The Energon Pub

I'm watching arnie's the sixth day, and despite it being taking a fantastic approach to the science it's got me thinking, why is cloning such a big deal? why is there such a frankenstein complex about it? is it inherently evil, or just a tool? and why isn't there such a big deal over the FDA approving eating meat from cloned animals?

Well, any tool can be used for evil.

However, there isn't a huge fuss about this, because approving meat from cloned animals to be used, doesn't interfere with bible-thumping beliefs at the moment.

People are ok with cloning animals. But when human testing comes around, or the suggestion of human testing comes about. People will be going "clones are spawn of the devil" "they be soulless creatures those clones!"

Tammuz wrote:why is there such a frankenstein complex about it?

Because it's creating man-made human lives in laboratories and getting really excited when it's alive.


And sixth day is awesome. "I'm all thumbs today..."

People don't really understand cloning, anyway.

All a clone would be would be is younger twin.
Oh noes ! Twins ! Run to the ills !

Creature SH wrote:People don't really understand cloning, anyway.

All a clone would be would be is younger twin.
Oh noes ! Twins ! Run to the ills !

Well, not just a twin.

But more-so a "get out of death free" card as well.

With a cloning process, if someone ends up needing a organ transplanted, what better donor than your own clone?

Granted, this brings up questions, if the disease is genetic, would the clone be in the same boat anyway, or would the clone's organs be free and clear?

But clone a person, make em comatose, keep em alive, and you got a good ol' fashioned organ farm waiting for when you need it.

Cloning would be awesome.

Beautifully unethical, too, though.

Creature SH wrote:Beautifully unethical, too, though.

Well that would depend. If the clone came out with all it's functions. Hey, you got a twin.

However, if the clone was "born" brain-dead. There you go, organs for you if you need em.

Edit: Also, if you look at the waiting list for organs. It's huge. However, if instead of waiting on a compatible donor to pop up, you could have a clone just waiting in the wings to give you that heart you so desperately need, or a new liver, or spleen.

if the diseases is genentic then the clone will have the same problems, however you could take your DNA, PCR it up, and recombine it with some one whose doesn't have the mutant(aslong as we know wheare the mutation is), and then grow up just the organ you need. Probably by artificially repressing some HOX genes and their homologues.

cloning the whole of you would be a waste, and not really very useful since you'd have to wait almost 2 decades for it to be ready. just growing the individual spare parts would be better. and probably more ethically acceptable(seeing as i can't rationally justify my arm having a seperate soul)

Tammuz wrote:if the diseases is genentic then the clone will have the same problems, however you could take your DNA, PCR it up, and recombine it with some one whose doesn't have the mutant(aslong as we know wheare the mutation is), and then grow up just the organ you need. Probably by artificially repressing some HOX genes and their homologues.

cloning the whole of you would be a waste, and not really very useful since you'd have to wait almost 2 decades for it to be ready. just growing the individual spare parts would be better. and probably more ethically acceptable(seeing as i can't rationally justify my arm having a separate soul)

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. Cloning just the organs themselves wouldn't fetch as much of a fuss as compared to cloning an entire human being.

Although the whole cloning a entire human, and speed growing it to adult-hood would be pretty spiffy of an option for those who want a brother.

Or would offer a good option for people looking to have a kid but doesn't want to adopt, can't get artificially inseminated, and the like.

But then that brings up entirely different arguments, such as "why are we building(cloning) more humans when there are so many in the world already?"

Senor Hugo wrote:
Or would offer a good option for people looking to have a kid but doesn't want to adopt, can't get artificially inseminated, and the like.

But then that brings up entirely different arguments, such as "why are we building(cloning) more humans when there are so many in the world already?"

while it would genetically idnetical it's not a replacement for the first child, just another child.

and as for the second point why are we conceiving more humans when their are so many in world already?

Tammuz wrote:
and as for the second point why are we conceiving more humans when their are so many in world already?

Because making them is so much fun!

Seriously though, I don't see the point of cloning organs and other things when the field of stem cells continues to grow.

I figure, why grow a new one, when you can fix the old one.

I have heard that cloning an animal (or a human) is very hard. A lot of times the clone dies while an embryo or a fetus, or dies soon after birth. If you are lucky to have the clone survive, a lot of times its genes don't work properly. They either fail to "activate" at all or they "activate" too much. Or they are defective, and the products they produce are defective. If they get through all this, they will eventually die young. Their telemeres (the things at the end of chromosomes that determine lifespan) are already shortened. If the clone was made from the cells taken from an animal 3 years old, that clone will have 3 years deducted already from its own lifespan. Plus for some reason clones tend to get really obese. These are the major reasons why cloning humans is wrong.

Zombie Starscream wrote:I have heard that cloning an animal (or a human) is very hard. A lot of times the clone dies while an embryo or a fetus, or dies soon after birth. If you are lucky to have the clone survive, a lot of times its genes don't work properly. They either fail to "activate" at all or they "activate" too much. Or they are defective, and the products they produce are defective. If they get through all this, they will eventually die young. Their telemeres (the things at the end of chromosomes that determine lifespan) are already shortened. If the clone was made from the cells taken from an animal 3 years old, that clone will have 3 years deducted already from its own lifespan. Plus for some reason clones tend to get really obese. These are the major reasons why cloning humans is wrong.

actually that's not held up in practice; Dolly actually had extended telomeres, as did all of the cloned cattle, which is quite interesting and probably could lead to anti-aging applications.

I assume that their is some mechanism in the ovum that extends telomeres/tandem repeats, cos if their wasn't then the chomosome from the sperm/ovum would also only have as as many tandem repeats as its pearant at the time of it's creator, which means that the maternal chomosome would always have longer telomere's than the father(as a lifetimes supply of ovums are produced in female foetuses and generally go through about 6 divisions, but sperm are created daily so have roughly the same number of diviosions as the rest of the cells in an organism.)

I totally agree that the many attempts are problematic, though this is the first i've heard of the obesity problem...

Tammuz wrote:

Zombie Starscream wrote:I have heard that cloning an animal (or a human) is very hard. A lot of times the clone dies while an embryo or a fetus, or dies soon after birth. If you are lucky to have the clone survive, a lot of times its genes don't work properly. They either fail to "activate" at all or they "activate" too much. Or they are defective, and the products they produce are defective. If they get through all this, they will eventually die young. Their telemeres (the things at the end of chromosomes that determine lifespan) are already shortened. If the clone was made from the cells taken from an animal 3 years old, that clone will have 3 years deducted already from its own lifespan. Plus for some reason clones tend to get really obese. These are the major reasons why cloning humans is wrong.

actually that's not held up in practice; Dolly actually had extended telomeres, as did all of the cloned cattle, which is quite interesting and probably could lead to anti-aging applications.

I assume that their is some mechanism in the ovum that extends telomeres/tandem repeats, cos if their wasn't then the chomosome from the sperm/ovum would also only have as as many tandem repeats as its pearant at the time of it's creator, which means that the maternal chomosome would always have longer telomere's than the father(as a lifetimes supply of ovums are produced in female foetuses and generally go through about 6 divisions, but sperm are created daily so have roughly the same number of diviosions as the rest of the cells in an organism.)

I totally agree that the many attempts are problematic, though this is the first i've heard of the obesity problem...

Found the article he must be talking about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/ ... 2453.shtml

So they get obese. So they'll fit right in with most of the american population.

I don't see why cloning humans is wrong just because they'll turn out fat.

Hell, every scientific en devour had it's kinks along the way. Edison didn't successfully make the light-bulb on his first try.

rather have cybernetics anyway, why grow a new one, when you can build a better one?


then again, anyone read transmetropolitan? two words, long pig.

Grendel wrote:rather have cybernetics anyway, why grow a new one, when you can build a better one?


then again, anyone read transmetropolitan? two words, long pig.

Cybernetic grafting, at least where limbs are concerned, is becoming very successful. Transhuman fantasies, here I come...

Tammuz wrote:

Zombie Starscream wrote:I have heard that cloning an animal (or a human) is very hard. A lot of times the clone dies while an embryo or a fetus, or dies soon after birth. If you are lucky to have the clone survive, a lot of times its genes don't work properly. They either fail to "activate" at all or they "activate" too much. Or they are defective, and the products they produce are defective. If they get through all this, they will eventually die young. Their telemeres (the things at the end of chromosomes that determine lifespan) are already shortened. If the clone was made from the cells taken from an animal 3 years old, that clone will have 3 years deducted already from its own lifespan. Plus for some reason clones tend to get really obese. These are the major reasons why cloning humans is wrong.

actually that's not held up in practice; Dolly actually had extended telomeres, as did all of the cloned cattle, which is quite interesting and probably could lead to anti-aging applications.

I assume that their is some mechanism in the ovum that extends telomeres/tandem repeats, cos if their wasn't then the chomosome from the sperm/ovum would also only have as as many tandem repeats as its pearant at the time of it's creator, which means that the maternal chomosome would always have longer telomere's than the father(as a lifetimes supply of ovums are produced in female foetuses and generally go through about 6 divisions, but sperm are created daily so have roughly the same number of diviosions as the rest of the cells in an organism.)

I totally agree that the many attempts are problematic, though this is the first i've heard of the obesity problem...

So the ovum has some way of extending telemeres, even in the nucleus taken from a donor's skin cell?

Zombie Starscream wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Zombie Starscream wrote:I have heard that cloning an animal (or a human) is very hard. A lot of times the clone dies while an embryo or a fetus, or dies soon after birth. If you are lucky to have the clone survive, a lot of times its genes don't work properly. They either fail to "activate" at all or they "activate" too much. Or they are defective, and the products they produce are defective. If they get through all this, they will eventually die young. Their telemeres (the things at the end of chromosomes that determine lifespan) are already shortened. If the clone was made from the cells taken from an animal 3 years old, that clone will have 3 years deducted already from its own lifespan. Plus for some reason clones tend to get really obese. These are the major reasons why cloning humans is wrong.

actually that's not held up in practice; Dolly actually had extended telomeres, as did all of the cloned cattle, which is quite interesting and probably could lead to anti-aging applications.

I assume that their is some mechanism in the ovum that extends telomeres/tandem repeats, cos if their wasn't then the chomosome from the sperm/ovum would also only have as as many tandem repeats as its pearant at the time of it's creator, which means that the maternal chomosome would always have longer telomere's than the father(as a lifetimes supply of ovums are produced in female foetuses and generally go through about 6 divisions, but sperm are created daily so have roughly the same number of diviosions as the rest of the cells in an organism.)

I totally agree that the many attempts are problematic, though this is the first i've heard of the obesity problem...

So the ovum has some way of extending telemeres, even in the nucleus taken from a donor's skin cell?

i assume so, otherwise i can't see how a species survives more than one generation.

EDIT: *goes and does some actual research*

well i'm almost right, stem cells produce telomerase, and enzyme that extends telomeres. so from conception until differention you get extension.

I think one of the major problems that might come about if you could clone a human is the effect it might have on the legal system. If you could create another person with exactly the same DNA then it kinda puts DNA evidence outta business or atleast renders it far less effective. Same goes with alot of other factors used that only work if there is only one of you.

If they match the DNA to you, even if you have a clone, could still leave you liable. And there's still things that keep DNA from being 100% exact. Chimera's are one, rare though they are. I believe identical twins are another, but I'm not sure, since true identical twins are basically self created clones.

One problem I see with cloning is what's always shown with it in Scifi shows. We lack the technology to prevent eventual degredation.

And about Tam's first post concerning it... "Cloning is a crime against God." so as long as there is no real seperation of Church and State then the FDA will never approve something that is "Morally wrong."

Dreadwind wrote:One problem I see with cloning is what's always shown with it in Scifi shows. We lack the technology to prevent eventual degredation.

sorry, what eventual degradation?

Tammuz wrote:

Dreadwind wrote:One problem I see with cloning is what's always shown with it in Scifi shows. We lack the technology to prevent eventual degredation.

sorry, what eventual degradation?

Things degrade over time. The way it's usually looked at is if you make a copy, of a copy, of a copy, eventually down the line, the copies end up having problems. It happens in copy machines with paper.

Dreadwind wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Dreadwind wrote:One problem I see with cloning is what's always shown with it in Scifi shows. We lack the technology to prevent eventual degredation.

sorry, what eventual degradation?

Things degrade over time. The way it's usually looked at is if you make a copy, of a copy, of a copy, eventually down the line, the copies end up having problems. It happens in copy machines with paper.

you'd be surprised how much f a non-issue that is with DNA, we(and most organisms) have alot of DNA repair mechanisms, if we didn't cancer and mutation would run rife and you'd be lucky if you made it out of the womb. in addition the genetic code is degerative anyway, that is it has multiple ways encoding the same thing, and not only that but we have lots of genes that do the same damn thing, as well as two copies of each.

in fact that DNA is so un-prone to this kind of thing is what makes PCR such a valuble molecular tool.

nature beats technolgy. hands down.

Tammuz wrote:

Zombie Starscream wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Zombie Starscream wrote:I have heard that cloning an animal (or a human) is very hard. A lot of times the clone dies while an embryo or a fetus, or dies soon after birth. If you are lucky to have the clone survive, a lot of times its genes don't work properly. They either fail to "activate" at all or they "activate" too much. Or they are defective, and the products they produce are defective. If they get through all this, they will eventually die young. Their telemeres (the things at the end of chromosomes that determine lifespan) are already shortened. If the clone was made from the cells taken from an animal 3 years old, that clone will have 3 years deducted already from its own lifespan. Plus for some reason clones tend to get really obese. These are the major reasons why cloning humans is wrong.

actually that's not held up in practice; Dolly actually had extended telomeres, as did all of the cloned cattle, which is quite interesting and probably could lead to anti-aging applications.

I assume that their is some mechanism in the ovum that extends telomeres/tandem repeats, cos if their wasn't then the chomosome from the sperm/ovum would also only have as as many tandem repeats as its pearant at the time of it's creator, which means that the maternal chomosome would always have longer telomere's than the father(as a lifetimes supply of ovums are produced in female foetuses and generally go through about 6 divisions, but sperm are created daily so have roughly the same number of diviosions as the rest of the cells in an organism.)

I totally agree that the many attempts are problematic, though this is the first i've heard of the obesity problem...

So the ovum has some way of extending telemeres, even in the nucleus taken from a donor's skin cell?

i assume so, otherwise i can't see how a species survives more than one generation.

EDIT: *goes and does some actual research*

well i'm almost right, stem cells produce telomerase, and enzyme that extends telomeres. so from conception until differention you get extension.

Coolness!

Tammuz wrote:

Dreadwind wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Dreadwind wrote:One problem I see with cloning is what's always shown with it in Scifi shows. We lack the technology to prevent eventual degredation.

sorry, what eventual degradation?

Things degrade over time. The way it's usually looked at is if you make a copy, of a copy, of a copy, eventually down the line, the copies end up having problems. It happens in copy machines with paper.

you'd be surprised how much f a non-issue that is with DNA, we(and most organisms) have alot of DNA repair mechanisms, if we didn't cancer and mutation would run rife and you'd be lucky if you made it out of the womb. in addition the genetic code is degerative anyway, that is it has multiple ways encoding the same thing, and not only that but we have lots of genes that do the same damn thing, as well as two copies of each.

in fact that DNA is so un-prone to this kind of thing is what makes PCR such a valuble molecular tool.

nature beats technolgy. hands down.

Cloning would likely be a combination of nature and machine, and both are prone to break downs, as you pointed out with cancer. It would probably be easier (and more efficient in the long run) to simply turn off or remove certain genes.