Dolly, The First Cloned Mammal.

"Dolly (5 July 1996 – 14 February 2003) was a female domestic sheep, and the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell, using the process of nuclear transfer.[2][3] She was cloned by Ian Wilmut, Keith Campbell and colleagues at the Roslin Institute and the biotechnology company PPL Therapeutics near Edinburgh in Scotland, the United Kingdom. The funding for Dolly's cloning was provided by PPL Therapeutics and the Ministry of Agriculture.[4] She was born on 5 July 1996 and she lived until the age of six, at which point she died from a progressive lung disease.[1] She has been called "the world's most famous sheep" by sources including BBC News and Scientific American.[5][6] The cell used as the donor for the cloning of Dolly was taken from a mammary gland, and the production of a healthy clone therefore proved that a cell taken from a specific part of the body could recreate a whole individual"

Scientists have cloned a number of mammals. Personally I think this is a very touchy/taboo subject. As many religious groups believe that it goes against god. I personally think that this could be great for reviving extinct animals. Such as the tasmanian tiger for example.
But that being said, Obviously something like this could be abused. Such as creating a "perfect" Humanoids. I would classify them as humanoid as they were not naturally born. So really they are artificial. But on the same page they aren't.

We could start cloning people with the greatest minds or bodies to create a race of total perfection. One could clone a whole team of Michael Jordan's.... A large majority of the United States believed that the cloning and genetic modifications of animals should be closely regulated by the government. Human cloning seemed out of the question, as most people felt that it was wrong, as we would be "playing God."

Click to expand...

It has been said that just because they have cloned dolly, (& a number of other mammals) That it wouldn't necessarily mean that they could clone an actual human. But really. What is the difference between one mammal and another? Like i said. They have cloned horses. Bulls. Ect.

IF You would like to read more on "Dolly" Click Here. That being said, Don't click if you don't want too, I'm not advertising or anything.

So what are your thoughts on cloning?
It was acceptable in Pokemon Gold & Silver. How about real life?
VS.

People often mistake cloning as the perfect way to resurrect extinct species, however it is practically useless with that regard.

To clone an animal you need viable DNA first, then you need a suitable 'mother' to implant the embryo into.

The mammoth-baby that was found in ice last year (maybe the year before?) encountered the first problem, even though the body was intact DNA is easily damaged and frozen specimens do not necessarily have perfect DNA. The other problem is then the mother - depending on the mammoth species, a mammoth baby may not be able to be carried by an elephant mother (the closest thing we have).

The Tasmanian Tiger, the thylacine, is such a beautiful animal. It's such a shame that we forced it to extinction. However, cloning cannot save it.

We could clone one, maybe several, from preserved specimens - but their sole purpose would be to live in zoos, etc., for the rest of their days. It is not viable to reclone a whole population - due to limited specimens (leading to very high inbreeding).

I do believe that cloning is morally acceptable, however, it is hard to come up with a good enough reasons to spend so much money and time doing it. Whether it will ever lead to human cloning, I'm highly doubtful - it reminds me of "The Island" - where rich people pay to have clones made in order to have perfect organs for transplants.

The problem with cloning is that whatever the subject is, you're using its cells to make a copy of the creature. An exact copy and that's what the problem is.

The issue with Dolly is that when they cloned her mother, they cloned her in her middle ages. Cells have repetitive nucleotide sequences called Telomeres, which are used for cell division. Every time cells replicate for various purposes (repairing cell damage, healing, etc) parts of the telomere are cut off and shortened. The result is that over time your cells become less and less effective at replicating and this leads to aging.

Hence the problem with Dolly. It was an exact copy of her mother, right down to her mother's middle-age telomeres. The result was a newborn sheep clone that would live only roughly half as long as a natural sheep.

Either a clone needs to be of a straight up newborn, it gets lucky and has lengthened telomeres, or we solve the problem by finding ways to lengthen telomeres. Of course, with that last option, do that and immortality has practically been achieved so why make clones?

Valid Point. You need a host. & The procedure is very expensive. But if they could 'perfect' cloning, (as in being able to live a normal lifespan) why couldn't they reintroduce the Thylacine back into the wild. I couldn't see them being any more dangerous than the Dingo, Which I'm pretty sure is a sub species of a certain wolf. I don't think you could put a price on that. If were the ones that drove it to that fate, If we could fix it. I believe we should.

That made me laugh. The Island was a good movie. Would be pretty interesting to see multi billion dollar businesses cloning people to work for them or something.
Such as Apple making clones to use as customer service at there shops or something. hahaha. :P

Or creating some kind of super human with the brain of Albert Einstein. Who knows what the government really does anyways.

O07_eleven said:

But what about screening/genetic engineering for disabilities? We could get rid of severe mental and physical disabilities, people would be much happier right? Disabled people obviously disagree, stating it takes away a persons right to life. What do you think? I'd want at least screening of an embryo to stop any risk of things I perceive as a burden, like Downs, MS, Parkinsons etc. No need for a perfect child but I'd want to at least not disadvantage my kid, it'd be hard for me to raise someone who was disabled.

...I only posted because it's Batto's post and I like the guy.

Click to expand...

BRAIN STORM.
It isn't necessarily cloning but thats a great point, Sure people with disabilities such as downs would disagree. Because really that is apart of what makes them who they are. I know i would be offended if i had Parkinsons disease & somebody asked me if i could would i change it. But i know for a fact, If i had a child and i had the option to relieve it of something like that i would in a heart beat.

007, You made me giggle. :')

But say for example, The Australian government wanted to bring the Tasmanian tiger back to the living, And for arguments sake it would all up cost $20,000
The news that an extinct animal is being brought back to life and you can come see this "once in a lifetime opportunity" for only $500. Only... 40..? people would have to show up and they have broken even. I think it would be worth every dollar to put some of the animals that we have killed off back onto this planet that we share, Im no hippy. But i think the Tazzie' tiger has just as much right to walk the land as we do. If it is even possible that being said, As with the damaged DNA & Such.

Well personally...I see a huge business about to rise. Just imagine the countless old ladies whould like "fido" back...even for a little while. Other than pet clones Im not saying much.

KriegStein said:

Well personally...I see a huge business about to rise. Just imagine the countless old ladies whould like "fido" back...even for a little while. Other than pet clones Im not saying much.

Click to expand...

Exactly. it really could turn some profit. if it was made to work.
think about the countless billionaires that would pay whatever amount of cash was asked for to have a pet animal that lived millions of years ago. i personally would love a personal slave clone. ;)

Cloning as an idea doesn't bother me. It's what you do, and how you do it that can be the problem. Like, say, rowing a new bladder from your own cells because yours was damaged and having a transplant would mean you'd have to be on drugs the rest of your life. No problem with that at all.

KriegStein said:

Well personally...I see a huge business about to rise. Just imagine the countless old ladies whould like "fido" back...even for a little while. Other than pet clones Im not saying much.

Click to expand...

That already exists. Somewhere in South Korea, I think. They'll clone your dead pet for a lot of money. I think it could run up to $100,000 or something crazy like that. Of course the process also leads to multiple clones, some of which have weird deformities, and sometimes none of them survive. That's the kind of thing which makes me not like cloning in this manner.

Human cloning seemed out of the question, as most people felt that it was wrong, as we would be "playing God."

Click to expand...

We have been 'playing god' since we were farmers. Human clones could be used for dangerous work, domestic servitude, medicine, warfare... and more, I'm sure. Whether or not this can be moral comes down to whether or not it assists in the survival of our species, and whether our leaders will eventually concede to serving the human condition instead of national interests (ergo 'warfare' ought not to be on the list, unless we encounter aliens on negative terms).

Define "farmers"
I don't think you could call using clones for medicine dangerous work. I think it would be wrong to use clones for medical reasons such as harvesting them for organs.
I think by the time that mass production of clones is a reality or possibility human soldiers won't be needed in wars. It will be just some kid at base pressing buttons.

.:batto:. said:

Define "farmers"
I don't think you could call using clones for medicine dangerous work. I think it would be wrong to use clones for medical reasons such as harvesting them for organs.
I think by the time that mass production of clones is a reality or possibility human soldiers won't be needed in wars. It will be just some kid at base pressing buttons.

Click to expand...

Humans whom have formed static settlements and grow their food locally, as opposed to hunting and foraging for it. I'm referring to selective breeding.
I didn't mean to imply that dangerous work and medicine are related; I was thinking more of things like deep sea diving.

Cassino said:

Humans whom have formed static settlements and grow their food locally, as opposed to hunting and foraging for it. I'm referring to selective breeding.
I didn't mean to imply that dangerous work and medicine are related; I was thinking more of things like deep sea diving.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't really call farming "playing god" as there was farmers actually in the bible.
countless stories involved farmers. Or people that looked after live stock.

Ah yes, That is a good point. That would be very immoral to clone people solely for doing jobs that could potentially have them killed.

.:batto:. said:

I wouldn't really call farming "playing god" as there was farmers actually in the bible.
countless stories involved farmers. Or people that looked after live stock.

Click to expand...

The issue of playing god arises from humans controlling the creation, destruction and direction of life; so goes my impression of it, at least. Given this, the selectively breeding farmers represent a godly degree of human dominion over life. My point is that playing god is an irrelevent matter to be concerned about since we have long been doing it at no apparent cost to our immortal souls or moral integrity or whatever*. The tangible concerns about cloning are whether it can be performed responsibly or not, and if it's even necessary and if so under what circumstances.

*Of course, the Chirstian story goes that Yahweh put all the creatures on Earth to be subservient to human needs (ie. the modern cow is thought necessary and reasonable, while cloning them is thought frivilous, I guess), but I don't take my impression from a particular religion's viewpoint, you understand.

.:batto:. said:

Ah yes, That is a good point. That would be very immoral to clone people solely for doing jobs that could potentially have them killed.

Click to expand...

That wasn't my point, just to clarify, in case you thought as much. Just trying to think of ways by which human clones might be useful enough to be worthwhile.

Cassino said:

We have been 'playing god' since we were farmers. Human clones could be used for dangerous work, domestic servitude, medicine, warfare... and more, I'm sure. Whether or not this can be moral comes down to whether or not it assists in the survival of our species, and whether our leaders will eventually concede to serving the human condition instead of national interests (ergo 'warfare' ought not to be on the list, unless we encounter aliens on negative terms).

Click to expand...

"Humans should not play God", I agree that when fully analyzed it is a specious proclamation.
So, what constitutes playing God?

I agree, farming, though we might not associate it with playing God indeed is! We are cultivating new species of plants and other biological species from unlocking the many mechanics involved with cross breeding and manipulation of external conditions in order to create fields fecund with customized vegetation (as we have been since farming began) For some, this concept being equated to "playing God, is unconfortable, since that term has needless negative connotations. We are of course built in the image of God, in that we are not completely animals in a spiritual sense. Man becomes more distinct from other organism as time progresses. From a romantic perspective religious or not, human's struggles with classification of humans. WE are essentially the X (not necessarily at the midpoint!): God(s)----X----Animals. God(s) being, the manipulators of the Earth whether destruction or creation/enhancement.

As well as these other institutions listed below, in order from least to most controversial in respect to the topic as far as the general public goes. Thus, they may associate cloning as playing God, but not government establishments.

Is it organized politics? We allow leaders to improve our lives by establishing laws and customs of which have been established over thousands of years of socialization. Since, political structures have allowed for civilizations to establish technology through sustainable living of which allows for individuals to not go out and hunt for food or worry about patents in order to create new technology, of which has promulgated the rapid population growth observed just in the past couple of centuries in comparison with an other time period. (wow that was a huge run-on sentence!)

Are medicines, simple and complex, extending the lives of people who would otherwise perish? In that instance are we playing God. Are we doing as a supreme being and/or nature has permitted?

How about growing new organs or organ donation (along with prosthetic)? These are not natural to the person receiving them. Is that defying nature?

We are playing God to an extent, which is great in SOME cases. As mentioned, are we creators or destructors? Well, both!

If the dinosaurs were intellectuals, they may have been able to avoid extinction. The reasons based on sentimentality should not thwart the progression of mankind. We are ensuring not only our survival, but our quality of life. If, and only if, this technology is used in a manner that does those two things, then why not? You make excellent points. What happens when we, as in, a few on our behalves, execute the wrong decisions for personal/national gains at the great expense of another?

I see cloning as something with unfathomable potential for good as well as bad. Thus, public oversight is necessary in this case. To those that are familiar with my viewpoints, I am not always a big advocate on public awareness or oversight, especially given some of the needless negative and specious arguments given that thwart human progression from an uninformed public. However, in this case, by making oversight a focus, it will force public and private institutions to avoid poor perceptions at all costs, and thus, demonstrate more acts of benevolence, or rather, creation as opposed to destruction.

I am all over the place tonight, so I hope this makes some sense. Though, I think I may have some logical gaps fo' sho'!

Instead of trying to clone species, I think it would be better to clone resources such as wood, metals, oil, etc. So that we don't run out of these resources in the future.

I understand trying to revive extinct species, but there's a reason such species are extinct. Mostly because they're not suitable to survive in the environments anymore and that's why species evolve.

Zero° said:

Instead of trying to clone species, I think it would be better to clone resources such as wood, metals, oil, etc. So that we don't run out of these resources in the future.

Click to expand...

Or focus on a mixture of both resource manufacturing as well as biological studies (stem cells/cloning) if the goal is to improve the over quality of life across the board.

Agreed on your second point made in your edit!!! Revival of extinct species, in MOST cases, seems arbitrary and a waste of scientific exploration and costs (equipment, scientists, labs, ect.)

I think things like cloning, which haven't been thoroughly explored, should continue to be. The possibility of offending others shouldn't impede any scientific research.

Also, humans cannot do anything that doesn't fall within the laws of nature. Therefore it's impossible for humans to "play god" to begin with.

O07_eleven said:

Hopefully we don't see human cloning

Click to expand...

Why?

It's basically reproduction. Do you also hope to see the human race sterilized? For the record, I am hoping to have myself cloned at some point. I would like to have children at some point, and this method seems appealing to me. Considering it harms no one and brings new life into the world (as well as grants me progeny), I don't see what your issue is with it.

A bigger concern for me is designer babies. It's not cloning, but in laymans terms when a woman wants to give birth scientists can take an embryo and switch on or off any part of the genetic code they like. This can decide our height, hair colour, eye colour, body type, intelligence, sporting ability, pretty much everything about us. Is it acceptable to choose what your baby should be for it or is it against nature/morals/gods will? Say being blonde and skinny with blue eyes became really popular, redheads, brown eyed people etc would become extinct. This is sort of like cloning, everyone will end up being extremely similar and we lose individuality. I think trying to do this is like creating a perfect race like Hitler and is not acceptable.

Click to expand...

Why?

If appearance matters so little, if what matters is what is inside someone, not what is on the outside, then why do you take issue with parents choosing various things about how their children will look? Tell me, where is the harm in offering more choices to people?

Also, it's fine if you believe in "nature's will," or "God's will," but I don't. Written law is written by man, for man. As such, it should be secular; leave the domain of deities to those who worship them. And as there is nothing that seems morally wrong with the idea from any of the more common perspectives of morality (aside from the attempt to associate it with Hitler to avoid intelligent discussion on the topic), I see no reason why it should be verboten.

But what about screening/genetic engineering for disabilities? We could get rid of severe mental and physical disabilities, people would be much happier right? Disabled people obviously disagree, stating it takes away a persons right to life. What do you think? I'd want at least screening of an embryo to stop any risk of things I perceive as a burden, like Downs, MS, Parkinsons etc. No need for a perfect child but I'd want to at least not disadvantage my kid, it'd be hard for me to raise someone who was disabled.

Click to expand...

Considering there's no harm done at any stage of the process to anyone, anywhere, and the end goal saves lives and/or improves quality of life, I should hope you'd be in support of it.

This post is going to be very controversial and I do sound a bit hypocritical by saying I don't want cloning/genetically engineering a perfect race but do want at least the option to prevent imperfections like disabilities. Oh well, I only posted because it's Batto's post and I like the guy.

Click to expand...

It's controversial because you're suggesting limiting freedom for (in the first case) no reason whatsoever, or (in the second case) a very flimsy reason.

twocows said:

Why?

It's basically reproduction. Do you also hope to see the human race sterilized? For the record, I am hoping to have myself cloned at some point. I would like to have children at some point, and this method seems appealing to me. Considering it harms no one and brings new life into the world (as well as grants me progeny), I don't see what your issue is with it.

Click to expand...

Not right now, but cloning as a means of reproduction would only narrow the human gene pool, right?

twocows said:

Considering there's no harm done at any stage of the process to anyone, anywhere, and the end goal saves lives and/or improves quality of life, I should hope you'd be in support of it.

Click to expand...

Saving more human lives than we already do is a good thing why?

Cassino said:

Not right now, but cloning as a means of reproduction would only narrow the human gene pool, right?

Click to expand...

Highly doubtful. There are some 9 billion people living right now, about 300 million of which are in the US. I could come up with a bunch of examples to demonstrate just how many people that is, but suffice it to say the number 300 million is so large that it's impossible to visualize without a means of comparison. Even if 1/10th of the nation started cloning themselves to a high degree (something that's very unlikely even in the distant future), it wouldn't make a negligible impact on the gene pool.

Saving more human lives than we already do is a good thing why?

Click to expand...

Wait, what? Did you type that right?

Saving human lives is an end in itself. Human life is sacred; our experiences, the things we feel, the things we do, they matter to us. I didn't even realize this was in contention. You don't need an excuse to save lives. It's pretty much inherent to any definition of "good."