Over the past decade, experimentation with genetics has evolved far beyond what we could've imagined twenty years ago. The idea of cloning is really frikken scary if you ask me. I know it's been around for some years now, but what is your opinion of it. Do you think it is more harmful or helpful?

Just like most things, it is not harmful or helpful in and of itself. It is the uses that are made of the technology that are harmful or helpful, and we will just have to wait and see which prevails.

I think the world would be a much better place with forty or fifty of me around!!!

But seriously, it is crazy to think that someone could take a strand of hair from your brush and make a clone without your knowledge.

But doesn't the clone turn out to be as old as the specimen they clone? So technically the child that would be cloned from my dna stuff would have 30 year old genes...I think I read about that somewhere....

[This message has been edited by Sir Belisarius (edited June 18, 2001).]

I dont think so Bel, I mean when you clone a creature, you create the infant that has to be raised just like any other kid, a kinda of delayed clone I guess you could call it.

I'm not sure though..

[This message has been edited by Darien Noella (edited July 07, 2001).]

Personally, I think science has been asking the wrong question.

They have been asking, "What CAN we do?" This question has led them towards cloning, etc.

The question that needs to be asked is: "What OUGHT we do?"

I meant that the baby, although an infant, would be chronologically (at the genetic level) 32 years old.

Not that an egg would hatch as me...Sorry if I was confusing.

That's an interesting question Bel; but what are "old" genes? The genes you inherited from your parents are just as "old" :).

What they are referring to are repeating patterns on the end of genes called "telomeres". After every cell division, these telomeres get shorter, and it is believed that they have something to do with the aging process.

The first clones created had shortened telomeres, so they thought all clones wouldn't live very long. But later clones (of different animals) actually had longer telomeres, so the question is still open...

Yeah, I wish I would've paid attention in Biology class now. Telemone..a-what's-it? No, I think I get it. But if what you guys are saying is true, wouldn't there be a big possibility that the clone would turn out a lot different than you? I believe the mind develops depending on socialisation more than the knowledge contained within. Sure, it may look the same, but would it make the same decisions you would make in several different situations?

[This message has been edited by Vandalore (edited June 18, 2001).]

Vandalore: yep, that's what it means

Cloning itself could potentially result in some very scary circumstances (Anyone see 'The Boys From Brazil'?)

The benefits of genetic research could be quite exciting though. Extending our lifespans by reducing the aging effect, conquering genetic illness and disease, reversing baldness, eliminating birth defects.... the list goes on and on.

Mathetais raises a good question, what 'should' we do? It seems that every benficial discovery is always tainted by some radical group who would use these ideas for immoral pursuits. Are we really striving for a perfect human race that is free from all 'defects'?

cloning is great step in science, im sure it will eventually be used to recreate limbs or create a child if the parents cant its all well good theoretically and i seriously believe it will not be some evil blade runner type scenario where all the clones turn against us, the question is how WILL it be used? and i think we should wait and see before commenting since all we can do now is speculate. im sorry but i cant really say much more about it.

Are we really striving for a perfect human race that is free from all 'defects'?

Moeken, don't you think we are already striving for just that goal? On the one hand there are the constant searches for ways to eradicate diseases, birth defects, and other sorts of disfigurements by accident and whatnot. But on the other, we also have people getting implants, reductions, nips and tucks, and so many other cosmetic "improvements".

Cloning is only going to join a long list of other "essentials" necessary for the masses' illusion of perfection. You can't put it back in the box. We have to learn to live with it, and hopefully judge wisely. Too bad humanity has a tendency to do just the opposite. :(

I'm with BTA in that case. Technology isn't bad or good it's the use or misuse of it that will bring an alignment to it.
It's the dilemma of the inventors to bring something up that is a weapon in the wrong hands. Look at Nobel, shortly after inventing Dynamite he was knowing about the crux of his invention and did his foundation. Similar the bad consciense of Oppenheimer.
The genetic exploration surely will bring new aspects in the fight against cancer and hereditary diseases but it can also be misused for creating an army of perfect warriors...let's be vigilant

One really good thing about cloning the way I see it, is that it helps us understand the genes and when we understand them fully, we can probably grow people new limbs, fix blindness and such while the baby is not yet born.

As for cloning the perfect humanbeeing, the whole idea sounds a little Adolf Hitler to me....

In general: If there is the technology, it will be misused. We are humans, we are falible (I think that's the word I'm looking for). We will f*** up eventually.

Something else that has been on my mind lately. Through genetics, we're getting closer and closer to prooving that at the same time in determining whether or not a conceived child will be a boy or a girl, the triggers of sexual preference is decided (that is if you believe in naturalists). For instance, all unborn children start out as females and evolve into a boy, thus the female genes are destroyed. Normally, the trigger for "liking guys" is also destroyed. If they proove this, I fear science will label homosexuality is a "genetic defect". I think this is horse shiot, it just gives the homophobics and gay haters (if you want to call them that) another reason to persecute them. Sometimes I think science should step off before another WII occurs, consequently eliminating that which isn't "perfect". Just let nature take it's course and let's not play god. I think there is such a thing as knowing too much.

I think Tal is very glad there's only one of me in the chatroom. :D

any other thoughts regarding cloning or genetics in general?

God creating the human in his own image. Then how can we possibly not play God?

I hope cloning will be forbidden for else there will go something terrible wrong.

Lokken what does this have to do with playing God. God created humans, gave us the possibility to get babies, and made us al unique. Cloning is not playing God but playing against His rules.

It wouldn't be the first time to play against his rules. I can't remember that he gave us the right to kill each other.

I'm afraid that the ban will come too late. The theoretical knowledge exists and if somebody wants to misuse it he will also do it against the law.

I see cloning as being alot like playing God. God is a creator who can decide which creatures will be here and which creatures won't. If scientists clone animals or people then we are deciding who or what we want to exist, much like God would.

If you take that stance then we've been playing God ever since we started directed breeding of domesticated plants and livestock.

I'd like to point out that we already have clones of people. They're called identical twins. Explain the difference between that and cloning.

BTA - I think there is a bit of a difference here. With selective breeding we are still exposed to certain genetic randomness. I look at my pure bred beagle, he sure looks and acts alot different than other beagles. I would say 'cloning' involves specific genetic engineering that entirely bypasses the mechanics of breeding. The difference between cloning and breeding deals with the level of control that we have on the desired outcome.

Amaster - Identical twins occur when the fetus (still at the cellular level) splits in two, resulting in two genetically identical babies. Of course there are also paternal twins in which two seperate eggs are fertilized, resulting in genetically different babies.
My definition of cloning would be taking genetic samples from existing creatures in order to produce an exact replica.

[This message has been edited by Lord Moeken (edited June 22, 2001).]

Oh, I didn't say there wasn't a difference Moeken. What I said is that if you believe we are playing God because we are deciding what we want to exist, then we have been playing God for quite some time.

We are certainly becoming more sophisticated in our control now, but we have certainly been deciding what we want in our domesticated plants and animals, and directing their breeding to get what we want.

I would be more inclined to say we are "playing God" if we started designing our own organisms, building the DNA (or perhaps some other new and novel encoding scheme that doesn't even involve the production of proteins) from scratch, and gestating these new organisms in our own artificial wombs.

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited June 22, 2001).]

I understand your point BTA. I guess control of breeding seems less 'God-like' than actual mapping and selecting specific genes, but it is a means to a similar ends. I guess when I made my previous comment about playing 'God' I wasn't really thinking about selective breeding.
"Hey boy, make sure you don't put that herford bull in with the simmentals, who knows what we'll get!", just doesn't have the ominous overtones that cloning implies. ;)

I don't think cloning implies anything ominous. If a certain animal or plant has exactly what you want, then why not replicate it? Certainly, replicating one animal or plant to the exclusion of all others would be foolish, but I don't see that happening. Now human cloning I'm more leary of because I don't know to what end this is wanted.

To me, genetic engineering, especially the insertion of foreign genes, is the most ominous because we can't know what the consequences of our manipulations will be when our creations will be interacting with the rest of the natural world.

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited June 22, 2001).]

Oh but it does have ominous implications. Just scroll up and read some of the earlier posts - there's an element of fright contained in many of the comments.
What would be the consequences? Cloning could bring back extinct species, improve existing species, or as you mentioned perhaps create new species. Clone a blade of grass or a lamb and it seems fairly benign, but if it works for one species it works for others, and as you mentioned it probably won't stop at 'simple' replication, that is the ominous part. How can we know that we won't be screwing everything up? If you look at the basic laws of evolution (if you believe in that sort of thing) small genetic mutations are the driving force behind survival of the fittest. If we have control over our genes, then the randomness of evolution is effectively gone. I realise that we humans have been ignoring 'survival of the fittest' for quite some time, but start messing with genetics and we start messing with the existance of life itself. Just sounds scary and God-like to me.

Because someone is frightened of something does not mean that fear is rational or justified. :)

Cloning will stop at simple replication because that's the definition of cloning; producing something that is genetically identical to the original. You can't create a new species through cloning, and you can't directly improve a species either. Bringing back recently extinct species may be possible, but DNA degrades with time, so there is a limit to how far back you can go.

Now as to the rest of your last post, I completely agree, but that is not cloning, that is genetic engineering. That is what I meant in my last post. Genetic engineering is much more ominous than cloning because we can't know all the consequences of what was created.

I have to run off and read some definitions from the dictionary. ;) Hey didn't you see Jurassic Park?

Yeah, I saw it. :) Do you remember where they said they had to fill in the gaps with frog DNA? I'd say they weren't cloning any more at that point! :)

But... But.... I'm bound and determined to get the last word. Genetic engineering and cloning go hand in hand, you can't have cloning without genetic engineering. We have reduced this discussion to a debate about definitions. I have to go for a business lunch for a bit so I'll not be able to respond... Forward any comments to Kenmoe, he is my newly aquired twin. ;)

OK - If you want to equate the more specific "cloning" with the more general "genetic engineering" then I'll go along with what you have said above.

To me they are different, so I made the distinction. Perhaps the others who posted in this thread think more the way you do and equate the two...

Oh, sorry for not letting you have the last word on your last post... ;)

[This message has been edited by Blackthorne TA (edited June 22, 2001).]

Moeken. I know what identical twins are. I was asking what people think the difference between identical twins and clones are. Twins are identical. Clones are identical (or will be if the technology is refined enough). I don't see a difference. Fine, playing god sounds scary, but is it any more scary than spliting the atom and making huge explosions that render an area uninhabitable for years?

Some more food for thought..

Do you think we should use cloning to prevent extinction of specific species?

When a species is extinct it is extinct.
Cloning them is messing around with
fate. We can't change the past we can only create the future. What we should do is preserve what is left.

I find it interesting that when you look at history to determine when our society's aversion to genetic tampering began, it seems that everyone thought it was the best idea since sliced bread right up until it became very clear how horribly Nazi scientists were misusing the knowledge they had- not to mention the dreadful things they did to get that knowledge.

The science in old Heinlein novels (written after the war but reflecting his pre-war ideas about cloning and genetic engineering) seems downright evil now, and of course that's not the way he intended it at all. Sad, really- there were good ideas in with the bad ones and in our terror of opening Pandora's box we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

You make a good point Sprite. What else is there to fear but fear itself. So consequently, we should fear nothing and try experimenting whethering or not it is humane because it could cause some good if used correctly. But if there is no fear, what will keep what I like to call "the locals" in line? I dunno our a/c is broke and it's late. I don't even know if I'm making sense. I gotta go.