This is a Wired Magazine exclusive that will not be on their website for ten more days and as you can see from this Google News Search a Pakistani newspaper is the only online reporter thus far.
The synopsis of the cover story is that two researchers of privately funded Advanced Cell Technology (ACE) have, for the first time, used Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer to clone a human embryo. In fact, they now have 5 blastocysts.
The signifigance of this, as far as I can tell, is that first of all, they started with 10 eggs and ended with 5 blastocysts. That is a 50% success rate.
Secondly, once the cell reaches 16 divisions, which these five have (at least two of them have, I believe all five), they could be implanted in a uterus, and they contain stem cells.
As noted in the article, all of this directly refutes a widely published report by Dr. Gerald Schatten which stated cloning using current methods was ‘almost impossible due to errors in early cell division, which are caused by removing the nucleus of the egg.’
This is a meaningless statistic. Is 50% good or bad? What is the rate of success for ova that are fertilized normally? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to learn that more than 50% fail to reach the blastocyst stage.
I’ve read about cloning on the boards and elsewhere often, because it interests me for some reason. I still have yet to hear a single reasonable argument against cloning.
I think people don’t like it because of the star wars prequels. They are worried about storm troopers.
Debaser are you talking about human or therapeutic cloning?
If you can give me one good reason for human cloning I will offer you a cookie.
The only good one I can come up with for human cloning is that,well lets say a single mother has a five year old boy and he dies. She is lonely depressed grieving etc. She decides she is sick of being sad so she has the boy cloned. Mom is no longer sad. Boy grows up expected to live the life of another child, and in result, he is all merfed up.
Thats all its good for, I think. Therapeutic cloning is different.
My fundie uncle told me yesterday he was against it because he didn’t know what the ramifications for the souls were. I pointed out that God probably has no problem giving clones souls, as he seems to have no trouble giving identical twins souls, apparently.
Human? Well, it’s really, really creepy to me. That’s not really a valid argument, though. My opinion is that we don’t NEED to do it. We have enough people already and are making lots and lots more every day the old fashioned way. I’d rather see all the existing people taken care of before we make more.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the statistic you quoted. A 50% success rate (5 blastocysts out of 10 eggs) is only meaningful if you tell us what the rate is for naturally fertized ova reaching the blastocyst stage. You didn’t, so the statistic is meaningless. 50% could be very good for all we know.
Critically thinking yourself into circles is certainly not friendly.
If you are curious as to the relevance of the statistic, I am wondering why you don’t look it up? Are you so out of tune with the principles of the topic that you must argue petty details? If I provide you with one number, and you think their is something wrong with it, is it not your duty to debunk me with another number?
I have inferred that this number is indeed relevant, and even amazing. If you have reason to disbelieve me, well, this is a debate forum, so go get yourself some material.
There is something to be said for being pragmatic. If you have a case, present it. If not…you are talking because?
I am honestly befuddled by your seeming desire to argue over nothing.
scurries back into the faction of GQ and MPSIMS, pointing to Google on the way out
Does scientific research now have to justify itself by demonstrating that there will be future applications for the work? When did this start?
The fact that you can’t imagine a practical application for something doesn’t automatically make it a fruitless field of study - we might still be banging rocks together if we (as a race) hadn’t started doing things just because we could.
I wasn’t basing it simply on the fact that I can’t think of one, I was basing it on the fact that…well can anyone think of one? Certainly since your arguing in favor of it you can provide me one practical and useful application of human cloning, right?
Doing things just because we can. Isn’t that a little bit neanderthalish?
I would also like to mention that banging two rocks together does not have specific moral implications.
Don’t cloned animals age more quickly than normal ones, or something? It might be a good idea to hold off on human cloning until we get that cleared up.
Hell, if you can give me one good reason for natural human procreation I’ll give you a cookie.
We don’t limit people to only doing things that they have a good reason to do in a free civilization. We limit them to only not doing things they have a good reason not to do.
It’s not that you’ve presented a wrong number; it’s that you’ve presented a number without giving us enough information to judge its significance. In other words, you’ve presented an incomplete argument. And no, when you present an incomplete argument, it is not anyone else’s duty to do your research for you.
Human cloning does not benefit the clone, that is a good reason not to do it. I know you guys are more creative than this, you are simply taking stabs in the dark.
Can anyone here please name one good benefit of human cloning? I can name reasons not to do it, and I would even call them common sense. They are outlined quite nicely in The Views of the United States on Human Cloning.
In vitro fertilization doesn’t benefit the test-tube baby. Drinking soda doesn’t benefit the soda drinker. Is everything automatically bad if you can’t think of a benefit from it?
Sure… if you have good genes, you can guarantee they get passed on to your offspring. Someone who is about to die without ever having children can ensure that his/her genes will live on.
**No, because I’m saying that a practical future application is not necessary; that we wish to do it and are able is justification enough.
**If you think about it, are jet airliners really necessary? Do humans need powered flight? Why can’t they just stay at home? Everything is ultimately pointless - we do it because we wish to and we are able.
Perhaps now would be a good time for you to lay your cards on the table - what moral implications do you believe exist in connection with human cloning and how do you derive them?
Small addendum: although I don’t believe that it is necessary to imagine a practical future application in order to justify a line of research, I think it will most likely be the case that some interesting and useful applications will in fact arise out of it at some point - or at least this kind of thing has consistently been the case in the past.
