They're finally going to do it, so it seems... Thoughts, comments, anyone? I really hope this can be discussed in a decent and mature way without flaming... If the mods expect/see trouble, feel free to close/delete it. I realize how heated these debates can get, so sorry in advance if it gets out of hand. But it's still remarkable news if it turns out to be true.

Italian Doctor Says Cloned Baby Due in January

ROME (Reuters) - Controversial Italian fertility doctor Severino Antinori said on Tuesday a woman pregnant with a cloned embryo was due to give birth in January, but declined to give any details about her.
"It's going well. There are no problems," Antinori told a news conference, adding he had made a "scientific and cultural contribution" to the project but was not personally in charge.
The doctor, who made world headlines in 1994 when he helped a 62-year-old woman have a child, supports the cloning of human beings as a way for infertile couples to have children.
Many in the scientific community have challenged Antinori's statements in the past that women have been pregnant with cloned babies. He produced no evidence at the news conference.
Large numbers of doctors and scientists reject human cloning as irresponsible, saying the risk of creating deformed or sick babies is too great and that it poses unanswerable ethical dilemmas.
Antinori would not reveal the location or nationality of the woman, but said ultra-sound scans showed the fetus currently weighed 2.5 to 2.7 kg (5.5 to 5.9 pounds) and was "absolutely healthy."
He said in May three women were pregnant with clones, one in her 10th week, one in her seventh and one in her sixth. He declined at the time to say where any of the trio were, disclosing only that one lived in an Islamic nation.
Antinori did not specify on Tuesday if the woman he said was due to give birth in January was one of the three he had spoken of earlier.

Source: Yahoo! News

[ 11-27-2002, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

I see no reason why this topic can't be discussed in a mature fashion. All it takes is for people to exercise self-control and not lose their tempers just because someone else has a point of view different from their own. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thanks for putting trust in us, Memnoch. Let's hope it doesn't get out of hand, then. [img]smile.gif[/img]

This is somewhat inevitable. My guess is in another few years, the rich would be able to get people to clone their body parts for replacements.

Thats theraputic cloning, a different matter. Cloning a replacement heart or something could save lives, with far better results than a transplant from another person.

But cloning an entire human being is a different matter. For a start, animal clones have a high proportion of defects. Unless these italians have made significant advances in technology, the same would apply to the cloned human.

Then theres the whole "we are playing God" argument that I wont get into.

And theres the ethics of creating a child that will probably be treated as a freak its entire life. Assuming that it turns out healthy enough to have a life in the first place.

But before they could clone only the organs, they need to clone the whole body just to harvest...yuck! This is too sick. Forget it. [img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img]

[ 11-27-2002, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

With current technology, yes. But there working on ways to clone a specific organ.

With current technology, yes. But there working on ways to clone a specific organ.</font>[/QUOTE]I have no problem with the cloning of organs but cloning of humans is just not right IMO.

andrewas you said that there is defects when cloning animals but if I rember correctly there was no problems with the sheep that was cloned. But I could be wrong the media maybe played it out as if there was nothing wrong. You hear anything that went wrong with the sheep???

If I remember correctly, the problem with the sheep was that they had made a clone from adult cells, and it seems that the cells somehow have a kind of memory of their own age - so the sheep died very quickly, of old age, since its cells were waaay older than it was.

That is a bummer. Ok mister sheep you get to live but only for 10 min. ;)

So that being the case then there is no advantage to transplanting his heart into his buddy. What would be the point getting the heart of a half already dead sheep. [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

[ 11-27-2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Mack_Attack ]

If I remember correctly, the problem with the sheep was that they had made a clone from adult cells, and it seems that the cells somehow have a kind of memory of their own age - so the sheep died very quickly, of old age, since its cells were waaay older than it was.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff6666">I think it is the telamerase or telemeres that cause this aging thing. I did some research on cell aging once. Each time a cell divides a bit of the telomere gets nipped off, and when the telomere gets too short then the cell cannot divide any more and dies or some such. Been a while and I am not even sure of the spelling.

I won't believe the Baby is actually a clone untill he/she is examined by outside researchers. This italian guy strikes me as a bit dodgey.</font>

That's the way I remember it M. The sheep was born with a cellular age based on the actual age of the animal from which it was cloned.

So for this to work it all, at this point at least, you'd have to clone a very young person, preferably a baby. A 90 year old millionaire who wanted a few more years with Anna Nicole wouldn't get much help from this technic. ;)

Is this the same doctor who, in the past couple of years, was trying to help a couple that lost their young child to some tragedy clone her?

pretty scary. If you believe in that stuff, what happens to a cloned soul?

Heh, yeah, well you really do have to "believe in that stuff" for that question to be a problem [img]smile.gif[/img] Unfortunately, many people do believe in that stuff, and this could hinder the speed at which the bugs get ironed out :D

<font color = lightgreen>Even if this doctor's claims are true, there are no ethical, moral, or moral questions that I can see here.

Should we clone humans? Well, we'd better not ban it in America, because someone else will do it somewhere else. Honestly, I think the benefits will outweigh the risks.

Do cloned humans have souls? What kind of question is that? Is the clone of a human not a human? Of course they have souls. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

Are some people going to "pervert" cloning to create particular traits such as hair color or intelligence? The complex interaction of genetic sequences make such exact fine-tuning of human traits impossible; at best, it would be 50 years in the future before anything like that would be possible for even the simplest traits.

I say continue with cloning research. Push the boundaries of human knowledge! [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] </font>

As a professed Christian and a biologist, I have to confess that I do not have problems with cloning. Come the bodies whence they may, God is the authority on whether they have souls. We have cloned several species, and if it is "all right" to clone humans, Nature, (or God Himself) will let us know. So, like Azred, I would say that knowledge is morally neutral. It is how you use it that counts. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The way I see it, is cloning science is an amazing thing. I can see the way people can see it as wrong or playing god, but I think it is great. Couples who can't have children, people who need transplants etc.
I mean, if you followed it you could grow whole bodies for people. It is kind of strange GROWING people, but I think that the upsides to it far outweigh the downside.

I agree in principle, but Id prefer to see some better success rates. And theres that cellular ageing thing - condemning a child to die young dosent seem right.

I dunno, but it seems to me that I would be kind of depressed if my parents one day decided to tell me, "Oh yeah, by the way, you were an experiment and you're probably going to die in a few years." Seems kind of unethical to me.

Whats the point of the cloning where talking about here? Cloning would be more interesting if it really was the Cliche'. (Not the one where if you step into a machine and you and a copy of your self stand out!)
But the ethical dillemma of "I'm a copy of another person! :( " May get to great. I say if they don't die of being sick, they'll commit suicide.

<font color="lightblue">I, personally, do not want to have another person exactly the same as me running about.
These clones are exactly the same as their "parent" - right down to finger prints and DNA. They are, in effect, the same person.
But, since they are exactly the same, if one commits a crime, how can you tell who is guilty ??.

I am unique, and I want to stay that way, thank you very much. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Of course there is the issue of identity theft. Lets say if your clone double commited murder and the DNA extracted from the murder weapon points back to you and everyone will think that you are murderer.

I wonder if your clone does have the same finger print as yours?

Oops, LennonCook beat me it. My typing must be too damn slow. OMG, we were saying the same stuff. This is weird!!!!

[ 11-29-2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Paladin2000 ]

How can you be worried about somoene stealing your Identity when they're 2 years old and you're obviousoy 47 though?

Yes the identity theft could be a smaller part of a bigger problem.
No-one seems to have really addressed this and yes it may sound like something straight out of a sci-fi movie but...When you have the technology to do something as extrordinary as 'copying' the gift of life you have alot of power there.

To make a point here i'll quote Ben Parker 'With great power comes great responsibility'. We need only take a look at the condition the world and it's people are in (not to mention current events) to understand that not everyone appreciates this. There are those who wish to use it for medical purposes, enabling them to make great strides indefinately but there will always be those who make use of this for their own selfish needs (money, power, recognition etc.).
Imagine if the technology got loose. It is plausible that with the rate our technology is advancing, the act of cloning could be readily accesible to the average person in the future.

Yes of course there will be laws. Restrictions and the like, prohibiting the practice to unauthorized personnel but you know, they also said that about nuclear weapons.

[ 11-29-2002, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: SpiritWarrior ]

Heh, yeah, well you really do have to "believe in that stuff" for that question to be a problem [img]smile.gif[/img] Unfortunately, many people do believe in that stuff, and this could hinder the speed at which the bugs get ironed out :D </font>[/QUOTE]You don't believe in souls? You ignorant fool :D

Here's a question: what about over population? This is completely hypothetical of course, but what if everyone eventually has access to cloning. Don't we already have 6 billion+ people on Earth now, and are already having problems with overpopulation? Why would you want to make the problem worse? Instead of cloning humans, why can't they clone endangered species or something that really needs cloning? Just a thought.

Good thought. We could also have Jurrassic park for real [img]smile.gif[/img] Although more controlled of course ;)
And the way I see it, if this technology goes into the general public domain then all the rich people will be making clones of themselves and have a brain transplant into the younger cloned body or something, effectively their bodies living forever and their brains always learning more!

That's the way I remember it M. The sheep was born with a cellular age based on the actual age of the animal from which it was cloned.

So for this to work it all, at this point at least, you'd have to clone a very young person, preferably a baby. A 90 year old millionaire who wanted a few more years with Anna Nicole wouldn't get much help from this technic. ;)

Is this the same doctor who, in the past couple of years, was trying to help a couple that lost their young child to some tragedy clone her?</font>[/QUOTE]Or it would work by replacing organs that are about to fail, just so the person who's life is about to be cut short would still get a normal lifespan.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn'tthe U.N ban cloning al together for all countries? Wouldn't that mean the U.N. could shut them down? :confused:

<font color = lightgreen>It doesn't matter if the UN passed a resolution banning cloning. One of the greatest weaknesses of the UN is the fact that it cannot really enforce any resolutions, only encourage member nations to choose to follow a resolution. The UN is like a yippy little dog--it can make a lot of noise but is really nothing more than a nuisance.</font>

instead of focusing all our efforts in war and politics, why dont we just develop our technology for space travel, colonization so no more problem for overpopulation in the future... (sorry just watched star trek voyager [img]smile.gif[/img] )

truthfully, the earth can easily accomodate all of us (if we all work together) but all of us know that will never happen.. there will always be a factor in our human instict for disputes, arguments and challenges. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cloning has far too many complications, at least in it's current incarnation, to be possibly good. Just one:

In-breeding only causes problems (physically, morally, well, eww) because it accentuates the genetic flaws of both parents, which makes the offspring particularly vulnerable/weak/less capable in certain areas. Now, if you had a cloned person with those same flaws, you have bypassed evolution (survival of the fitness.) The point of inter-breeding is that you can stamp out, progressively, as many faults within a species as possible. Now, let's say that someone's vulnerable to smallpox. They get cloned. Now that person goes out, gets a spouse, and has kids. All of a sudden, you have a lot more people running around with this same vulnerability. Easy pickings for some terrorist. :(

Just a note: I don't believe in cloning humans. Livers, kidneys, hearts, embryo research, sure. But in humans, you find that one of their most important needs is social. How can you possibly be expected to live a normal life when you are a mere "copy" of someone else? You can't live life to the fullest, because, even if only mentally, you are not your own person.

I am a biologist (well, almost - one more year), and an atheist. This is my opinion:

1)About cloning organs: first of all this is still science fiction - many researchers are trying to move in thet direction, because they (and I) believe this can be done, but we can't even see it on the horizon. There are some major problems:
A-we don't know how to force stem cells into a precise develpoment pathway - the biochemical signaling is as yet almost completely obscure. Building an organ in vitro presumes the complete knowledge of those signaling pathways. Also I doubt anything could be accomplished this way even if we knew them, because it would be extremely difficult and expensive to simulate the complexity of a developing body.
B-the alternative is to grow these organs in host bodies, which of course wouldn't be human bodies but animals (pigs or monkeys). Monkeys would be better because they are more similar to us, but they are really expensive and difficult to keep. Pigs are the next best choice, and the cheapest. Obviously, no matter how similar we are to monkeys, there are still extremely heavy technical problems, the first of which is the tissue compatibility between animal and man.
C-Also, provided we can overcome these obstacles, there are still some dangers of diseases transmitted from the host species to man, and also of time - you cannot get a fully grown heart in less than one or two years in the most optimistic forecast.

This is the reason why biology is moving towards xenotransplantation. this is still far in the future, but the initial research goals have already been reached.

Second part: about cloning.

I am against that, for two reasons.

first of them is technical: Nuclear cell replacement (the technique used for cloning) produces cells which are old, as someone has already pointed out: the somatic cells from which the nucleus (=DNA) comes from have already underwent many replication cycles, meaning their chromosomes are shorter due to the absence of telomerases. Hence the newborn cells will be limited in the number of divisions, and we don't know yet what this might cause. In fact some problems of aging have been pointed out about dolly.

second is ethical: contrary to what many think, a clone would share with the "original" person only body features and at most some general attitudes. Your DNA doesn't determine what your personality, culture, background and whatever will be. So a clone would be just a body copy, no more. The problem is, the newly cloned individual will have serious identity problems, no matter what science says.

So my point is, cloning is dangerous and will lead to problems to the clone. And this must not be done. This is intentionally causing harm to a human being. UN banned that, EC did it as well, and I agree.

P.S. MAnipulating stem or embryonic cells is entirely another matter: you don't "produce" individuals, you simply produce cells.

Good post [img]smile.gif[/img] As are many of the others....good to see a nice mature, intelligent discussion (was tempted to say "for a change" but there are a few on here)

[ 11-30-2002, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]