Double Your Pleasure: Cloning

By John Cabrera on Feb 11 2009

Comments (38)

38 Responses to “Double Your Pleasure: Cloning”

1. DJSmackMackey on 11 Feb 2009 at 12:34 pm #

   

   I’m not sure I even see the point in cloning. Cloning organs for transplant is one thing, but cloning the whole being? Hardly seems necessary. People are still having sex, right?
   If you can clone organs, that is something worth pursuing. Especially if they can clone cow, pig, and chicken muscle as a meat substitutes. then we can stop killing them, and not over breed and mistreat them.

2. SamanthaJackson on 11 Feb 2009 at 12:36 pm #

   

   Since to me “soul” is not a spirit, but it just means the life in the human/animal, yes, a clone would have a soul.

   But for the whole cloning debate, I don’t have a strong position about it.I see it could be useful for some medical purposes, but I find it dangerous on so many levels.

3. John Cabrera on 11 Feb 2009 at 12:44 pm #

   

   I just added a small addition to the post.

4. Manos Torgo on 11 Feb 2009 at 12:45 pm #

   

   One of the earliest memories I have of going to the movies is of seeing “Boys From Brazil” and ever since then I’ve found this subject fascinating. I too am a proponent of science and technology being used to advance mankind. But regardless of all the theological arguments or scientific arguments, the greatest influence on my opposition to cloning comes from DC Comics mini series about Krypton in the late ’80s.

   As geeky as that sounds, its stuck with me since then as a cautionary tale of man fighting against the natural order of things.If I pay to have a clone made to harvest body parts, then I “own” that clone, reducing it to slavery.

   I am not religious, but I do believe that there is an essence, call it the soul, which is unique to each living being. Even a physically perfect copy of me, would have different environmental influences thereby creating a different and unique experience than the one that resulted in my pyschology, which means it would have different thoughts/feelings and its own soul.

   Gene therapy to repair natural aging to our bodies it much more “natural” scientific answer than creating a new living entity.

5. SamanthaJackson on 11 Feb 2009 at 12:50 pm #

   

   No, he wouldn’t (since I don’t believe in fate anyway )

6. Vanessa on 11 Feb 2009 at 1:01 pm #

   

   I do not believe cloning for reproductive purposes is ethical or necessary really. The unnecessary part is easier to argue because 1. Yes, people are still making babies the old fashioned way (which is way more fun than any of the scientific ways, at least no one has come up with anything to rival that in fertility science that I know of) 2. For those who have difficulty conceiving, there are already several fertility treatment options available and 3. There are so many children out there who really need and want families (there is a feeling of irresponsibility when it comes to adding people to the earth through cloning when these children who already exist are just being left behind.) Point number three also poses the question of is this even ethical? At what point are we just spitting in nature’s face? What is the consequence of that? Cloning for therapeutic reasons is a completely different story. The advances that can be made in science and medicine with cloning are amazing. We could improve the quality of lives, cure illnesses, save lives… I do believe there should be a reasonable line drawn, but I suppose the question is where would that be?

7. Steffany on 11 Feb 2009 at 1:51 pm #

   

   Not that you have to post this…. You moderate comments right? Anyways, funny thing is that this has been running through my head all week:

8. Manos Torgo on 11 Feb 2009 at 1:56 pm #

   

   I don’t want to argue the “slippery slope” but reconstructive surgery would lead us to today’s cosmetic surgery. For which I’d say things have gotten a bit out of hand.
   This “octuplet” mom is a prime example of lack of oversight in reasonable techniques not being applied in a reasonable way.
   Plus I wonder at how today’s solutions become tomorrow’s problems. (Overuse of anti-biotics leading to resistant strains, DDT,Asbestos,etc.)
   Thats where I think discussions like this can be healthy to help us define those lines in how scientific advances are applied.

9. John Cabrera on 11 Feb 2009 at 2:14 pm #

   

   Steffany… umm… where’s the rest of your comment? LOL. It just ended at the colon. Did you back out at the last second.

10. Rae on 11 Feb 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    

    I generally come down on the side of not supporting cloning. Though I’m not completely against stem cell research. I just don’t understand why we need to clone entire human beings. At the end of the day, it smacks too much like playing at being a God to me. I’m not even sure it’s the cloning itself or the clones that are my issue. I just worry how that power would be used. We have enough problems with the population we’ve got now, I’m not sure the world needs yet another way to create more of us.

    As for souls… you’ll all laugh at me but I immediately thought of the movie Multiplicity when considering that question. I think it comes closest to portraying how I think cloning would work. While clones may be identical in every phsyical way, I don’t think you could ever make an exact replica of someone. But, if I’m being honest, I don’t know if I think that’s scientifically true or if I just hope that’s the truth because I want to believe we all have something about us that makes us unique.

    Is believing in the inevitable the same as believing in fate? I certainly make flippant remarks about “it wasn’t destined to be” but I really only believe in eventual inevitable: death. Obiviously we can’t control everything in life but we can control our reactions to things and I think that’s where we decide our own journey. Much like I don’t believe there are right or wrong choices, just choices. It’s what we do after we make a choice that determines whether it ends up being right or wrong. Anyway, this is getting too philosophical and if I think about it too much I may change my mind. Regarding clones, I think if the outside influences on my clone are the same as they are on me then there is a good chance we would make all of the same choices and therefore may share the same or a similar path in life. However, I think that would be a very rare thing indeed, as it’s very hard to control outside influences and once you’ve created a clone, she’s bound to experience something different than I would. Once we had enough different experiences, we may make different choices. Maybe not right away but eventually. So, no, I don’t think fate would be cloned as well.

11. kelseroo on 11 Feb 2009 at 2:39 pm #

    

    I am against cloning. I think it crosses a line. There is a point where science goes too far. Even good things can become bad if not done with balance or the right motive.

12. John Cabrera on 11 Feb 2009 at 2:40 pm #

    

    Interesting. What about the possibility that “experience” somehow exists in our DNA… in some hard to recognize form? That there’s something unique about each of us that attracts the things/experiences we have in life. In that way, “fate” would be programmed. We might not notice because the natural order of things – everyone’s different programming working together to create an illusion of coincidence and fate and destiny – that natural order hasn’t been disturbed yet.

13. Viv on 11 Feb 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    

    I thought of cloning in a different way.
    More like having spare parts in case I need them OR a new vessel to be “downloaded” into once my body decides to die. kind of a way to live forever by just downloading my memories from my actual brain and placed in the new brain. (see it as a format of the hard drive.. but being placed in a new body that is young and healthy.)

    I believe that our soul is energy that can be transfered into a new vessel, so loosing an old shell to be placed in a new shell would be awesome. And since it is a clone of you, which has been asleep until you need it, it will pick up where you left off with your old body, ready to allow you to continue to explore life with a fresh start

14. John Cabrera on 11 Feb 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    

    But Manos, it’s a really difficult line to draw. Most people can see a clear difference between a fully cloned animal and, let’s say, a cloned set of neurological pathways for an Alzheimer’s sufferer. But the research and tests to get us to either… well that looks the same to me.

15. John Cabrera on 11 Feb 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    

    Viv, I actually did exactly what you’re talking about with one of my computers recently. My hard drive was failing so I had everything cloned onto a new drive. When I started everything up again, it looked exactly the same. My desktop icons were all in the same place, everything in the right folders, etc. BUT….. after about a month I started noticing some problems… namely a lot of software didn’t work. The companies that sold them to me only allowed a certain number of keys… and this was being viewed as a new system. Drivers didn’t function the same…. A bunch of stuff that at first glance you wouldn’t notice.

    So what similar problems could arise? For instance, our bodies rely on other symbiotic organisms… bacteria in our stomachs to help us digest, for one. Do we need to clone that stuff too? Will our old mind recognize it?

16. Lauren W on 11 Feb 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    

    I, personally, have never chosen a side on the subject of cloning. I think I am more towards the negative aspects of it because the only positive thing I like about it, is just that it’s a cool technological advance and using it could lead to other new technology that might be needed later on. I have never thought about whether or not cloning would be morally correct or anyway of putting the two together. Now that I think about it, I guess the main reason why I have never chosen a side is that I don’t see the main point in cloning or cloning humans I should say. Why do we want to clone humans? What will that give us? What does it do? We are our own individuals and I just don’t see what cloning a human will give us other than being able to say we have and know how to. I guess I just need to know there reason behind cloning, what are they trying to find? Until I know that, I’m just stuck with so many questions and uncertainty.

17. Vanessa on 11 Feb 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    

    Just to point out (related to experience existing in our DNA)… it has been noted that recipients of donated organs have noticed changes in their “personality”/likes & dislikes… etc… For instance, one patient received an organ from a donor and suddenly had a strong love of spicy food which she previously could not stand… the donor really loved spicy food. Was this food preference in his DNA and subsequently transferred into her body where it was strong enough to manifest itself, or was a part of his “soul” transferred with the organ? Patients have changed their smoking status, or suddenly changed hobbies or activities to those of their donor without prior knowledge of these traits in their donors. Just another layer to think about.

18. Manos Torgo on 11 Feb 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    

    Oh I certainly believe that we should conduct the tests & research. Much like we have created atomic weapons, but only used them twice…as such we can get to the point of knowing exactly how to clone, without actually proceeding to do so. But the human ability to restrain itself is tenuous at best….in 1962 or even 1982 it wasn’t clear if we would use nuclear weapons or not.

    My example of reconstructive surgery leading to cosmetic surgery serves to illustrate your point about Alzheimer’s. Reconstructive surgery for birth defects, accidents,etc are justified to me as is using the science of cloning to heal/treat disease. But creating actual clones equates to cosmetic nose/breast jobs for 18yr old girls “unhappy” with their looks.

    Regards to fate…I do believe that there is such a thing as “genetic memory”, in that some experiences of our ancestors are imprinted in our genes. A duplicate copy of me takes a different route to work, has a different experience than me. We therefore diverge in a small way, further magnified as experiences diverge. At first we process those experiences in similar ways, but the chasm between us grows as these build up.

    Hmm, if i DID have a clone he could help organize and type my many thoughts on this subject.

19. John Cabrera on 11 Feb 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    

    Vanessa, yes that’s basically what I was getting at with the memory thing. But I also think Manos has an interesting point about the experiences of other in our lineage somehow making it into our DNA. I’d even go a step further and ask this: Could these programmed memories/past experiences also in some way determine what we’ll actually experience in our life… who we will meet… what we will attract?

20. John Cabrera on 11 Feb 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    

    Lauren, yeah. I hear you.

21. Vanessa on 11 Feb 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    

    Manos is onto something with the past experiences written into genetic code. Babies are, more often than not, afraid of men with deep voices, facial hair (the bigger and hairier the more frightening) and a pediatrician once pointed out to me that this is a trait that began “back in the day” when babies had to be afraid of big, hairy, grumbly things because they were big animals coming to eat them (not men, actual animals like bears). This seems preprogrammed from ancestors experiences, since, I’d venture to say, most kids today don’t have to fear being eaten by a wild animal and do not have the experience of having their life threatened by wildlife. So their ancestors negative associations with the big, hairy, grumbly things shows itself when that man with a big scruffy beard and deep voice saying “Hey there!” and reaching his big hand out toward the baby makes them cry. At least that was this docs theory, and it makes sense if you subscribe to Manos’ theory of experience imprints being passed along through generations.

22. Mac Tonnies on 11 Feb 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    

    I’m pro-human cloning, but the ethical issues are abundant and fairly daunting. The very word “clone” conjures up scenarios from dystopian science fiction; I think it’s important to remember that a clone is, quite simply, a twin. For that reason alone, I see little use attempting to resolve metaphysical disputes about the validity of a human “soul” (for lack of a better term).

    I most definitely favor cloning as a therapeutic technology over using it as a means of reproduction . . . but I can envision circumstances where individuals might choose to clone themselves instead of having children the “normal” way — and who am I to condemn it?

    Bruce Sterling has suggested that the first generation of clones is likely to be an angsty bunch. My guess is that he’s right!

23. John Cabrera on 11 Feb 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    

    Hmm… but twins each have their own unique DNA. In the case of a clone, the DNA would be exactly the same as it’s cell donor, no? So not exactly a twin.

    And I don’t think the dispute is over the validity of a human soul but whether “‘human spirit” (for lack of a better term ) is in some way programmed in our DNA. And if so… I’m curious how that might affect the clone and the cell donor?

24. Mac Tonnies on 12 Feb 2009 at 12:03 am #

    

    My own take on spirituality is that consciousness is more like a wave than a particle (to borrow a couple terms from quantum physics). Maybe the brain doesn’t create consciousness so much as tap into it, like a radio picking up a station.

    If that’s the case, we might find that clones experience more telepathic rapport than traditional twins. That would be a radical discovery indeed.

25. John Cabrera on 12 Feb 2009 at 12:09 am #

    

    Boom. That’s what I was getting at.

26. Manos Torgo on 12 Feb 2009 at 12:34 am #

    

    But do you suppose an identical genetic twin fully grown or a clone that is basically a newborn? In either regard one cannot simply clone memory/experiences. For the sake of this discussion I would assume we are talking about slight extention based on what has been done with animals.
    So I would not consider that if I raise my clone that it would be my twin, no he would be my son in most aspects. The social dynamic would be very different. Now go back to a fully grown twin suddenly appearing in this respect my clone and I did not grow up together. How do we get along? Like long lost brothers? If I paid for the process will there not be a sense of ownership or at least “I was here first” and am therefore of slightly more importance?
    These relationship dynamics will determine the ethical questions much like those dealing with slavery.

27. PDX Pup on 12 Feb 2009 at 12:36 am #

    

    This post did not go where I thought it would after the first sentence. I read “Doublemint” and immediately thought of Chris Brown.

    That said, after reading through your thoughts I recall growing up and learning about every human being’s potential and their individuality. I remember the comparison between humans and snowflakes (no two are alike) was always drawn upon as a metaphor when learning about human biology, etc., throughout grade school and high school. I can’t help but think that individuality is our fundamental essence; knowing that you are absolutely unique to anyone else on the planet (even in the case of a twin) is an undercurrent to every thought and action that carries you through life. I get the benefits of stem cell research and all that and am all for it, but to go the lengths of actually cloning ME? Well, that takes away my individuality, my uniqueness, and no longer makes me “special” (for lack of a better word). That clone would have different thoughts and experiences (“growing up” with the technology I didn’t, etc.), so we wouldn’t really be the same person, just exact DNA replicas…no longer made unique by our genetic makeup because we are carbon copies.

    I guess what I’m trying to say is, you can always get a friend’s burned copy of a cd or dvd or what have you, and and it’s a complete, legit copy in every single way, but it’s not exactly the same as owning the real thing, is it?

28. Mac Tonnies on 12 Feb 2009 at 1:43 am #

    

    There are some interesting case studies on twins out there that suggest that they are, in fact, the “same person” (at least on a certain level). While genes can account for a lot of behavioral similarities, there are correspondences that imply that the universe is holographic and acausal.

    Unfortunately, the phenomenon is extraordinarily difficult to study, as one first has to locate two long-separated twins.

29. Steffany on 12 Feb 2009 at 5:58 am #

    

    Sorry…. I tried to post the link to “Clonie” by Nellie McKay. Maybe this time it will work?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcekEfoVfBo

    Maybe????

30. Marmalady on 12 Feb 2009 at 7:42 am #

    

    Wow this is quite the discussion! =)

    I’ll add just a couple of points:
    1) I don’t think “perfect cloning” of a person is or will ever possible. Part of what makes a person who they are is their DNA, yes, but also their experiences. Growing up, children’s personalities shift based on their experiences, i.e. whether they were accepted or rejected by peers, parents, siblings ect. Some children are extroverted, but as they grow up, based on their experiences, they become introverted adults or visa-versa.

    Another example is taste. If my older sisters had never watched the original Star Trek while I was a baby, and my middle sister hadn’t loved TNG when I was a teen, I would have never become the fan that I am. It was my sisters’ influence and acts that helped expose me to these things, which helped define my interest in sci-fi, and TV culture and so on.

    A clone may have the same DNA as me, but it will never have my experiences. Its “childhood” or “development” will be completely different than mine. Which will have a great influence on the clone’s tastes and personality. So we would still be different people.

    So I guess my point is that while experiences are not related to DNA, they are a great factor in the development of a person. And that can never be replicated.

    2) If you are a religious person who believes that the “soul” is a part of a person that is “given” to them and is completely separate from the mind and spirit of a person, then idea of a clone begs the question, where is the clone going to get a soul from?

    3) Are we assuming that with Human Cloning we will have already worked out the perfect way of doing it? Because as of yet, even with animals, the complications that have occurred are astronomical.

    Part of the reason (as it was explained to me by my sister’s PhD adviser in genetics, who was aiming to clone a fly) is “age”. When you take DNA from an adult to clone, that DNA has already “aged” a certain number of years. Then you implant that “aged” DNA into an embryo and a baby is born at Day 1 with the DNA of an adult.
    So let’s say the adult is 45 and was due to develop Alzheimer at age 65. Unless we are aware of it, and “erase” it out of the clone’s DNA, that clone could suffer Alzheimer at 20 years old, because by then their DNA is actually 65. And this could happen with literally 1000′s of different conditions and illnesses.

    All together it seems to me that human cloning could open up a whole new Pandora’s box of evils on us. (This would make an amazing The Outer Limits episode!)

    All that being said, I do believe in medical cloning of organs to save lives. In this case, we’re not creating a being, and running into the same issues of development as above.

    =)
    (Sorry for the long posting)

31. Ron Curry on 12 Feb 2009 at 12:10 pm #

    

    Hmm. Whole human cloning. What exactly is the purpose behind this? I read in one of the comments about slave clones and growing them to harvest their organs (like Ewen McGregor popping out of a hole in the ground and confronting his host, how crazy would that be by the way?). I’m not sure that backup liver donor reason has a lot of weight to it, only because it would be much easier and efficient to just clone the necessary organ. That’s like growing a fully matured apple tree and cutting it down each time you want an apple.

    No, I think the reason this is even a consideration.. the human cloning.. is because man is just curious and explorative by nature. We’re always pushing the boundaries of known science, just to see if it can be done. Like going to the Moon. Did we really go to play golf, plant a flag and pick up a couple rocks? We could have just sent them down to Key West. No, we wanted to do it just for the sake of doing it (and to beat the Ruskies there, in addition to mastering rocket science for dual purpose).

    Science is about discovery, and what amazing discoveries we’ve made. In the 19th century, we were banging spikes into the ground for steam powered locomotives. In the 20th century we harnessed the power of the atom. What shenanigans will we get into during the 21st century?! I love it. LOVE IT!

    Having said all that, here’s my personal opinion on the questions posed: I don’t think human cloning is a bad thing, per se. But I do think it’s pointless, and generally a waste of time and resources that could go to.. curing cancer for instance. We’ve already mapped the entire human genome. That alone should be enough proof that we have the means and knowledge to grow humans in a petri dish if we needed to (still can’t think of any good reason to make a photocopy of yourself, except to slip out of country and let your Madoff 2.0 take the fall).

    As for the question of a soul, well I suppose that can only be answered according to one’s religious beliefs or what they consider a soul to be. I think any living human has a soul, but I don’t think a clone would have a cloned soul, nor do I believe it would have a common past or future with the original host. We are a product of our experiences and our environments, imho.

32. Michelle on 12 Feb 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    

    Wow read all the comments and alot of thought went into them.

    I really like the person’s view that posted ahead of me (Ron Curry) We pretty much have the same humble opinion.
    So what he said.

33. John Cabrera on 12 Feb 2009 at 4:24 pm #

    

    Steffany, sorry, I accidentally overlooked your comment earlier.

    Anyway, thanks for sharing with us. I love “Clonie”!

34. Jodi Lane on 13 Feb 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    

    I do see there being an issue if they were to clone a person, and then the person have physical or mental impairments to the point where they were totally handicapped or disabled. THAT would be problematic simply because humans would have created a copied human that is going to have to live a distressed life. Of course, most definitely, this cloned person would be taken care of by the government because it would be their fault, however, another thing I fear with cloning is that once the clone was born and people knew about it, they would immediately treat the person different and possibly treat them as if they were handicapped or “an experiment” even if they were perfectly normal and perfectly healthy. That would be a large issue because that can determine a person’s total outcome in social development. As a criminology major, I know how “labeling” can affect a person’s adult development and turn them from one extreme to another. Good or Bad.

    I don’t necessarily have any issues with cloning itself, I feel as though God would give humans the ability to do anything they’re doing at this point, after all he can control what we do more than we know. Since we cannot explain all of those things we just have to try to do things morally and not create clones just for the “fun” or “cool” aspect of it. Perhaps creating a clone would be more for people who cannot have children or if they do have children, they know their child will suffer from a certain ailment or disease. That would be justifiable in my book. Or another really positive thing about cloning would be for the outcomes of it, and to see or prove how different a clone would be from the parent even though they’re supposedly entirely identical in biological makeup. That could prove they have a separate soul.

    I do believe that every living being, so to speak, has a soul. I feel like if I can interact with someone, enjoy being around someone’s personality, and actually care about them-they have a soul. If something does not have a soul-you certainly cannot fall in love with it. That’s just my little opinion in the spiritual realm of speaking.

    I know that when I grow a plant (I love growing roses during the spring/summer), the plant has special sentimental value because I had to nurture it to keep it alive, however, I do not feel that a plant has a soul because I cannot necessarily fall in love with it. I may joke about how “I love my flowers” but you literally cannot fall in love with something of THAT nature. I’m not speaking of “falling in love” on a level of love in a relationship aspect, I mean love in terms of friendships, relationships, and the love you have in a family.

    I do feel like animals can have a soul if you interact with them as well, because its clear that animals love you back, especially when you come home and your kitty or doggie comes to greet you-that’s a pretty good feeling for most people that own pets. You hear people all the time, “My dogs are my children.” That’s because they fell in love with them as family.

    So-with all that being said, I feel like the clones would have a soul if you can interact, love, and care for them. Meaning, just because we CHOSE for them to grow like I choose for my roses to grow…does not mean that you cannot interact with them. I cannot interact with my roses, but if theoretically I chose for a clone to be “constructed” I would definitely be able to love (or hate) that being. So the summary thesis here is that, If I can interact with the clone as a loving being, then yes-it would have a soul.

    I hope this was not to long and drawn out but, that’s the only way to discuss a topic of this nature. I have a really good topic idea for you-I may send it to you via Myspace if you’re interested!!!

35. Jodi Lane on 13 Feb 2009 at 5:15 pm #

    

    Marmalady,
    I appreciated your explanation of DNA of an older adult being given to the baby, and how that would affect them while developing. That is so true. I’m no expert in DNA, but I’ve take a few forensic psychology classes for my Bach degree, that does have a lot to do with DNA, and it would definitely prove to be a huge disadvantage for the clone if the DNA was taken from an adult, or from a child if we were unaware of their susceptibilities. Pandora’s box is a great way to describe the issues that would come along with this.

36. Ron Curry on 14 Feb 2009 at 7:11 am #

    

    In regards to Jodi’s last to posts:

    First off, you said, “If something does not have a soul-you certainly cannot fall in love with it.” However, to that ends I offer this, “I LOVE LAMP.” Seriously though, it’s great that you equate soul with love. More people should do that.

    Now for the serious.

    In your second post you referenced the topic of taking DNA from adult hosts and applying it to a clone. And I understood your statement and tone to mean that you think it’s not a good idea.

    Here’s the thing, DNA are just instructions, plain and simple. It continually replicates itself (and thereby continues to produce various types of cells as per the instructions). Providing the DNA has not been altered or mutated (by means of super spiders and such) it will continue to replicate the same instructions from the moment the life cycle started until the instant it ceases. The entire DNA has been mapped, and therefore, like with computers, each instruction can either be on or off. Red hair? On. Blue eyes? On. Furry feet? Off. This is the ability we have. We can give the instructions and create (or correct) DNA sequences as part of a cloning process.

    And, in my understanding, this is the reason why people might consider cloning.

    In my earlier comment, I said I couldn’t think of any good reason for human cloning. But after thinking it over some more, I suppose there are plenty of reasons, all of them circumstantial and situational. Here’s one.

    Imagine having a child die because of a disease that was created by genetic defect. Human cloning could feasibly allow that same child (not a new child) to be reborn, sans the disease. I won’t get into the emotional or psychological affects that can have, nor the spiritual or moral ramifications (we’ve got plenty of time and space on John’s page here to discuss that), but I’ll just leave it at what it is -one of many possible reasons why humans could conceivably be cloned.

    Finally, I’ll leave you all with this. It’s ten and a half minutes of my hero Carl Sagan’s Cosmos program from 1980. Not only does he break down DNA, but he talks about the “disquieting and awesome” prospect of humans being able to assemble DNA in any sequence they desired, which at the time he made the show was not a possibility. Give it a look.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOd0wcdUNjs

37. John Cabrera on 14 Feb 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    

    Thanks for sharing that Ron!

    I think what Jody was pointing out is how experiments in animal cloning have yielded strange results. Some that seem related to the fact that the DNA was coming from an adult animal. Dolly the sheep aged at an extremely rapid pace, and some scientist assume that by starting with an aged cell (one with DNA that had already had a large part of it’s life span programing executed) the creature had a confused biology, and suffered physical, perhaps even emotional pain because of that.

    Also, remember, just like software in computers, DNA can become slightly corrupt (for lack of a better comparison), damaged, altered over a lifespan. Perhaps this is a natural way organisms function. Meaning that these slight changes to its DNA structure are something the organism can handle at various stages in it’s lifespan. But taking that modified DNA to start life anew could have strange outcomes.

    I have no doubt, science would be able to leap those hurdles and clone healthy, happy animals… but Jody’s concern (and mine as well, I have to say) is the pain and sacrifice by unwilling participants of that scientific progress; all the crippled mistakes along the way.

38. Ron Curry on 14 Feb 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    

    That’s a valid concern, to be sure.

    Much has been lost in scientific discovery. If you look at our space program and consider the number of astronauts we’ve lost in the pursuit of space research, you would be of suspect mental capacity if you did NOT begin to question the merit of gaining that knowledge when compared to the expense in terms of the human toll.

    I think that’s because we, correctly, put a very high value on human life and humanity.

    So your concern (and Jodi’s) is valid, just, and admirable. And I share that concern.

    But I suppose another question to add here now would be: Do the risks associated with the pursuit of this particular scientific endeavor -such that we may fail to achieve satisfactory results, or worse yet achieve unexpected or undesirable results- mean that we should abandon this line of research?

    I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck that the scientific community and the academia would probably argue that it’s worth the risk. But I suppose that would be based on what they think are the actual gains to be made from this pursuit.

    Going back to the beginning of this post, and excluding the example reason I suggested in my last comment, I guess I’m still at a loss as to why entire human cloning could be necessary, versus cloning organs or using gene therapy.

    In retrospect, my last comment actually veered from cloning to engineering. Even though they’re quite related, I feel like I strayed from the topic. A thousand apologies

    More food for thought: Statistically, I wonder what the percentage of DNA change or mutation from an engineered clone (aged or not) which resulted in defect would be in comparison to that of non-engineered humans? If the difference is negligible, then would it allay some of the concerns over the science? If there is a staggering difference in defects between a test group of engineered to non-engineered, then I agree that the science could do with a lot more research before considering the prime-time main event of cloning an entire human.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

No fields are required... but at least give us a name.
name

email (will not be shown or shared)

website