Cloning

Ah, Dr. Julius Hibbert’s “evil gene”. Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it, and that Quimby kid has it.

Sorry I don’t buy it. To me, what makes “evil” so darn evil is that no one person is inherently more inclined towards it than others. It’s difficult to accept, which is what makes it all the more frightening…

Since Hitler was German, would you claim that Germans as a whole are more predisposed to evil than say, Eskimos? He had to get that proto-evil status from somewhere, no?


Gypsy: Tom, I don’t get you.
Tom Servo: Nobody does. I’m the wind, baby.

Hitler was Austrian.

[quote]
What I would like to see is research directed toward cloning specific organs indepebdently of
a supporting body, whether human or non-human. Grab a genetic sample and activate the genes for
growing a heart or kidneys or whichever organ is needed. But, since we treat all animals as resources, I
don’t see that happening.[/qoute]

Growing cloned organs independently of a suppporting body will not be something that happens soon. But this is not because animals are treated as resources. Rather it is because current scientific knowledge is insufficient to accomplish this feat. Scientists are gradually unravelling the processes involved in the formation of animals and their organs. It is an amazingly complex system. The numner of genes activated during embryonic development is staggering. To be able to activate the genes that will dictate the development of a heart or kidney requires that we know what genes are responsible and how and when to activate them. This is beyond the current state of the art. Until all of the genes are identified and studied animals might provide a workable method for increasing the availability of donor organs. But even this is far from being a done deal.

John


Then he got up on top
With a tip of his hat.
“I call this game FUN-IN- A-BOX”
Said the cat.

-The Cat in the Hat

Put me down on the list of Sake supporters, I don’t believe Hitler was inherently more “evil” (whatever that means) than anyone else. To everyone who disagrees, I would like to ask one question, “Are you a slave to your biology?” I’m not (except that I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body. :slight_smile: )

Some of us may be a bit confused at to how identical a clone would be. A clone would have the same genetic description. This description is pretty close, but the details are left up to fate. Identical twins do not have the same retina scans. Nor do they have the same sinus cavity structure. It may be difficult to tell them apart at the macroscopic level, but the devil is in the details. They will have the same fingerprints, however. A lot of these differences can be chalked up to generative variables. There are many, many things that can change a person even before he is out of the womb.

One of the problems with cloning is that there is the possibility of a great deal of damage done to both the host cell and the transplanted nucleus. Although some thing might develop from this, it’s not likely to be productive. Ever see that movie “It’s Alive”?

What if someone were to clone you without your permission? All it would take is one hair folicle. Fortunately, most of us paeons don’t have anything to worry about, but what about Mikey Jordan or the gorgeous Gillian Anderson? The clone could look just like the famous person and would have the same fingerprints, etc.

Bored: "But what would happen if we allowed humans to be genetically engineered? " Whether we “allow” someone to do something or not, it’s going to be done somewhere. What we as a society should do is to attempt to make this technology available to the less wealthy. Furthermore, you don’t point out the exponential rate at which the rich will get richer. When someone is genetically engineered, it’s not only them that get affected, but all of their descendants as well. When the second generation is engineered, the third generation will have all of those properties as well.

egkelly: The premature aging may be due to the shorter telomerase at the ends of the chromosomes. This can be fixed by inserting a gene for the production of telomerase into the original nucleus which will then be copied to every other cell and thereby ensuring that this creature and the subsequent organs will have a natural lifespan longer than yours or mine.

DavidB: Thanks for your input Davidcakes.

Cristi: If a disposition for epilepsy can be traced to a specific gene sequence then yes, your clone would develop the same disposition as you have. Of course, if this gene sequence can be determined it can probably also be manipulated.

Breckinshire: A spoon?

Otto: Austrian!?! Yeah, those sick bastards are evil to the core. Now we know what Hitler’s problem was. [That was a lame attempt at humor and not to be taken seriously. I don’t even know any Austrians. If there are any Austrians in the audience who feel they have been denigrated by this little episode I offer you my deepest and most heartfelt, “Get over it.”]


Voted most likely to ramble on inanely - I hope I’ve not taken someone else’s title ‘cause as far as I know I just made that up and I wouldn’t want to make anyone mad at me or anything like that and all ya’ know.

OK, grow an organ by itself in a petri dish. Great.

Now, why not grow two or three while you’re at it? Aw heck, I have some road rash from a bike crash, why not grow me some skin too?

Oh look, we’re half way to a full human body, why don’t we grow a human body with no higher brain function, then we can use all the organs!

Where did the ethical line get crossed? Personally, I have no problem growing bodies with no higher brain function (perhaps entirely missing most of the brain?) for organ farming.

What I think may be able to make this less of an ethical problem is for us to change the way we do organ transplants. Currently, the immune system must be suppressed in order to prevent rejection. When someone gets leukemia, their entire immune system is destroyed and they get a new one from a marrow donor. What if we could give stem cells from placental or fetal tissue to the recipient? They would then grow an entirely new immune system that would accept their tissue and the transplanted organ as ‘self’, and there would be no problem. I don’t think the technology is quite there, but it will be eventually, I think. Then we don’t have to grow organs in jars, we can just use pig hearts/whatever.

Ted Mc wrote:

Imperfections occur all the time when growing new humans the “normal” way too. They’re called birth defects. A few off-the-top-of-my-head factoids for you:

  • Two-thirds of all fertilized egg cells fail to implant on the uterine wall, and are flushed out with that month’s menses.

  • Many, if not most, early embryos split off to form an identical twin. But in most twinning cases, one of the twins dies out soon thereafter.

  • Some fetuses fail to develop a working heart or brain and die in the womb.

  • Some infants are stillborn.

  • And even among successfully delivered live infants, some of them have poorly-formed limbs or mental retardation or other congenital disadvantages. I’m sure the March of Dimes has statistics on this, although I couldn’t find any at www.modimes.org .


The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

And I’m a microbiologist. Now you know why :slight_smile:

I knew that was wrong, dammit, but noooo I had to hit submit…

Of course there are loads of birth defects. But that is nature at work. (aside from the few that are caused by doctors). When cloning, however, anything that goes wrong is going to be someone’s fault. Therein lies the problem


"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

Heh. How long do you think it’ll be before parents of deformed children start suing each other for passing on “defective genes” to their baby? :wink:

Yeah, it is, really. As you note, activating the right genes to grow an organ by itself will be hard. It will probably be much easier to grow a pig with suffient genetic manipulation to make the organs compatible for human transplant. So, since it’s easier and since it’s not viewed by most as unethical to exploit an animal in this fashion, that’s what’ll happen.

But I don’t want the thread to turn into a debate on animal rights or the ethics of animal experimentation, because for me there’s nothing to debate and everyone who posts there will just get angry at each other.

inertia:

Watch out! Arnold Schwartzenwatsis is Austrian.

Bitch by Birth

Great idea, then what do we do with the empty shell? Come to think of it, where are we gonna put a bunch of brain-dead, full size humans for long enough to get a useable organ?
Think about it… if we grow organs separately, they take up less space. we can tailor them to specific needs - so-and-so needs a new lung - right I’ll just pop down and start one off, you can have it Monday morning.

mail-order body-parts will be the next big thing - kidney, order number 52785, quantity 1, colour pink - and you just chuck it in a frozen Jiffy bag and mail it off. try getting a whole body in a Jiffy bag (let-alone a frozen one!). then if you have to operate on the brain-dead clone first to remove just the kidney the whole turn-around time is increased tenfold and people will start wanting discounts for late delivery.
what happens if the whole clone goes bad? at least separately, one dodgy ear can be chucked out.

morally/ethically, I couldn’t care less, so long as they bury the empty shells in your back yard!


Nessie Lives!
(and “incognuity” should be a word!)

GREAT IDEA! I’d like to see you grow a organ in a petri dish!!! Especially when in order to do that we have to make DNA do certain things at certain times along with certain things that are made in DIFFERENT Cells!!! YEA GREAT IDEA!!!

Bottom line, WE CAN’T DO THAT. We need the brain dead body in order to actually grow the organs.