First human clone. Allegedly. The group who's done it claims proof will be delivered in 8-9 days. The scientists who've done it are tied to a religious sect who "believe humans are the result of a genetic engineering project run by super intelligent extra-terrestrials." Um, yeah.

They've never shown any proof of anything they've ever done, so I'm pretty skeptical. There is, of course, very sketchy information right now, no sign of the parents, etc. But they're claiming that an independent scientist will be visiting to confirm the supposed scientific achievement.

I'm sickened by the thought of human cloning, and I'm not all that religious. I'm not even sure why, but I am. Even if this turns out to be a hoax (quite possible) I thought it was interesting to bring up. Several groups have already cloned human embryos, and theoretically, all that's missing to get a real human clone is implanting those embryos in a human mother and givivng birth to a baby. So even if these wack jobs are pulling a hoax, are we really far away from this happening?

We've already got too many fucking people on this planet, and now those who aren't able to reproduce (lesbian couples, infertile couples etc) want to use cloning instead of adoption. Selfish fucks.

I am also pretty much against cloning. What concerns me is that in order to get to the point of a healthy human clone, you have to have some failed attempts. I saw that thing on TechTV about the guy who made Dolly, and he was against human cloning, and I think it was for that reason. It's so damn complicated. Kinda scary.

Has anyone seen that Kids in the Hall sketch where Dave Folley was a test tube baby? Hillarious.

> I'm sickened by the thought of human cloning, and I'm not all that religious. I'm not even sure why, but I am.

Seriously, what has got so many people upset about human cloning? Well, right now it's pretty cruel to try and clone a human, because we can't guarantee that it works right. But in theory, what is the problem? Nature does it all the time, they are called twins. People don't freak out about twins. Do religious people think that if twins are born god will neglect to give one of them a soul? Then why do some of them think differently about a clone.

I think it just comes down to fear of the new and fear of the unknown. I think human cloning will happen whether people like it or not, and eventually people will start to realize that it just isn't that different. There still has to be an egg, and a 9-month pregnancy, and a regular birth and childhood, and these clones will grow up, do the talk show circuit and show everyone they are just normal people. 100-some years down the road it will become just another option for people considering children.

I'm concerned about the possibility that people will be cloned to be used as organ banks. That might seem silly, but I don't think so. Unfortunately, there's no way to unknow knowledge, so it'll definitely happen, anyway.

Well I've already mentioned my main reason that cloning is bad, which is that we don't need anymore frickin' people on this planet. I have no problem with an infertile couple wanting kids, so let them adopt.

Another very valid argument is that as we start cloning ourselves, germs and infectious diseases will be able to spread more easily, because the numbers of unique genetic makeups in the gene pool will go down. In the first couple "generations" of clones this wouldn't be as big of a thing, but as the process continues, there will be more and more clones and less and less "real people" who were born of a mother and a father. Sexual reproduction introduces new genetic makeups into the population which, in addition to fostering diversity of people and their traits, makes the overall population less succeptable to mutating diseases.

Furthermore, cloning allows mutated genes and undesirable human traits to persist. No longer is it up to the forces of evolution and natural selection to pick out the traits that shape the human race, now it's up to whoever has the most money to be able to afford the most clones of themselves.

And perhaps most importantly, as genetic diversity declines, clones will be sexually reproducing with other clones, and you will see inbreeding of genetically similar people. As you may know, inbreeding leads to more birth defects, and when those defective clones clone themselves, well... You know.

It's easy to say "yeah, well we'll make sure that clones don't sexually reproduce" but who's going to stop them? The fact is whoever can do something will do something eventually. The same argument works against the hypothesis that we could keep people with serious birth defects/undesirable mutations from cloning themselves. How do you enforce it? The very freedom that allows scientists to try to clone humans would give those clones the freedom to do what they want with this ability.

Are these enough reasons to make you start to think it's not a good idea?

The biggest worry for me is that these balloons don't actually know what they are doing. They are experimenting (read, trial and error).
The worst part is that they are experimenting on people, yes a clone really would be a person, not an IT. They are creating someone to experiment on, assuming to 'own' the person they create.
Sound familiar to anyone?
This has too many historical scaries without layering any of the extra hypocritical religious stuff on top.

Do the clones have belly buttons? I'm sorry, I had to ask...

But seriously, hopefully cloning - if it ever becomes reliably successful, it will still be prohibitively expensive (for most of us at least). Besides, I think the good old fashioned way of making babies will always be more fun.

As for creating a clone to be like a "spare parts" human of sorts... hopefully we will find other ways to grow organs instead of having to grow a person to pluck organs from as the original person's organs fail. Unfortunately... this leads to the stem cell debate, which is also a prickly topic.

I would much rather see money that might be used for cloning to go towards something like cancer research or something.

I would much rather see money that might be used for cloning to go towards something like cancer research or something.

And I would have rather seen the Powerball winner put his money towards that as well. I guess some people really want organ farms or helicopters.

The clones would most probably have belly buttons as you'd need to implant the clone into a womb for it to develop. Luckily we haven't quite got to the stage where we can grow entire people in a really big test tube.

All I can say is that I wouldn't want a clone of myself. I know what I was like as a kid and I'd hate to go through all that!

- Trevor

The worst part is that they are experimenting on people, yes a clone really would be a person, not an IT

No, the worst part is that they're FRENCH! And not only that, but expatriate Frenchmen living in CANADA! What could possibly be worse than FRENCH CANADIANS cloning themselves!!! (Says he who is himself 1/2 French Canadian.)

Anyway, you couldn't have picked two more ridiculous characters to reveal this announcement than the founder of the Raelian cult and this alleged scientist who broke the news today. Even if these people had actually done anything remotely related to cloning, nobody could possibly believe them because they are come off as such dopes. Couldn't they have hired someone with any kind of plausability about them to deliver such a far-fetched announcement?

Oh well, in a week or two we'll find out that it's a big hoax, and clearly both the "religious right" and the scientific community are angry at this group for their own reasons... But for now, it's just funny to watch these idiots milk their 15 minutes of fame.

i really have never seen the problem with using humans as test subjects. theyre the best kind. and if theyre willing, that should be all that matters.

animals, now thats a whole other story. i care not what happens to animals. now that may be a cruel and heartless thing to say but the way i view it, if it furthers our knowledge to have a few monkeys or lab rats breed to die die then go for it.

but im not saying that experimenting on any person is right, they have to be of sound mind and agree to it. so creating little clone people to poke and prod is wrong, unless theyre of an age where they can make said choice, or if its, say, a terminally ill child and the parents agree to further knowledge helping to save other lives. but if its life ultimately ends up coming from a test tube, beginning through gestation (do test tube babies have gestation periods? :P ) to birth in an artificial womb then thats a whole different topic.

i really have never seen the problem with using humans as test subjects. theyre the best kind. and if theyre willing, that should be all that matters.

How can the clone be a willing volunteer ?

I don't think most religious people believe that clones are soulless. From where I stand the biggest problem with cloning is the necessary horrific failed attempts.

And here's another thing I forgot to mention... In addition to the failed attempts, the lack of diversity in the gene pool, eventual trends towards inbreeding, and the overpopulation of the world... How about the fact that a clone is going to eventually KNOW that they're a clone. Psychologically this is a terrible thing, to know that you're just a copy of someone else, living in someone else's shadow. It's really a loss of individuality.

The clone will also have advance knowledge of any potential genetic defects or predispositions they have towards diseases, again, a terrible psychological burden.

Oh well, the only thing left to do is sing about it... Everybody now...


Weird Al Yankovic - "I Think I'm A Clone Now"
Isn't it strange
Feels like I'm lookin' in the mirror
What would people say
If only they knew that I was

Part of some geneticist's plan (plan-plan-plan)
Born to be a carbon copy man (man-man-man)
There in a petri dish late one night
They took a donor's body cell and fertilized a human egg and so I say

I think I'm a clone now
There's always two of me just a-hangin' around
I think I'm a clone now
'Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down

Look at the way
We go out walking close together
I guess you could say
I'm really beside myself

I still remember how it began (gan-gan-gan)
They produced a carbon copy man (man-man-man)
Born in a science lab late one night
Without a mother or a father, just a test tube and a womb with a view

I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)
There's always two of me just a-hangin' around
I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)
'Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down

I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)
And I can stay at home while I'm out of town
I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)
'Cause every pair of genes is a hand-me-down

Signing autographs for my fans
Come and meet the carbon copy man
Livin' in stereo, it's all right
Well I can be my own best friend and I can send myself for pizza so I say

I think I'm a clone now
Another one of me's always hangin' around
I think I'm a clone now
'Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down

I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)
I've been on Oprah Winfrey - I'm world renowned
I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)
And every pair of genes is a hand-me-down

I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)
That's my genetic twin always hangin' around
I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)
'Cause every chromosome is a hand-me-down

I think I'm a clone now (a clone now)

Ok... twins are not clones. They do not have identical genetic make-ups. Clones DO, and that is where the problems lie. As has already been pointed out, meiosis is missed out and there is no genetic variation. And you know what happens with in-breeding don't you? There will be no resistence to disease etc. We NEED mutation for survival. Look at Dolly the sheep - suspected advanced ageing and arthitis at a young age?

100 years from now, God only knows what will have happened to these people and their offspring. To say that cloning is ok is just plain ignorant.

i was speaking of creating a clone from a terminally ill or otherwise totally willing person. but not experimenting on the clones any more than the succes or no of cloning being the experiment.

Ok... twins are not clones. They do not have identical genetic make-ups.

Actually, identical, or monozygotic twins (twins from one egg that splits into two) do have identical genetic makeups. They share 100% of their DNA.

Well, in some African tribes they threw baby twins into the forests and left them there because they were evil...

In the greater picture, what are the advantages of cloning? You don't get shared memory. The clone is always expected to be 'just like the original'. Hell it's bad enough that parents try to live their own ambitions thru their kids. Cloning can only really be used for organ farming, so what is the point of breeding a whole person. As soon as the whole person is born, they must be treated as such. Not as support system for spares.
These crackpots whole have made these claims say they'll have an independant person do tests to prove it. I'd like to know how 'independant' they are. You've also got to ask why these claims are being made.
Are they doing it for political gain in thier own organisation? How can you trust a person with a hair style like that? Are they just trying to get notoriety for their organisation?

Methinks there's more to this than just the birth.

How can you trust a person with a hair style like that?

ROTFLMAO! Holy crap that's funny.

looney alert:
from CNN
"Cloning is the key to eternal life," Rael says. The group claims 55,000 devotees worldwide and operates its own theme park, UFOland, near Montreal.

Coz we all know the best way to attract aliens is to build a theme park

but the worst part is:
In interviews, she has said her 24-year-old daughter would be among the young women in the movement who would carry cloned babies to term.

That's horific! Her grand children are clones of either herself or her daughter.
Firery pits of hell for all of them, I say.

But Rael has said: "Nothing can stop science."
Nor lunatic fanatics, it seems.

And I would have rather seen the Powerball winner put his money towards that as well. I guess some people really want organ farms or helicopters

I try not to get wound up/jealous of big money winners - they can only spend it and put the money back into the economy - eg. jobs for helicopter/house/spa bath/limo companies. They can hoard it but it will eventually find its way back into "our" hands.

The only thing that did get me slightly annoyed is when a 19yo serial house burglar won £10m a few months back - though he has apparently paid a bus company compensation for criminal damage he committed.

Gareth

You should be happy! I doubt he'll ever steal again.

i was speaking of creating a clone from a terminally ill or otherwise totally willing person. but not experimenting on the clones any more than the succes or no of cloning being the experiment.

But you would be experimenting on the clones themselves. The "sucessful" Dolly the sheep cloning was the result of many hundreds of deformed and aborted cloned sheep. Perfecting human cloning could well take the same number (or more) of failed attempts.

P.S. The last news I saw on Dolly was that she was aging more than normal for a non-cloned sheep, so it is difficult to see even that experiment as a total sucess.

Well, the genetic variation arguments are only valid if clones ever make up a large percentage of population, and they are the same clone, which is not going to happen. Nor do I think that clones are going to hurt the population problem at all, since it is even more difficult to make a clone than a regular kid.

I agree that there are ethical considerations to consider when cloning for ulterior motives, but a lot of those considerations are already there for non-clone births as well. Parents have already been known to have a second kid in the hope it will be a donor for their first kid. And kids already live in the shadow of their parents.

I certainly agree that these fruitcakes did not actually create a clone though. That crazy doctor in Italy is a bit more likely to be on his way to doing it though. But it is certainly too early to be cloning humans, the risk is too great. But it will happen, and soon.

The "successful" Dolly the sheep cloning was the result of many hundreds of deformed and aborted cloned sheep. Perfecting human cloning could well take the same number (or more) of failed attempts.

Which is why I think this current news hubbub about the Raelians is irresponsible sensationalism.

From what I've read about these nuts, I currently don't believe they've actually been successful with this. I don't think they're capable of it. It's my opinion that it's either a complete hoax, or the poor "Eve" baby is going to have some very unusual and serious genetic defects.

I think the news agencies need to weight the story with more skepticism and less sensationalism.

> Ok... twins are not clones. They do not have identical genetic make-ups.

Last I heard they do.

>And you know what happens with in-breeding don't you?

In-breeding is bad because it actually decreases genetic variation in a blood line. If two people have one kid, 50% the genes are lost. If those same two people have 2 kids, (approx) 25% of the variation is gone. If those children then breed and have two children, then (approx) 50% of the variation is gone from that generation compared to the two grandparents.

Now let's say those same two parents each have a clone of themselves instead. Then each of those clones has one clone. Then the two grandkids will have 100% of their parents genes. Of course if they clone clones instead, the variation will go down, but there is nothing inherent in cloning that guarantees lack of genetic diversity, it is all about how it is carried out.

> We NEED mutation for survival.

Mutation is not the word you are looking for.

> Look at Dolly the sheep - suspected advanced ageing and arthitis at a young age?

Yes, there are problems with the cloning process right now. I agree we should not clone humans yet. But these problems will eventually be overcome.

> To say that cloning is ok is just plain ignorant.

It is knee-jerk attitudes like that that I do not get. This is not a big deal, there is nothing that is inherently wrong with the idea of cloning. It can be misused, but can't everything?

>And you know what happens with in-breeding don't you?
In-breeding is bad because it actually decreases genetic variation in a blood line.

That's the long view of why inbreeding is bad, but the short view is more serious.

Humans can and do carry certain "bad" genes that could potentially cause serious defects in their offspring. Many of these defects don't get "triggered" unless both the mother and the father happen to carry the same bad gene. The more closely related you are to your mate, the more likely that your set of "bad" genes will match up with theirs, causing your offspring to have one or more of these serious congenital defects.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any examples off the top of my head of exactly what kinds of defects tend to happen in those cases. Anyone else have some?

The deal with Dolly is in fact true. She is aging at a much increased rate. The skinny of it is this: There are certain genetic markers in human DNA that tells the body when to start aging. Werner Syndrome is an example of what happens when this gets f*ed up. There is still much research to be done before cloning a human could possibly be of any benefit. Not to mention all the ethical issues that arise. (and legal ones, as well)

> Humans can and do carry certain "bad" genes that could potentially cause serious defects in their offspring.

Quite right, I should have mentioned that, thanks.

> Unfortunately, I don't know of any examples off the top of my head of exactly what kinds of defects tend to happen in those cases. Anyone else have some?

I know Sickle Cell Anemia requires paired genes like that. And the British Royal Family has several hereditary problems associated with inbreeding, but a quick google didn't find anything.

Edit: The British line does suffer from Heamophilia, a genetic disorder, but it is not triggered by two recessive genes (called autosomal recessive inheritance) so has little bearing on this little side tangent. But Albinoism and Cystic fibrosis are two other genetic trait that requires two recessive genes to manifast though: http://www.bidmc.harvard.edu/obgyn/genetics_carriers.asp

You know, I love the web. How the hell would I have found this information without it? Anything I want to know about, it's a mouse click away. That is so awesome, it makes me all teary-eyed.

Non identical twins have different DNA as it's actually two different eggs. But identical twins share the same DNA because they're actually a single fertilised egg which splits into two embryo's.

Even if you've got an identical twin, there are usually slight differences between them. Fingerprints would be one.

- Trevor

Those are Phenotypic, not Genotypic differences, the genes are identical.

Yeah. Sorry, I wasn't being very clear. I was trying to say that even if you've got identical DNA that you'll have slight physical differences because of environmental influences.

- Trevor

So clones and twins don't have the same fingerprints?

That surprised me too. Twins don't, and clones will not either I imagine. I found a Straight Dope article about it:

2 questions:

1)
say you put a set of clones on an island and they grow up and live there with no outside contact. at the same time you have an identical set of clones on an exactly identical island living the same way. Will these two clone societies be exactly the same, assuming their environments are exactly the same?

2)
Who would win in a war between a nation of one million Adam Sandler clones and a nation of one million Stephen Hawking clones?

Easy... Sandlers.... Even though Hawking's very smart, I have yet to see anything practical come out of his theories. And assuming there would be no one else fighting, the Hawkings wouldn't actually be able to BUILD anything. (Sorry, that's mean, but...)

Nope, different fingerprints. Furthermore, most twins are usually right and left sided. As in one twin will have dominant features on his right side, and the other will be dominant to the left. I don't know why, but..... I've seen it in several magazines, so it must be true. ;8^)

I sure as hell hope we don't clone her

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/HEALTH/12/29/human.cloning.ap/story.boisselier.jpg

hmmmm..... CLoNeS 'R' uS

I'll take half a dozen Spears clones, 3 Minogue's, and one Suzanne Somers.


ASIDE: Seriously, has anyone ever seen a chick hotter than Britney Spears? I'm not talking about your current flavor of the week, but just a straight up comparison, like if you were seeing them for the first time. I want to know. Is there a chick that exists that is hotter than Spears? Personalities don't count. Looks only. I'm sure she's out there somewhere, and doggonnit, we'll find her! Any nominations?

yeah..... I see lots of chicks that are equally hot as britney.... I think when yu sit down and just look at her as objectively(?) as you can. She is good looking..... but not that good looking.. flawes can be found.... just as in the regular nextdoor girl too. I kinda see i like this..... The world is filled with britneys... they just look a little different...=) I think its the TV that makes her so attractive..... and why the hell does it??.... i dont know.... i just hope that when I become dictator I will be regarded as a sex symbol too..... so that I really CAN get britney!!!...

Seriously, has anyone ever seen a chick hotter than Britney Spears?

Well.... Yeah. Britney is hot. Let's get that out of the way. She's in my Top 25, maybe around #20 or so. Offhand, here are some of the celebrities that I consider "hotter" than Britney, in no particular order:

Alyssa Milano
Jessica Alba
Elizabeth Hurley
Anna Kournikova
Catherine Zeta-Jones
Natalie Portman

There are also about a dozen less popular Latin celebrities like Sofia Vergara and Odalys Garcia that I'd rank above Britney, but I'm admittedly partial to Latin women. Britney is overrated if you ask me.

ditto on Ms. Milano. yikes.

mmm...you're forgetting Heidi Klum.

Eh.. Honestly I'd put Britney above Heidi Klum on my list. Your mileage may vary.

No way..... but hey, different strokes... Personally, I think Britney looks like she just stepped out of a trailer park...

Oh, and none of my neighbors EVER looked like This

Heidi Klum is the ish. Britney is indeed hot, but no one above Heidi

The deal with Dolly is in fact true. She is aging at a much increased rate.

And if she displayed an unusual partiality to parsnip tops, would that mean that a liking for parsnips is an inevitable side-effect of cloning? You can't do much bioscience with a sample size of 1.

Peter

How can the clone be a willing volunteer?

Easy. Someone genetically identical gave permission

Peter

So much for the scientific/ethical discussion

Aging markers are NOT based on Dolly, they are simply exibited there. Read the rest of my post. An example of these markers is cited. From real, live human beings.

Well i can sleep well now i don't like parsnipsi am definatly not a clone

I worried about that for years

Aging markers are NOT based on Dolly, they are simply exibited there.

They are exhibited in one individual sheep. This sheep happens to be a clone. My point was that this could be complete coincidence: premature aging is rare but well-reported even among naturally-conceived humans. The only way to tell whether it's a coincidence, is to create more clones and see whether they suffer from it too.

Peter

Peters correct about the sample size! I mean Dolly is about 6 years old and her mother died aged 3 didn't she? But that doesn't mean that cloning doubles a lifespan.

Right now its embryos and babies, but what about cloning adults? Would an adult clone have to grow for 20 years or so?

Is it possible then to go onto the next step (in theory) to clone memories and personality and implant them into a new host? Say you lost your legs in a car crash... could they clone a new you of the same age with all your memories? In theory? I've heard of genetic memory, but this may not be the same thing.

Will us humans be immortal?

In reply to:

---

Will us humans be immortal?

---

right up until the part where the universe collapses

Point taken....

Hey! All this messing about with DNA is a bad idea! Hasn't anybody seen Jurassic Park?

- Trevor

Sorry i feel red dwarf is a better example when lister gets turned into a chicken

You are right when you point her physical but You have more to know about this woman.

French scientist well diplomed but she founded her company (Clonaid) to go to her ideas that is to have an 'eugenistic' society ... where every human being is selected and now created from only high IQ'd people ...

She's a member of a French Sect called the Raelians (Name of Guru is Rael) and they claim to have cloned this baby from extraterial beings ...(or [censored] like )

In france , The Raelians are considered as a dangerous sect group !!!!

In my mind this is only the beginning because authorithies wonn' take back the to the parents and that is also a problem.

Artifial selection is a crime ....

actually, one of the execs at clonaid (i know, shouldnt be repeating what he says) says that in about 20 years the technology should be available to 'dump' a human brain and the 'upload' it to a clones brain.

Great.

What fun.

Undying Freaks.

Ted Williams will be excited though.

-Zeke

Just as a followup, now "Rael" is saying he won't get genetic tests done on the baby after all and gave some BS reason for it. So yes, this was a hoax then.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/03/clone.claims/

Yeah, the worst thing about this whole situation, to me, is...

The news media played completely into this crackpot's hand, so the "major news event" that was plastered all over TV screens a couple weeks ago is all that the public remembers.

The fact that the news agencies are embarrassed about over-reporting a hoax and therefore won't "headline" the story about the Raelians refusing the tests, doesn't help. As well as the fact that the Raelians have now "stolen the thunder" out of the first-human-clone story, and when it really DOES happen (which will be pretty soon I think) it'll be under-reported instead of over-reported.

So even when someone does manage to successfully clone a human, when people think of "the first human clone", they're going to think of the hoaxing trouser snake Rael instead. What a scumbag.

oh, excellent.

Will the public get a chance to see the baby soon?

"I don't think so," Rael said in the "Crossfire" interview.

At another point, he was asked if his group had simply gotten away with a great publicity stunt. Rael, speaking from Canada via satellite, said his earpiece was having technical difficulties.

"I am so sorry, but the sound is so bad. I cannot hear anything," he said.

He also said his Raelian movement is "completely separate" from Clonaid.

They just had an interview with that crackpot on the Screen Savers. I'm sorry, but here's a judgement on another human being: that guy is f*ing nuts.

I still refuse to believe that if they did clone someone, there weren't a whole lot of mistakes along the way. This guy seems to have no problems with that.