# Scientist Claims to Produce Human Clone

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by dkb218, Dec 27, 2002.

1. ### JaxomTau ZeroRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
559
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/28/human.cloning/index.html

So...they eventually plan to grow human clones for 18-20 years, presumably unconscious, and then kill the clone by replacing their brain with the original donor. Super.

How else would you get an adult body...they don't usually pop out of the womb that big.

Cloning is NOT the direction to longer life spans...it's akin to the throwaway society we've become.

The biggest problem I see with these morons being the claimed first and revealing this ethically wrong goal is that the gov't will have a typical kneejerk reaction and blanket ban ALL cloning research. So because they jumped in with their claim that is probably bogus anyway, they hurt all legit genetic research.

Last edited: Dec 29, 2002

3. ### Brett BellmoreRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
68
Actually, I think parthogenesis would be a lot easier than cloning. See, the biggest problem with cloning is that you've got to reset the state of the nucleus to it's initial state, so that it develops property. There are apparently unknown factors in an egg cell that do that. But most of the time it's not complete, which is why you get all the miscarriages and deformed births.

But the egg already contains half the genetic code, properly reset. If you were to fuse two egg cells, you'd have a complete genetic code, perfectly reset.

It wouldn't really be cloning, since the egg cells have randomly selected choices of genes, and combining two eggs from the same woman would produce a different genetic code, with some of the genes lost, and some of them doubled up. But you'd have to do a very careful test to pick up the difference.

And it would be the ultimate in inbreeding, with a high probability of recessive genes being reenforced. Of course, you could fuse egg cells from two different women, and get all the advantages of sexual reproduction, with only females involved.

I'm not as dubious as some people that this really was cloning. There are an awful lot of things you could try to solve the known problems with nuclear transfer cloning, and the Raelians may just have hit on the right formula.

5. ### Brett BellmoreRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
68
Obviously, that's the only way to get one at the present stage of the technique. I suspect that before they get to the brain transplant bit, the Raelians intend to solve a couple of other problems:

1. Artifical wombs. This might even let you maintain the fetal growth rate for another year or so, instead of waiting a couple of decades for a mature body.

2. Growing clones without brains, so that you're not murdering anybody with the brain transplant.

It's going to be tough, though, because a lot of the development of the mature body is a result of activity, and is mediated by the brain. 18 years of bed rest without a functioning brain would probably produce a VERY unhealthy body.

7. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,523
I don't feel clone to make children is horrible I just feel it has no real practical use! why waste the time making copies of people when we can make stem cell lines and organs for people and cure disease!!! We don't need to grow bodies for people when we can assemble bodies for them that are better, fast, strong and smarter then the original. If we assemble a body out of cell types (and maybe a little cybernetics J ) it would be a lot quicker, cheaper and morally correct over growing a clone and chucking the brain!

They have tried it... it failed! There was a attempt by a fertility clinic in the 90’s to fuss two eggs from a lesbian couple together… it did not grow! You need certain genes turn on from the sperm cell to activate embryonic growth. Also you can not take two gametes from the same person to make a clone because both haploid cells have a different arrangement of chromosomes and the resulting child will not be a genetic duplicate (aka clone)! Only way for asexual reproduction in Eukaryots to result in a clone is to have a diploid cell become totapotent and begin embryonic development.

About liveing forever through cloning... the human brain like all information storage devices has a limited capacity sooooo how the @#$% to you expect to keep all your memories forever. Last edited: Dec 30, 2002 14. ### John MaceRegistered Senior Member Messages: 101 I have no doubt that a cloned human will be born in the very near future. Think of the fame and$\$ the scientist who accomplishes this will acquire.

Other than the possibility of genetic defects, I have trouble understanding the aversion most people have to cloning. A clone is a "delayed" identical twin. Of course it's human. Of course it is the biological parent of any offspring he/she has in the future. How do police deal with DNA evidence today when identical twins are invovled? No difference.

People were not "meant" to reproduce asexually? Huh?? Were people "meant" to fly in airplanes? Were we "meant" to reproduce by IVF methods? Once cloning is shown to be no worse (in terms of genetic/physical impairments to the clone) than other methods of conception, how can we reasonable deny someone the right to clone themselves?

By the way, the idea of fusing two ova to produce a sort of psuedo clone is intreaguing. Does anyone have info about this being done in other mammals...?

15. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,523
I have only read reports on how and why fusing ova can't be done... there in the mag. "Nature" about 4 year ago maybe

sorry don't have any citations: how un-scientific of me!

I agree, cloning to grow full adults is not wrong but I do believe it has no real use… cloning to grow organs that I am totally for! Stems cells are very needed and GOOD!

16. ### spookzBannedBanned

Messages:
6,390
i totally agree
the aversion people have towards cloning could be due to a myriad of reasons. they could be superstitious peasants? they could be retards? they could be .......??

17. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,523
you got it there!
They say things like "its playing God" or "its not natural" that just PISSES ME OFF!!! Just because it natural does not mean it good for you or the right thing... there is a lot that’s natural and bad: disease is natural! Lets just all live in a cave because hey its NATURAL and lets get parasites because it NATURAL and lets live to the ripe old age of 35 because that the way it was and that way was great and NATURAL!

18. ### BatMMember At LargeRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
408
But the possible genetic defects could be important in the future. A single clone (or two or ten) is not going to effect the genetic diversity of the human race. However, what if cloning becomes common?

Question: do clones AND cloned parts inherit the same genetic defects of the donor?

19. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,523
Yes, but we can do gene therapy on a stem cell line. Gene therapy on a full body is impracticable and has failed lethally in resent cases.

20. ### John MaceRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
101
It's hard to imagine that clonig would become "common". Most people marry and want to have kids with their spouses. Cloning is a pretty drastic measure. With 6 billion people on the earth, I doubt that cloning will threaten human genetic diversity. Can you imagine more than 10% of babies born by cloning? And even then, it would just keep the diversity at where it is now.

I'm not at all religious, but I can understand why a religious person would object to cloning. Of course, religion can cause people to have many seemingly irrational opinions...

I'm pretty ignorant about the history of IVF, but I sure don't remember doctors having to prove to any government agency that the procedure was "safe" before they were allowed to utilize it. They certainly didn't have to do any long term studies (i.e., look at adult humans) or we'd still be in the clinical trial phase even now.

There is a small minority of infertile people (and megalomaniacs) who will pay big bucks for a cloned child. If we ban it in the US, market forces will drive it out of the country. Of course if you think cloning is morally wrong, that's no justification to keep it legal in the US, so I think this argument, like abortion, will be staged more in the arena of religion than in science.

21. ### ElectricFetusSanity going, going, goneValued Senior Member

Messages:
18,523
thank the all might heavenly force!

22. ### BatMMember At LargeRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
408
Cloning for reproduction purposes is one use of cloning. The other purpose is "spare parts".