io9
Yesterday, the chief executive at biotech company Stemagen became the first adult human to see his clone mature into a viable embryo. No, Samuel Wood isn't planning to raise his own baby clone — he's just doing research into a new way of creating stem cells from adult DNA. But scientists pointed out that the embryo he created was viable enough to be implanted in a woman's uterus, IVF-style. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't mature into a human baby.
Researchers took DNA from one of Wood's skin cells, injected it into a human egg cell from the fertility clinic next door to Stemagen, and created a multi-celled embryo — essentially the same size embryo that a fertility clinic would implant into a woman undergoing IVF treatments. Wood, however, emphasizes that he's horrified by the idea of human cloning and wants only to use this new technique to make stem cells for therapeutic purposes.
I say, bring on the human clones. Kerry Macintosh, a law professor, has recently written a fascinating book, Illegal Beings, about how the biggest problem with human clones is their legal status. She argues that when a human clone is born its identity will have to be kept secret — under current law, the clone's existence is illegal and therefore it would have no human rights and would have to be confiscated by the government if found out. So there might be human clones out there right now, but the frightened parents would never reveal it for fear of losing their child.
Mature Human Embryos Created from Adult Skin Cells [Washington Post]
Comments
Yeah, I never understood the big fear about human clones. It wouldn't be an exact copy. I mean,they may look a little like you, but they'll probably have completely different sexual fetishes.
This shit's only going to take off when you can swallow the embry-clones as easily as morning after pills.
Ohh yeah frosted embryo clonees for breakfast. I've never tasted so good.
But there are problems with clones. Namely, the DNA used has already been damaged by multiple replication cycles and evironmental effects (radiation, pollution, etc.) This leads to a greater risk genetic mutation in the clone as well as shortened life-span. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't work towards cloning (I don't think there's anything immoral about cloning) but if we are concerned with human rights (and clones do deserve them) then we should also be concerened with quality of life for cloned organisms and esspecially cloned humans. So I would argue that until we can overcome the problems inherrent in cloning, we should at least be cautious about performing it with human DNA.
I wouldn't call it a true clone unless it had his mitochondia as well.
i, for one, welcome our old overlords... again
@worsethannormal:
yea but a shortened lifespan means they're less likely to revolt.
@wingbatwu: Unless theylack memories and- BLADE RUNNER!
Just wanted to kill it before it spunned out of control.
Cloning is bad in my eyes. A selfish gesture. Genetic modification however, is a necessity.
I wonder about the issues with clones, myself. Until we figure a way to hyper-accelerate growth, it don't do anyone any good. Sure, I could clone myself, but it's not going to pass for me for a few decades...it's the one part of cloning that's always glossed over in scifi.
Cloning is one of those issues where bad sci-fi writing has gotten in the way of progress. All cloning is, is asexual reproduction. Clones won't have your emotions or your memories, they'd just look eerily like you when you were a kid.
The problem with cloning is that it foregoes biological natural selection. I can imagine my clone getting pretty pissed off - "Thanks a lot, you gave me life with a fat ass and a pension for night terrors."
excellent..my plans for a cloned army of shock troops is coming together... I'll dress them all in white armor... what should I call them I wonder.. hmmm badweather commando's maybe....
@worsethannormal: I agree. My main ethical concern with human cloning is that it's essentially experimenting on a person who can't give consent.
@worsethannormal: i agree that clones deserve human rights and i'm also sure that some clones are already out there, mutated or not.
if we can make a corporation a legal entity under the law, it would be criminal (ethically and spiritually) not to recognize a living being, such as a clone, as a legal entity and not a possession.
A couple of comments:
Clones will never be more identical than twins. And as someone implied, the techniques used previously employed unrelated eggs with DNA removed, resulting in different mitochondrial DNA.
If any substantial portion of the population is clones, it would seem we will have lost quite a bit of our species' genetic variability, which is said to be low in humans already.
I wouldn't expect it to live. Or even be alive in the first place.
Why is it so horrifying - I've just never understood it. And is it always men going "how horrifying", or what?
Now this is a true milestone! The "Here's my embryo" clone. This is what I've been waiting for. Now when is the Higher Power's wrath exerted? Hmmmm...
Clones are people too! And as others said, less related than twins since they'll all have different mitochondria. The health issues are unfair to them, and lack of genetic diversity is bad but I don't see them as "horrifying" or directly dangerous to us existing people.
But genetic therapy -- we need that.
of course clones are people, that's never really been in question bilogically. the question is, 'at what point of development do we imbue them with human rights?' which is the exact same question we have yet to answer, at least directly, for traditionally produced zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses.
Clones' rights, sure. And holding robots accountable for war crimes. What's next, making it illegal to sexually harass aliens and elf maidens? I say, America is for Americans, and if you don't like it, GO BACK TO THE UNDERDARK.
I'm pretty drunk.
And yet if you murder an undocumented immigrant, you still get charged with murder despite their lack of legal status. Funny, that.
Of course, if there's one thing science fiction has taught us, it's that we will not hesitate to enslave and torture and generally be dicks to absolutely any and every being we can remotely justify such a stance towards.
The way I see it we as a species have been able to create life since the start.If could compel the powers that be not to manipulate the technology to meet there own ends {military applications} ,and give these people a certain quality of life that any of us would expect then we shouldn't fear the process.Another issue is,and I have to agree with teracycloide, is that we can't even decide when life begins for us non-clones . So how do we determine when it stats for them .There are far to many ethical questions to answer before we can touch this one.
"I agree. My main ethical concern with human cloning is that it's essentially experimenting on a person who can't give consent."
True enough, but so are IVF, emergency medical treatment (in many cases), and, well, raising a child. Life is never fair.
-Kle.
My favorite bit is that Drudge ran the headline with a photo of the cloned man, in case you see that face again in forty years. Servicey!
@Huxleyhobbes:
Of course, if there's one thing science fiction has taught us, it's that we will not hesitate to enslave and torture and generally be dicks to absolutely any and every being we can remotely justify such a stance towards.
--
Science fiction shows us that? Funny, I thought it was history.
In any case, I view a cloned zygote and an original zygote on the same level--it ain't a person.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?