Human Clone and future

[Amitabh Sharma]

If it is true that the first human baby has been manufactured by clonning then how will the world change?

[Amitabh Sharma]

- Finger print /eye scan will no longer be acceptable as an evidence / security check.
- Police can no longer display photos of wanted criminals.
- Sperm banks will be useless.
- kidney transplant will be cheaper
- you can see what you will look like after 20 years
- you can say "no that wasnt me that day"
- you can sleep with your clones's wife
-

[John Coxey]

Suppose they make a clone of you. And then transplant your brain from old body to your new clone body. Wouldn't need anti-rejection drugs.
Does that mean you will never die?
And, if no one dies? Where are we going to put everyone?
And why work? Gives a whole new meaning to "it can wait."
John Coxey
([e-mail])

[Thomas Paul]

Don't you think your clone might object to having his brain removed so you can put your's in his head?
Eye scans and fingerprints will still work since even identical twins don't have matching fingerprints and retinal patterns.

[Amitabh Sharma]

I doubt if brain transplant would work. Brain and memory grow thru experiences. So if A and A' are clones. Someone slapped A while A' was away. Then the brains of A and A' were swapped. Then when A and A' "wake up" after the surgery A' will know that A was slapped while A will have no idea why his face hurts.
[ December 30, 2002: Message edited by: Amitabh Sharma ]

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Don't you think your clone might object to having his brain removed so you can put your's in his head?
Eye scans and fingerprints will still work since even identical twins don't have matching fingerprints and retinal patterns.

On that subject, what determines fingerprints and retinal patterns?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
On that subject, what determines fingerprints and retinal patterns?

Fingerprints: The overall general flow or pattern (Level 1 detail) of friction ridges on human hands and feet is governed primarily by the height and position of the volar pads formed before birth. The formation of the volar pads is affected by inherited traits from the parents. High pads will form whorls, low pads arches, a medium height pad to one side a loop, etc. Thus twins or close relatives may have very similar ridge flow patterns (also called finger or palm print classification).

[Amitabh Sharma]

I was reading in the newspaper today that identical twins share more genes than a person and his clone!!
And even the identical twins are very different. Their height, weight, personality can be very different. There will be no real clones. I am loosing interest in this clone business.

[Thomas Paul]

Cloning is simply an alternate way to make babies for those whom IVF is out of the question.
The problem with cloning is that it is still experimantal and we have no idea what effect cloning may have on the clone. For example, if our DNA has a natural aging process, what will taking 30 year old DNA and starting a baby from it mean? Will the baby age prematurely? What effect will natural mutations which occur to the DNA during the life of the donor have on the clone? Since we know so little about cloning it seems a bit premature to start experimenting on babies.

[Thomas Paul]

From MSNBC:
For all the speed with which science was progressing, virtually no one had thought it would happen so soon. Yet there it was in huge block letters on the front page of the New York Post: The world�s first human clone had been born.
THE NEXT day, The Washington Post and other newspapers across the country ran with the story about the rogue scientists who had cloned a human on an undisclosed island. A spokesman connected to the effort refused to identify the infant, citing a desire to �protect the child from harmful publicity.� Legislators quickly called for a ban on human cloning. And just as immediately came warnings that such a ban might choke off medically promising research.
December 2002?
Try March 1978.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/853146.asp?0cv=CB20

[Angela Margot]

Other thoughts on the impact of cloning...
- If a male was cloned, then several years later a woman claimed he was the father of her child, he could deny it. For if they did DNA testing the father could be either the clone or the original
- In cases where DNA can convict or clear, the cases would be unclear
- Would cloning be used to create a "superior" species, such that originals would be rejected as inferior?
- Or vice versa, would clones be created as a "slave" race?
Just thoughts I've had on it...

[Thomas Paul]

We already have plenty of people with identical DNA. They are called twins. We seem to have managed to survive as a species.
Cloning by itself can't be used to create a "superior" species. We would need to be able to manipulate genes which we can't do.
Slavery is against the law.

[Angela Margot]

True enough that identical twins have extremely close - but not identical DNA. And there have been cases of problems with identity in some situations because of this.
However, if cloning becomes an acceptable alternative to natural birth, then the DNA would be identical, not just extremely close. An increased number of people with the same DNA would cause a serious increase in the potential for problems with identification.
As for a superior species/human slavery - it is true that slavery is illegal. However, human perceptions of individuals originating from non-typical methods could affect how they are viewed and accepted within a society. The superior species theory would be only in the perception - not the genetic makeup. Perception plays an important role in how societies view members within them.
At one time "test tube" babies were considered the oddity. Now the human cloning is an item of interest. The biggest difference is that with "test tube" babies they were made up from two parents. A clone would only have the makeup of one specific individual.
Think of the "Simpson's" Homer-cloning episode

[Thomas Paul]

True enough that identical twins have extremely close - but not identical DNA.
You are mistaken. Identical twins have identical DNA. Identical twins come from a single fertilized egg that has improperly divided to become two separate individuals.
Here's a neat web site to explain the situtation:
http://www.wonderquest.com/twins-dna.htm
An increased number of people with the same DNA would cause a serious increase in the potential for problems with identification.
I highly doubt it. Clones will still have separate fingerprints and live separate lives.
As for a superior species/human slavery - it is true that slavery is illegal. However, human perceptions of individuals originating from non-typical methods could affect how they are viewed and accepted within a society.
On what do you base this conclusion? Do you know of people who make fun of the "IVF kids"? How would you even know that someone was a clone? The typical clone scenario is that a childless couple who can't use IVF will choose cloning. That means that the clone will always be about 30 to 40 years younger than the donor. The clone will still be born just like everyone else.
A clone would only have the makeup of one specific individual.
The genetic makeup of a single individual yes, but they wouldn't be that individual. They would probably like different music, have different dreams, have different skills. They would be a lot less alike than identical twins because unlike identical twins, the donor and the clone wouldn't have grown up in the same environment.
I really think that people are pushing this into the realm of science fiction and worrying over nothing.
[ December 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[nan sh]

It's looks like everyone assume that clone will have the same intelligence as its origin, I don't.
I don't believe intelligence is from DNA, and guess cloned will not have normal human's intelligence.
May be I am wrong.

[R K Singh]

I agree with u nan..
I think clone will be like any other child... Who will have his own thinking, behaviour and experences.

[Amitabh Sharma]

On CNN there was one scientist who was saying that cloned babies will be one generation behind in many ways.
It is true. There is genetic progress in every generation although it is too slow to be noticed.
My dentist told me that most humans dont need the wisdom teeth ANYMORE.
Earlier humans had to eat raw food that must have been harder to chew. Also old humans were not big fans of dental hegiene so they lost teeth. Wisdom tooth were like a spare set of teeth that came out after the first set was lost ( I am guessing all this - dont quote me). Now we dont need it so gradually our genes will ensure that in future generations we dont grow it at all.
When a baby is born by clonning from one individual then he simply copies the doner's genes without any improvements. If a car company kept bring out the same model every year then they would go out business. In the same way if humans were clonned too long then they would lag genetically.
I suppose if an infertile man was clonned there might be a higher chance that his son could be infertile (no problem he can have his own clones).
So if the percentage of infertile men increases there would be a time when most men will be infertile and natural reproduction will stop. Then we will have a factory of humans. Greater percentage of the population will be stagnant genetically.
On the brighter side the clonning tech will improve and better humans will be produced.
[ January 01, 2003: Message edited by: Amitabh Sharma ]

[Jim Yingst]

[nan sh]:
It's looks like everyone assume that clone will have the same intelligence as its origin, I don't.
I don't believe intelligence is from DNA, and guess cloned will not have normal human's intelligence.
May be I am wrong.
I think you are. I don't believe anyone here thinks that a clone would have exactly the same intelligence as the original, since intelligence is widely belived to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors. There is disagreement over how much is genetic and how much is environment, but I've never heard of any reputable researcher suggesting that environment is completely irrelevant, as you seem to think we believe. No, a close would have the same genetic predisposition towards intelligence (or lack thereof) as the original - but depending the environment he/she is raised in, the clone may end up smarter, dumber, or just plain different.
In your second paragraph you seem to say that you think clones will be inherently less intelligent than non-cloned humans. This seems completely ludicrous to me. Where does this idea come from? Or did I misunderstand you?
[Ravish Kumar];
I agree with u nan..
I think clone will be like any other child... Who will have his own thinking, behaviour and experences.
Well, I don't think you agree with nan really - not according to his second paragraph. I would agree with what you said though - with the addition that clones will be likely to be similar in thinking and behavior, in many ways, due to genetic influences. But certainly not identical, and sometimes very different.
(If nothing else, widespread cloning would provide a lot more data to resolve nature-vs.-nurture debates like this.)

[Jim Yingst]

It does seem that widespread cloning would slow down the rate of human evolution. Of course, modern hospitals do that quite a bit already. And this ignores the possibility of genetic engineering (or even mere genetic screening), which (if allowed) seems likely to have far more effect on society and human evolution than cloning would, IMO.
Also, this notion that a given generation of clones would be "behind" seems rather silly. Individual mutations are more often harmful than not, I think - it's just that the organisms with harmful mutations are less likely to procreate, so those mutations tend not to stay in the gene pool. But new mutations will always be introducing yet more harmful mutations (sometimes very similar, or perhaps even identical, to previous mutations). Consider an analogy with programming (DNA may be thought of as a complex program for building a human) - if we take a program and change a few letters at random, we're much more likely to create a fatal bug than we are to accidentally improve something. I suspect DNA code is much more robust, since it's routinely formed by randomly splicing together parts from two different parents' DNA. But in any such complex system it's still going to be a lot easier to break something than improve it, unless you understand the system well and are consciously choosing what changes to make. So a clone would be less likely to have a serious genetic defect, as well as less likely to have a new beneficial mutation (which is much rarer anyway). In the long term this might affect the general characteristics of the human race, but it hardly seems like a disadvantage for the clones themselves.
Incidentally, I recommend Glory Season by David Brin for an interesting science-fictional look at a possible society using widespread cloning. Not a prediction or recommendation of what a society should be like necessarily, but an interesting thought experiment. Worth checking out, IMO.
[ January 01, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[nan sh]

Here when I said �intelligence�, means capacity of learning, ability to abstract from reality, or logically thinking( like Java Programmer)
A lots animals exist in this planet and Only human can build a civilization society, I can let my dog go to school with my son, everyone knows after six years my son will graduate from primary school and dog still will be a dog, that is my mean of �intelligence�

So, say my son, my dog and my cloning go to school together and after six years, my son will good enough to go high school and my dog and my cloning will paly together because they have the same �intelligence�.
Why that happens? because our �intelligence� is not programmed in our DNA, I don't believe that, when they cloning human' DNA, they only can "COPY" human's body, they are not able to �clone� a human, because the main difference between human and the other animal in the planet is that human being has �intelligence�.
Yes, the researchers had had clones a sheep or more other animals, but when we talking about cloning human being, hi mate! there is a huge difference, human being are animals with �intelligence�.
Can Anyone proof to me when researchers clone a human being, they can get a human being not animal ( a human being� body without �intelligence� )? Otherwise it proofs that human being �s �intelligence� is from our DNA. Oh mate; maybe then we need to find out a way to rearrange our DNA, we can be super smart as God!

[Ashik Uzzaman]

As far as I knew it was forbidden! But I am not against experiment with human cloning. I think thurst for knowledge will not abide by restrictions. Its our duty to control its real-life implementation, which is hard as well.
Lets see whether thousands of hitlers or einsteins born again or not...(no chance as many other factors are there)...

[Anthony Villanueva]

My best friends are clones, er, identical twins. One of them is a mathematician, and the other one's a lawyer who couldn't do calculus.
Boys From Brazil has an intriguing premise about the possibilities of cloning.
Er, did someone mention God..?

[gautham kasinath]

Originally posted by nan sh:
the main difference between human and the other animal in the planet is that human being has �intelligence�.

- I disagree.. Well, what a dog cannot perceive you can and vice versa. If nature wanted to select dogs to have more intelligence, then, may be we wouldnt be a dogs pet animal, but probably a friendly co-existing life form.
Intelligence is a relative term. So I guess, it gets misused very often.
The dog going to school wouldnt understand and learn, because it is not taught the way it must be.


Can Anyone proof to me when researchers clone a human being, they can get a human being not animal ( a human being� body without �intelligence� )? Otherwise it proofs that human being �s �intelligence� is from our DNA. Oh mate; maybe then we need to find out a way to rearrange our DNA, we can be super smart as God!

Well, cloning doesnt in anyway say.. only the body and nothing in it is made again. I though by cloning the whole animal is replicated. So brain, being a part of the animal ( what ever animal it may be ) must also be replicated. And I believe that the DNA of every animal goes through a change through out the life span ( how ever minute the change may be ). So assuming a Wolf that has lived in the wild, being cloned.. The clone brought to human habitation.. the clone will react only in the wild fashion. This is because the wild clone doesnt know our habitation and our kind. Something you dont know always scares you..
But after years.. if you successively cloned the clone.. in such a way that each clone spent a considerable amount of time with the humans.. then there is, for sure, going to be one generation wherein the clone is going to be as much harmless and comfortable as a dog.
Further more, I also believe that we can record and observe the intelligence being transfered ( or must I say knowledge ) from clone to clone..
What say mate??
Lupo

[Thomas Paul]

Nan, if human intelligence is not part of our DNA then it is not part of our brain. So where, in your opinion, does human intelligence come from?
Also, could you explain why an identical twin (who is nothing more than a clone) has intelligence but a clone wouldn't?

[Amitabh Sharma]

Ofcourse brain is just another part of body and I have no doubt that intelligence has something to do with the genes. If Newton is clonned today then the clone will have a higher IQ than most people.
But there is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. Knowledge is aquired through learning and experience. Intelligence is natural. You may clone Einstien but there is no gaurantee that he will be such a great scientist. But there is a gaurantee that he will be intelligent because he inherited the genes. Infact success has got very little to do with intellegence. It is said that there is nothing more common than a talent wasted.

[Jim Yingst]

It is said that there is nothing more common than a talent wasted.
Naahhh... lack of talent is pretty common too.

[Jim Yingst]

Note that my last comment is not directed at anyone here. It was just the first thing that popped into mind.
Lupo - I disagree with you about the successive cones of a wild dog. If you just keep cloning, the DNA will not change. The only way the later clones will be any more domesticated than the first clone, is if they are raised in an environment that encourages domesticity better. This may happen if the first clone knows no other dogs except the original, and thus learns behavior from the wild animal - but the later clones grow up knowing the earlier clones as well, who are at least partly domesticated. Thus later clones may be more domesticated than earlier ones, based only on the cumulative learned behavior of the pack. But if the clones were each raised in isolation, there would be no significant difference (on average) between the first clone, and the hundredth. That is, there may still be individual variations, because it's pretty much impossible to exactly replicate the same complete environment (including experiences) for each clone - but clone #1000 has an equal chance of being more or less domesticated than clone #1, assuming each is raised in isolation.
Note that for many animals, the mere fact of being born & raised in captivity will have a significant effect on their behavior - all the clones will probably be more domestic than the original. But they will also retain a significant amount of wild behaviors (some species more than others) If you want to improve the descendants further, you need to introduce some sort of changes to the DNA. Historically this is accomplished by sexual reproduction, which randomly mixes different DNA together (plus the occasional random mutation which didn't come from either parent). Natural selection then gradually weeds out those combinations which turn out to be disadvantageous, and allows the advantageous combinations to continue. The process can be sped up greatly by controlled breeding, which is how humans domesticated many animals: by keeping and beeding only those animals with the more domesticated tendencies. But the only way this can lead to significant lasting changes in the breed is if the DNA changes, which means changes have to be allowed - either randomly (as in conventional sexual reproduction) or by design (genetic engineering). Cloning won't do it.

[Amitabh Sharma]

Jim seems to suggest that DNA changes during the life time also and not just at birth. You may not believe this but the radiation coming from the stars actually hit our DNA and actually do just that.
ofcourse this change is probably not very significant.

[Amitabh Sharma]

Eves - the first human clone is going to USA soon. Any idea who are the parents. I bet there will be a lot of paparazzi after him.

Can the parents of Eve's who are american be arrested when the arrive in America? Human cloning is banned in USA as far as I know.

[Jim Yingst]

Jim seems to suggest that DNA changes during the life time also and not just at birth.
I did? I thought I was saying the opposite - but now that you mention it, you're right; there probably is some change in clones due to this effect . But it seems like it would be extremely small compared to what you get with sexual reproduction. By the time anyone achieves domestication of a wild animal species through this particular technique, I expect the originator of such a project will be long dead. Possibly our sun as well.
[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[gautham kasinath]

Well,
I wonder how we can conclude that DNA doesnot change over a period of time.. I am forced to talk about Charles Darwin.. Well, like rightfully pointed out by Jim, the natural selection takes place. And when this takes place then the Genetic code and to a certain extent the DNA is also changed. How would you explain the origin of birds from Dinasaurs?? The Archeoptryx is the earliest flying Dina known so far. And it is believed that the modern birds came from the Arch.
Now, lets bring in the natural selection.
Nature selected Arch to cease to exist.. but carried on the DNA..
I have to go now.. but will come back and elaborate more.. meanwhile.. comments awaited and respected.
Regds
Lupo

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by gautham kasinath:
I wonder how we can conclude that DNA doesnot change over a period of time.. I am forced to talk about Charles Darwin..

Darwin is referring adaptations in species over time. Certain advantageous traits in species become the norm over time.
Think of it this way... I know this is simplistic, but you've heard the term "blondes have more fun"? let's say that in humans, blondes really do have more fun. Further, "having more fun" is a trait that is greatly advantageous to continued survival in the human species. Over a great period of time, through natural selection, being blonde will become a more and more dominant trait, until eventually, just about everyone is blonde. I don't think you could say that the DNA has "changed" so much as that certain genetic pre-dispositions or characteristics have been highlighted in the species.

[Jim Yingst]

Yeah - to clarify, in most of my previous posts I was talking about changes in the "average" genetic makeup of a species. When I responded to Amitabh Sharma's post though, I was talking more about changes in an individual's DNA during his/her lifetime.

[gautham kasinath]

Well, I agree with you Jim. Yes, the DNA changes are an average and that there are not many sigificant DNA changes that can be noticed in a persons life span.
But the limit to the changes in the DNA is determined by the life span.. right???
Well, if this is so, then when the DNA gets carried over to a clone.. it is the same DNA!!! So the life span now, of the DNA alone, is originals' life span + clones' life span..
further more.. when this DNA from the clone is cloned again.. say over and over for n times..
then the life span of the DNA alone becomes n times the average life span of the clones + life span of the original..
which gives it time to change and eveolve.
When this happens.. the intelligence is carried over too!!
Wouldnt you agree??
Lupo

[Amitabh Sharma]

Jason I heard it in the news that blondes are becoming rare because of breeding with people who have dark hair color I also heard in the news that this was a rumour.
But I am not sure if Lupo your theory is right. you can give only vegetables and fruits to Tiger for his 100 generations but you cannot make the species vegetarian.
In the same way you cannot transform a species genetically by keeping it in captivity or by any such method.
But yes if there are changes in the _physical_ environment then sometimes species can adapt. For example after the drastic climatic changes sea aniamls converted their fins into legs. But these changes are brought about in thousands of years as Darwin theory says.
[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Amitabh Sharma ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Amitabh Sharma:
Can the parents of Eve's who are american be arrested when the arrive in America? Human cloning is banned in USA as far as I know.

Human cloning is not banned in the USA. But even if it was, since the cloning was done outside of the USA, they committed no crime in the US. By the way, if the parents are US citizens then the baby is also a US citizen.

[Amitabh Sharma]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Human cloning is not banned in the USA. But even if it was, since the cloning was done outside of the USA, they committed no crime in the US.

What is the stand of China, Japan, S Korea, EU on human cloning?
I dont think some of them have banned human cloning at all. So probably USA and UK also dont want to be left out.

[Gregg Bolinger]

To my knowledge, the people that have created these clones have yet to provide any proof that they are indeed clones.
Can anyone confirm this or have they provided proof and I just haven't found the article yet?

[Gregg Bolinger]

Is it a Hoax?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
Is it a Hoax?

I don't believe that they have done it. They are a cult looking for publicity and that is exactly what they have gotten. The news media is made up of idiots.