The ethics of cloning

[XT]

I was watching a video where they were discussing cloning technology, ranging from the technology (used today) to clone, say, a favored pet, or technologies to bring back extinct species (or use of technology to recreate modern versions of extinct species that we no longer have viable DNA for). One of the things that came up was an argument on ethics…is it ethical to bring back extinct species (or, I guess on the other side, is it ethical not to, if we have the means, especially for species that we, specifically caused to become extinct)? Some of the factors would be habitat…if we brought back, say, the mammoth, where would it live? Would we put current, modern species that have populated that’s ecosystems in danger…and would that be ethical? Another species I always think about is the thylacine…should we consider bringing it back and if so, where would it be allowed to live and under what constraints?

For this discussion, assume we can, indeed bring back an extinct species (I assume everyone accepts that there are companies today that can clone one’s pet, so that aspect of the debate would be…just because we can do something, should we?) or even recreate one (say if someone wanted to do the whole Jurassic Park thingy). I feel that eventually, it’s something we will be able to do…probably sooner rather than later. Assuming that’s true…should we? Is it ethical to bring back an extinct species…or is it ethical not to?

[John_Mace]

Mammoths and thylacenes lived not so long ago (especially the latter) that I don’t think finding habitat is a problem. I have no problem with human cloning, as long as the technology is good enough ad safe enough to make it work. A clone is just a twin, removed in time. Where it gets really tricky is bringing back extinct human ancestors. We don’t know if we should put them in a zoo or turn them loose. We don’t know if they could integrate into any current human society (modern or otherwise).

[Lemur866]

We’re not going to have unfrozen caveman lawyer running around. No need to worry about that.

Human cloning has been hashed over pretty thoroughly, and it’s not a problem as long as it’s as safe as modern IVF techniques. Human clones are just human babies, and as long as we treat them like any other human babies we’re fine. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are still a thing.

As for recently extinct or endangered animals, the problem there as you said is habitat. The reason elephants and tigers are endangered is because there isn’t enough habitat for them. Clone a pack of Smilodons and where are you going to put them? We already can’t agree to protect the endangered species that already exist.

So before we resurrect extinct species let’s solve all our world economic problems first and then we’ll be rich enough that we can set aside vast acreages as wildlife preserves.

[Delicious]

I don’t see why the cloned animals would need a space to run wild, keep them on a farm…I reckon people would pay a decent amount of money for Mammoth Steaks, at least until the novelty wears off.

Human cloning would be interesting for determining nature/nurture weightings, if you manage to clone a new Einstein and don’t tell him who he’s cloned from, would he still be smart/interested in physics etc?

[Broomstick]

@Delicious

Human cloning would be interesting for determining nature/nurture weightings, if you manage to clone a new Einstein and don’t tell him who he’s cloned from, would he still be smart/interested in physics etc?

We already have human clones, they’re called “identical twins” (or, more rarely, triplets). We have performed such studies on naturally-produced human clones adopted into separate families. We don’t need to generate new people solely for the purpose of running tests or experiments on them, to do so would be unethical.

[John_Mace]

@Lemur866

We’re not going to have unfrozen caveman lawyer running around. No need to worry about that.

With CRISPR technology, and a few hundred years of technological advance, I’d say it’s a definite possibility. Maybe not the lawyer part, but the ability to recreate an extinct Human ancestor? Sure.

[Flyer]

@Broomstick

We already have human clones, they’re called “identical twins” (or, more rarely, triplets). We have performed such studies on naturally-produced human clones adopted into separate families. We don’t need to generate new people solely for the purpose of running tests or experiments on them, to do so would be unethical.

Have you heard about the breakthrough in China? For the first time, primates have been successfully cloned.

They ultimately hope the creation of these clones helps researchers better understand human disease. Poo said that the Chinese government intends to dramatically increase the size of the lab and the project. He predicts within five years there should be 20 to 30 more facilities creating monkey clones. Researchers want to use additional clones to study genetic diseases such as autism, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s.

Monkeys cloned using technique that created Dolly the sheep | CNN

[Delicious]

@Broomstick

We already have human clones, they’re called “identical twins” (or, more rarely, triplets). We have performed such studies on naturally-produced human clones adopted into separate families. We don’t need to generate new people solely for the purpose of running tests or experiments on them, to do so would be unethical.

I’m not suggesting we raise Clone-Einstein in a cage filled with physics books, just let him be raised by normal parents and see what happens.

Or maybe three Clonesteins, one in a cage, one with loving family, one for dinner.

[Broomstick]

@Flyer

Have you heard about the breakthrough in China? For the first time, primates have been successfully cloned.

What does that have to do with what I posted about the ethics (or lack thereof) of cloning humans? Chimpanzees are not humans.

I’m not inherently opposed to human cloning, I am opposed to treating clones like animals or experimental subjects. Cloned humans are humans, period.

[Delicious]

@Broomstick

What does that have to do with what I posted about the ethics (or lack thereof) of cloning humans? Chimpanzees are not humans.

I’m not inherently opposed to human cloning, I am opposed to treating clones like animals or experimental subjects. Cloned humans are humans, period.

I’m sure we could use CRISPR to change them enough so they aren’t technically human anymore, then it should be fine.

[Broomstick]

No, it really wouldn’t.

[Flyer]

@Broomstick

What does that have to do with what I posted about the ethics (or lack thereof) of cloning humans? Chimpanzees are not humans.

I’m not inherently opposed to human cloning, I am opposed to treating clones like animals or experimental subjects. Cloned humans are humans, period.

Please forgive me for making the (apparently reasonable) assumption that since you’re participating in a thread about the ethics of cloning, that you might actually be interested in other forms of the question.

Also please forgive me for making the assumption that since you explicitly mentioned running “tests or experiments” on clones, that you might be interested in such “tests or experiments” on non-human clones.

To avoid such terrible misunderstandings in the future, perhaps you could include a codebook with your posts, so that others may be able to decipher your posts for their true meaning, instead of being forced to take your words at face value.

[John_Mace]

@Delicious

I’m sure we could use CRISPR to change them enough so they aren’t technically human anymore, then it should be fine.

@Broomstick

No, it really wouldn’t.

Of course they wouldn’t be human, scientifically, if we changed enough genes. Legally, that would be an interesting matter. If your parents are human, does that make you human, even if your genes have been changed so that they are the genes of another species?

[Hari_Seldon]

@Broomstick

We already have human clones, they’re called “identical twins” (or, more rarely, triplets). We have performed such studies on naturally-produced human clones adopted into separate families. We don’t need to generate new people solely for the purpose of running tests or experiments on them, to do so would be unethical.

Interesting case in point. I knew a pair of identical twins. They were certainly identical if I can judge. Not knowing he was a twin I greeted what I thought was a student of mine on campus one day and my student came around the next day and asked if I had greeted his twin brother. They were certainly closer in appearance than random brothers. And they were raised in the same household. One majored in physics and the one I knew in math. They both Rhodes scholarships and went off to England to study physics, resp. , math. They came back. The physicist got a PhD, a job and is now a highly respected physicist. The one I knew, well, I can only say his life never really gelled. He has written for a free newspaper, worked as a translator, done odd jobs, etc. Same nature, very similar nurtures, very different outcomes.

[Delicious]

Or bare-minimum brain function & robust organs, genetically human with no sentience = transplants for all!

[Buck_Godot]

I don’t see too much of an ethics problem for human cloning as long as it doesn’t become overly prevalent. But it could potentially be a problem if it becomes commonplace.

For example a (possibly orange headed) billionaire deciding that he is the pinnacle of evolution and clones 3,000 copies of himself to improve the human race, or adorable baby Gary Coleman clones becoming the “in” thing for young couples.

[Lemur866]

Raising whole clones for transplants is ridiculous. First of all, as I said, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are a thing.

And taking a human embryo and deliberately removing it’s brain so it grows up in a permanent coma is monstrous.

Also you know, caring for a coma patient for years or decades, on the off chance that you might someday need to use their organs is pretty ridiculous.

Also, how many people do you know with life threatening diseases that would be solved if only they could get a quick organ transplant? It happens, but organ transplant is hardly a panacea, even if we could get as many organs of whatever type we wanted for free.

Lastly, it’s much more likely that we’ll grow a cloned organ in vitro, rather than grow a whole body just for one organ and then keep the organ and throw rest of the body in the trash.

As for the horrific spectre of hundreds of clones of one person running around, well, what exactly is the problem? It would be one thing if we decide that from now on, every newborn baby has to be a clone of Ryan Gosling. But that ain’t gonna happen. Hundreds or thousands of clones of one person is just a drop in the bucket. And as for a billionaire deciding to clone himself 3000 times, we already have child welfare laws. Imagine a billionaire deciding he wants to have 3000 children the old fashioned way. He can do that today, as long as he finds 3000 women willing to allow themselves to be fertillized by his sperm. But he still has to provide care for those children, right? He can’t be a deadbeat dad, right? So when he finds 3000 women willing to be surrogate mothers for his clones, then I guess that’s what happens. Sounds like an incredibly expensive undertaking, but potentates having hundreds of concubines and children was a thing that happened in the past, and humanity survived. Ryan Gosling fathering 3000 clones of himself is ethically and legally no different than Ryan Gosling fathering 3000 children. If he abuses or enslaves his children, it doesn’t matter whether those children are genetically identical to him or not, we already have laws to handle that sort of thing.

The point is, we have laws that protect children. We have adoption. We have identical twins. We have IVF. We have surrogate pregnancies. Our laws concerning cloned children are perfectly well handled by our current laws and beliefs.

My sisters are identical twins. One is 10 minutes older than the other. That doesn’t make the younger sister the legal property of my older sister, and it doesn’t allow my older sister to harvest her organs. It’s just common sense.

[John_Mace]

People have already conceived children for the sole purpose of harvesting umbilical cord blood to save an older child. That is not to say those children were not raised in a loving household, but they would not have been conceived were it not for the medical needs of the older child. Not to mention the many, many times children have been conceived for the personal gratification of the parent or parents.

[Lemur866]

Yes, it’s not child abuse to create a child just because you want to have one. That’s not child abuse. What makes it child abuse is how you treat the child once it’s created.

Your little Michael Jordan clone might not want to play basketball, and might want to stay home and play video games. It’s not child abuse to make a kid go to basketball practice, there are countless examples of parents forcing their children to engage in sports. It wouldn’t be child abuse to sign up Micheal Jr for basketball and make him go. But you’re probably not going to get a champion player that way. The NBA is full of physically gifted players who slack off and don’t focus. It’s also full of not quite as gifted players who work their asses off to stay on the team. And then you get people like Michael Jordan who was both.

You can replicate Michael Jordan physically, but the odds are that you’re going to end up with a physically gifted athlete who won’t put in the effort that Michael Jordan put in.

[Delicious]

If people don’t need their brain dead clones for organs, they could be used for drug testing or as really good crash test dummies, saving lives all the way