplistic. Emotive. Kneejerk. And thoroughly American

You really know how to draw people out in a debate. Bravo, Tao. Well played.

And your specialisation is the witty cerebral quip.... I loves you too

 

[seattlegal]

I will work on the presumption that you did not intend to quote the first sentence. Like I say I am no expert and will never pretend to be but my understanding is that stem cells taken from the umbilical cord are currently considered to be the best to harvest for the purpose of growing cloned organs.

What in the heck are you talking about?
Umbilical stem cells have nothing to do with cloning.

Of course not....I was born with dangling bits and cannot produce eggs even when I try really hard. But as I said, the actual procedures are negilgible when compared to the terror of experiencing 'no hope' and then the actuality and then anguish of losing your child.

Again I ask you Tao, are you referring to growing a clone of the child?

Are you talking about producing a clone here?

A clone of me Would not wish that on my worst enemy!! (If I had one).

Nice side-step.

Bet you 100 of them there yankee dollars that every stumbling block you note will be overcome within 20 years!!

No way. Cloning will likely create even more, imo.

The ones I quoted You, Juantoo and CZ in.

OK, let's check this one:

Have fun with the apoptosis you'll get.

How is this an illogical, emotive, knee-jerk reaction?

 

[citizenzen]

And your specialisation is the witty cerebral quip.... I loves you too

Hey I loves you sometimes.

Just not this time.

But we'll kiss and make up soon.

I promise to make it worth your while.

 

[Tao_Equus]

What in the heck are you talking about?
Umbilical stem cells have nothing to do with cloning.

Unfortunately due to the virulent plethora of emotive junk from American pro-life groups a quick search for what I wanted to link to is impossible. But as far as I recall umbilical stem cells are the best to harvest for storage in the eventuality that a cloned organ of the child who's umbilical cord it was extracted from is required. The problem with that is that umbilical stem cells are few and far between.

Again I ask you Tao, are you referring to growing a clone of the child?

What is the difference between growing an organ or a full compliment of organs? Cute teddybear syndrome?

Nice side-step.

I been studying your style

No way. Cloning will likely create even more, imo.

So bet on it!!

OK, let's check this one:

Originally Posted by seattlegal
Have fun with the apoptosis you'll get.

How is this an illogical, emotive, knee-jerk reaction?

Because you use an emotive threat of unseen consequence due to some scientific "pop-tart" of chaos. It is a brand new science and you are laying down its laws like Moses forgot to in order to sell what is otherwise a selective emotive stance. You do do it rather well tho

 

[citizenzen]

What is the difference between growing an organ or a full compliment of organs? Cute teddybear syndrome?

It's not cute teddybear syndrome, it's nightmarish fiscal syndrome.

You've theoretically doubled the population in a world that already has trouble feeding and powering itself.

I know that you've said this is all going to occur "in the future" and I assume you're counting on these issues to somehow be solved as well, but it seems to me you haven't thought through all the implications of this technology that you've placed so much faith in.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I have? The storage of a few cells for need as required doubles population? Or were you thinking more like mandelbrotian fernlike skyscrapers of clones like in The Matrix?

 

[citizenzen]

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.

Your words.

That's more than a few cells.

Where will you move your target next?

It does make for a more interesting debate... always changing your stance.

 

[wil]

I know that you've said this is all going to occur "in the future" and I assume you're counting on these issues to somehow be solved as well, but it seems to me you haven't thought through all the implications of this technology that you've placed so much faith in.

In reading this thread...a couple of observations.

Inevtible, yup, unstoppable really. And if I was a bettin man and I am, I'd lay odds it has been attempted numerous times. Both to clone a human and to clone body parts. And it is being attempted as we speak and plans are currently being made to extend the research in this regard.

And no, niether Tao or I have thought through the implications, nor have the researchers or implimenters..they are simply proceeding with where science takes them. Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.

Just like bioengineering, frankenfoods, and every other mistake we humans have made...

Yes my Queen I'm out to find a shortcut to the orient....we've got a plan, we just don't know where we will land or what we will destroy when we get there...but we are going.

 

[seattlegal]

Unfortunately due to the virulent plethora of emotive junk from American pro-life groups a quick search for what I wanted to link to is impossible. But as far as I recall umbilical stem cells are the best to harvest for storage in the eventuality that a cloned organ of the child who's umbilical cord it was extracted from is required. The problem with that is that umbilical stem cells are few and far between.

What is the difference between growing an organ or a full compliment of organs? Cute teddybear syndrome?


I been studying your style


So bet on it!!



[/i]Because you use an emotive threat of unseen consequence due to some scientific "pop-tart" of chaos. It is a brand new science and you are laying down its laws like Moses forgot to in order to sell what is otherwise a selective emotive stance. You do do it rather well tho

Laying down laws like Moses? Here's an excerpt from Wiki's article on Mitochondrial disease:

The effects of mitochondrial disease can be quite varied. Since the distribution of defective DNA may vary from organ to organ within the body, the mutation that in one person may cause liver disease might in another person cause a brain disorder. In addition, the severity of the defect may be great or small. Some minor defects cause only "exercise intolerance", with no serious illness or disability. Other defects can more severely affect the operation of the mitochondria and can cause severe body-wide impacts.
As a general rule, mitochondrial diseases are worse when the defective mitochondria are present in the muscles, cerebrum, or nerves,[1] because these are the most energy-hungry cells of the body.
However, even though mitochondrial disease varies greatly in presentation from person to person, several major categories of the disease have been defined, based on the most common symptoms and the particular mutations that tend to cause them.​

There's your "pop-tart of chaos," Tao. I didn't make it up for emotive effect. It's real.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Your words.

That's more than a few cells.

Where will you move your target next?

It does make for a more interesting debate... always changing your stance.

I only attempt coherence. I never expect to always achieve it

 

[Tao_Equus]

Laying down laws like Moses? Here's an excerpt from Wiki's article on Mitochondrial disease:

The effects of mitochondrial disease can be quite varied. Since the distribution of defective DNA may vary from organ to organ within the body, the mutation that in one person may cause liver disease might in another person cause a brain disorder. In addition, the severity of the defect may be great or small. Some minor defects cause only "exercise intolerance", with no serious illness or disability. Other defects can more severely affect the operation of the mitochondria and can cause severe body-wide impacts.
As a general rule, mitochondrial diseases are worse when the defective mitochondria are present in the muscles, cerebrum, or nerves,[1] because these are the most energy-hungry cells of the body.
However, even though mitochondrial disease varies greatly in presentation from person to person, several major categories of the disease have been defined, based on the most common symptoms and the particular mutations that tend to cause them.​

There's your "pop-tart of chaos," Tao. I didn't make it up for emotive effect. It's real.

I never suggested you made it up! I meant, as I hope you will see with a re-read, that introducing highly specialised terms that you need a PHD to challenge is the issue and nothing if not a platform for the emotional response. If it was as clear cut impossible as you suggest they would not even be trying. DNA integrity is a challenge but it is not the brick wall you emote.

 

[Avi]

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.

Here is a nice review of membranes for biohybrid organ therapy:

Membranes for Life Sciences - Google Book Search

 

[seattlegal]

I never suggested you made it up! I meant, as I hope you will see with a re-read, that introducing highly specialised terms that you need a PHD to challenge is the issue and nothing if not a platform for the emotional response. If it was as clear cut impossible as you suggest they would not even be trying. DNA integrity is a challenge but it is not the brick wall you emote.

Is being skeptical being emotive? I didn't say that it was impossible. It's highly dangerous, and likely to cause more harm than any benefits it might provide. Just the "chaotic" (your term) property of mitochondrial disease alone should give anyone a reason to pause and reflect. The fact that salamander regeneration is all about location, and the need for complex regeneration from embryonic cells to be in situ (in salamanders, at least,) is another reason to give one pause regarding whole organ regeneration in a lab. If even an amateur like me can see this, why are these things being brushed off and being labeled as being emotive? It's not like I'm making this stuff up. However, when I see someone like Dr. Hwang falsifying data regarding human cloning, it makes me wonder why, and only adds to my skepticism. Just who is making things up and being emotive?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Is being skeptical being emotive? I didn't say that it was impossible. It's highly dangerous, and likely to cause more harm than any benefits it might provide. Just the "chaotic" (your term) property of mitochondrial disease alone should give anyone a reason to pause and reflect. The fact that salamander regeneration is all about location, and the need for complex regeneration from embryonic cells to be in situ (in salamanders, at least,) is another reason to give one pause regarding whole organ regeneration in a lab. If even an amateur like me can see this, why are these things being brushed off and being labeled as being emotive? It's not like I'm making this stuff up. However, when I see someone like Dr. Hwang falsifying data regarding human cloning, it makes me wonder why, and only adds to my skepticism. Just who is making things up and being emotive?

All I can say is what I have said. You, in my opinion, used a technical term or two to platform an emotional response to cloning. Perhaps rather than go round in circles with it tho you could make some effort to understand what I am saying?
There are charlatans ready to exploit the vulnerable in every walk of life. Not least amongst the religions which promote abhorrence of such progress. My belief is if humanity does reach some kind of utopian peace then genetics will be a big part of our lives. The kind of talk you come out with is akin to people who said trains will never work as we would not be able to breathe at 30mph.

The potential for abuse with the progress in genetics is obviously enormous and as the cat is out of the bag it will be - sooner or later - abused. There is no way to put the cat back in the bag. Do you want the emotive arguments that stifled progress in the US under the Bush regime to be maintained? Do you want China and Iran to plough forward with their programs while American doctors remain ignorant? Because they way I see things WW3 will not be nuclear it will be biological. Its start will look something like the cluster of deaths we see currently in Mexico. Viruses specifically tailored to particular genetic traits are being developed. Do you want your doctors to know where the potential threats are most likely or not? Because cloning tissues and understanding the processes are a part of the same science. We cannot afford to let emotionally inspired arguments inform our opinion on this. The west has to be at the forefront of knowledge.

 

[seattlegal]

All I can say is what I have said. You, in my opinion, used a technical term or two to platform an emotional response to cloning. Perhaps rather than go round in circles with it tho you could make some effort to understand what I am saying?

Are you saying that using scientific language for a scientific process is my way invoking an emotional response?

There are charlatans ready to exploit the vulnerable in every walk of life.

True. Hence, the need for skepticism.

Not least amongst the religions which promote abhorrence of such progress.

Has it occurred to you that you that you just might be behaving irrationally like someone who is having their personal beliefs/religion challenged?

My belief is if humanity does reach some kind of utopian peace then genetics will be a big part of our lives. The kind of talk you come out with is akin to people who said trains will never work as we would not be able to breathe at 30mph.

You just admitted that this is a personal belief of yours. Is it such a stretch then to question your reaction when contrary evidence is presented?

The potential for abuse with the progress in genetics is obviously enormous and as the cat is out of the bag it will be - sooner or later - abused. There is no way to put the cat back in the bag. Do you want the emotive arguments that stifled progress in the US under the Bush regime to be maintained?

What kind of progress has been accomplished outside the United States regarding human cloning, where it hasn't been "stifled?"

Do you want China and Iran to plough forward with their programs while American doctors remain ignorant? Because they way I see things WW3 will not be nuclear it will be biological. Its start will look something like the cluster of deaths we see currently in Mexico. Viruses specifically tailored to particular genetic traits are being developed. Do you want your doctors to know where the potential threats are most likely or not?

What does this have to do with human cloning?

Because cloning tissues and understanding the processes are a part of the same science. We cannot afford to let emotionally inspired arguments inform our opinion on this. The west has to be at the forefront of knowledge.

I think I got lost somewhere--you are trying to tie human cloning research to biological warfare, right? I'm having difficulty making this connection. I know that viruses can be utilized to "vector" genetic material into DNA strands. This is more of a genetic engineering thing than a cloning thing, though. Is this what you are referring to? Help me out, here.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Are you saying that using scientific language for a scientific process is my way invoking an emotional response?

True. Hence, the need for skepticism.

Has it occurred to you that you that you just might be behaving irrationally like someone who is having their personal beliefs/religion challenged?

You just admitted that this is a personal belief of yours. Is it such a stretch then to question your reaction when contrary evidence is presented?


What kind of progress has been accomplished outside the United States regarding human cloning, where it hasn't been "stifled?"

What does this have to do with human cloning?

I think I got lost somewhere--you are trying to tie human cloning research to biological warfare, right? I'm having difficulty making this connection. I know that viruses can be utilized to "vector" genetic material into DNA strands. This is more of a genetic engineering thing than a cloning thing, though. Is this what you are referring to? Help me out, here.

When you can understand how to perfect cloning you understand how genetics work and where the potential vulnerabilities lay. The development of knowledge in cloning is not just about creating body parts or Frankenstein facsimiles.

 

[wil]

When you can understand how to perfect cloning you understand how genetics work and where the potential vulnerabilities lay. The development of knowledge in cloning is not just about creating body parts or Frankenstein facsimiles.

Perfect Cloning... when they were working on sheep, prior to Dolly, a whole lot of mistakes were thrown in the garbage...imagine that with humans...