Slashdot Log In
Human clones priced at $50,000
Posted by
sengan
on Tue Jan 30, 2001 06:26 PM
from the manufactured-by-the-Tyrrel-corporation dept.
from the manufactured-by-the-Tyrrel-corporation dept.
A private consortium of scientists
plans to clone a human being within the next two years. They claim they will develop ethical guidelines to determine when to clone and not to clone. This assumes the scientists that develop a technology are able to limit society's use of that technology. It also assumes scientists are the best judges as to whether society is sufficiently mature to use a given technology sanely. Both questions seem debatable to me. What do you think?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Human clones priced at $50,000
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 440 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There will be humna cloning eventually (Score:3)
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
- Mahatma Ghandi
The world's human cloning community is approacing the third part.
church (Score:3)
A person who is cloned, when they find out their origin, how easily will they buy-into the thought that God made them? Right now, scientifically-minded religious people can rationalize it by saying, "Nature made me, nature is God's tool." But not if they were cloned. God made the original. But the clone is different.
How will clones think of themselves? Will they have a harder time accepting spiritual notions? Could they develop a psychological complex over the issue? What if the genetic donor was a terrible person? Will the clone feel predisposed towards that? What if the genetic donor has pictures posted of themself on the internet doing it with a goat? Can they sue the donor for posting what are for all intents and purposes, pictures of THEM?
There are just a lot of issues we "natural born" humans seem to be taking for granted here, that might just cause some emotional distress for the clone.
Re:What exactly is the problem with human cloning? (Score:3)
The thing that terrifies me about all the hype about cloning is that it reinforces the belief that clones are "manufactured" human beings, and do not have the same rights as "real" people. In the real world, clones don't melt into a puddle of green slime when they're killed... they are, by definition, as human as the donor from whose DNA they were fertilized.
Re:What exactly is the problem with human cloning? (Score:3)
Steps in cloning:
1) isolate a cell from the donor
2) remove the nucleus/genetic material from the cell
3) prepare a host egg by removing it's genetic material
4) insert the material from the first cell into the second
5) artificially inseminate the egg into a host mother or keep alive in a test tube
6) wait 9 months
The "old fashioned" method
1) find two members of the "superior" race of opposite
2) allow them to have some fun
3) while not pregnant goto 2
4) wait 9 months
It's certainly easier to obtain a new "genetically" superior human via the second method. Besides, either method requires that you wait at least 12-15 years before the new human is at all useful. You cannot out-populate other races using cloning... fools with these sorts of delusions will unfortunately turn to the methods which you were so kind to point out: genocide.
Doug
Use mastercard. (Score:4)
Tissue samples: $10,000
Lobbying congress to make it legal:$100,000
An endless supply of fresh CmdrTacos: Priceless
Some reasons why not (Score:4)
It is physically hazardous, and the risk is bourn by the clone, not by the person who decided to have a clone. Risks include many pre-birth failures to mature, deformity, possibly abnormal aging.
A child should be free to discover their own talents and weaknesses. This is much harder when someone else has taken your genes along the same path 40 years before. It is bad enough trying to live up to an illustrious parent without having identical genes. Imagine the angst of achieving little with the same genes as your famous clone parent. Note that this is different from identical twins, as they are the same age.
Why should any such risks be taken by the clone for the benefit (ego or whatever) of another person? What valid reasons can there be to inflict such risks, when a normal conception can always be done more safely and easily?
(One possibly valid reason could be if the individual has no viable germ cells - but still then only if the clone would be expected to be reproductively normal.)
(I'm not some unreasoning technophobe, but there were no highly moderated comments giving the anti-cloning viewpoint, so I am posting to increase balance.)
The wealthy get to extend their rule (Score:3)
G.W. Bush v8 has announced his candidacy for President of the United States. The current president, G.W. Bush v7, has repeatedly called his opponent "nothing more than a feeble attempt at mimicing my stand on the key issues."
But seriously, $50,000 is a helluva lot of money to 99.99% of the world's population. So the rich now not only dominate in one life, but they get to perpetuate themselves infinitely?
If you think the Kennedys are a powerful political clan now, think about what they could be like with cloning at their disposal. Imagine the hiring policies of corporations who develop techniques to determine which particular clone donors make the best cloned workers. Think about the power not of death, but of life, misapplied.
The Controversy: not cloning itself (Score:5)
Would it be ethical for a 50 year old woman to clone herself, only to find out 10 years later that her daughter had a life expectancy of 30?
Re:I have no problem with it. (Score:3)
And we don't know what the health concerns of a human using the latest flu medication will be, either, but there comes a time when you have to stop testing it on mice and move to the human trials. "We don't know" is, to me, not a reason not to do something - how will we ever find out, if we don't try it?
If most of the Christian Churches of the world find the issue spiritually troubling, I think it would be fair to acknowledge that others might find the issue a little less trivial than you do.
I didn't say it was trivial (although I do think it is). But spirituality is one of those things that are so personal and individualized, that you know what? we don't make laws about it. At least, not in the US, where the original poster and I, at least, live (well, half the time I live there). So discussing whether cloning should be allowed "for spiritual reasons" is spurious.
And you find the government studying the science before clearing it repugnant?
No, I find the idea of sitting around, waiting for the gov't to say "OK" repugnant. I find the thought of the government getting into the bioethics business equally repugnant. It is not up to the government to make moral/ethical decisions for us. They're not good at it, and it's not what we put them there for.
And no, since you keep alluding to it, I am not in any way connected to cloning research (I'm pretty sure there isn't an "industry" yet).
Cyclopatra
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
Science and Ethics: A Lesson from History (Score:4)
During that freeze period, guidelines for safe DNA research were established, and special "research strains" of common bacteria were developed (E. Coli strains MM294 and GH5 being two prominent examples). These strains were disabled in half a dozen ways, including the removal of the slime layer that protects bacteria from digestive juices, as well as making the bacteria lycine-dependant (so that they are unable to synthesize proteins outside of the lab). Now, I use those very same strains in my high school Recombitant DNA class. I firmly believe that if the same sort of precaution and careful planning are taken with regards to cloning, we have nothing to fear.
Re:Body parts (Score:4)
What about guy's that think with their crotch?!
Maybe this will answer some questions... (Score:5)
For example.. growing up in a caring, stimulating environment will likely form a strong, creative, and well rounded person.
Conversely, growing up in a dark, sewage laden pit where passing primates hurl feces at you will produce a Slashdot troll, $cr|p+ k|dd|3, or possibly even a Republican.
Body parts (Score:5)
1) It seems to me that creating an object with no 'soul' is not unethical.
2) All sentience is isolated to the brain.
3) Sentience is equivalent to a 'soul'.
4) It is not impossible to manipulate genes to produce a desired cellular mass.
5) A body with no head has no sentience.
6) It is possible to create a human body with no head.
7) These bodies will likely be derogatorily called 'organ factories'.
8) Organ factories are *not* unethical.
Therefore we should start creating organ factories in order to increase our human lifespans.
Dancin Santa
As far as I am concerned... (Score:4)
Kids, you better be good, or your parents will have a replacement cloned... No one would ever be the wiser...
Re:It's an opportunity to retool sociobiology (Score:3)
Our society as a whole revolves around prejudice -- even we Geeks tend to prejudice ourselves, say, against Windows users if you're a Linux zealot. If you remove a *source* of prejudice (i.e. gender) without removing the societal programming that causes the behavior, new sources of prejudice will develop. We may, perhaps, become even more shallow, aligning ourselves on physical differences like hair or skin color -- something we are still struggling with.
I think our time is better spent working for gender equity than throwing away the biological division in gender.
--
Yeah, right... (Score:3)
Sounds like a perfect recipe for lots of fuzzy "ethical/moral" rationalization to me...
What exactly is the problem with human cloning? (Score:5)
Just what is the great danger of human cloning?
--
Hey! (Score:3)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
scientists vs. politicians (Score:5)
This is great, but... (Score:5)
He said it would "develop guidelines with which the technology cannot be indiscriminately applied for anybody who wants to clone themselves".
sticks in my craw.
Why shouldn't anyone who wants to be able to clone themselves? What is everyone so afraid of with cloning? I'm not talking about grow-me-a-new-body cloning (ie, having a clone made for organ donation, etc), but about allowing cloning for anyone who wants to raise a clone of themselves, regardless of whether it's their only way to have children or not.
What is everyone so afraid of when it comes to cloning? If I want to have a child and can't find a man I consider suitable to be a father, why should I have to trust that sperm donors are going to be any better?
The closest thing to an argument against this that anyone has given me is whether parents can make the distinction between their clones and themselves. However, my mother certainly couldn't have had any more trouble recognising that I didn't exist to make up for her mistakes if I had been her clone. We don't place any restrictions on who can have children (regardless of whether we ought to; that's another argument entirely, and one I have a different opinion on depending on what day of the week it is). Why should we place restrictions on how someone can have them?
-Cyclopatra
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
Well. (Score:3)
Second, the premise that there are certain problems that shouldn't be solved by certain people. If a couple are infertile, and it is possible to create a child via cloning, then by all means DO SO (providing you can afford the costs of the treatment).
Besides, as the failed 'Drug War' has so completely and utterly demonstrated, where there is demand, there will be supply (if it exists).
Re:What exactly is the problem with human cloning? (Score:5)
I always find it hilarious when movies create clones who are already 30 years old and share memories with their genetic twin. The actual act of cloning is rather dull compared with hollywood's take on the subject.
Cloning is really only slightly different from normal reproduction: all chromosomes are taken from one individual, rather than mixed from two.
Some unethical things can be done with cloned humans, like harvesting their organs, but then laws that prevent you from enslaving your neighbor's child and doing the same thing will apply.
Doug
Re:What exactly is the problem with human cloning? (Score:5)
Sorry.
It is no longer feasible for the human race to react to virii and bacteria through evolution. They do that better than us. Micro-mutations inside of a generation can cause some ability to react better to parasites such as these. However, in the space of one human generation, the number of bacterial (to say nothing of virii which are potentially faster) generations many many orders of magnitude beyond that. Probably 7 or 8 orders of magnitude.
Also, for humans to respond through evolution, humans have to be subject to natural selection. This is not a good situation. Even if nature is cleverer, we are much nicer to the old, the weak, and the genetically disadvantaged. For us to react well to disease we would need to kill or sterilize Stephen Hawking (or allow him to die) to preserve "genetic strength" this is the type of thing that "clever" nature does. Please remember that nature is mean and horrible, and as much as you seem to hate antibiotics, they are heaps better than the "clever" solution.
Everyone tosses the word "natural" around as if it is necessarily superior. Natural is getting torn apart by lions. Natural is having fleas for your whole life. Natural is bad. Clever it's not. Please reflect on thoughts like this.
Re:What exactly is the problem with human cloning? (Score:4)
Re:In 2 words... (Score:4)
I didn't say it wouldn't change things. I just don't see why that's a reason to be so Chicken Little about it.
Take everything you know about life and reconsider.(...) What is life, really?
Is this a question you claim to have the answer to? Do you think cloning is likely to change that answer?
If you answered 'yes' to both of the above questions, you don't have the answer yet. Come back when you have a theory that can't be shaken so easily.
Do clones have the same rights as any other human? Will this create a new sub-class of humans? Most likely.
Please tell me how you can tell the difference between someone who is a clone and someone who is not. Quickly, walking down the street or talking to them in a bar.
How can you discriminate against or deny rights to a class of people when you can't determine who its members are? How will this "create a new sub-class" of humans, unless they somehow engineer all clones to have, say, purple spots on the middle of their foreheads (which, before you go getting all pseudo-philosophical or hysterical about genetic engineering, we can't do yet)?
It becomes easy to abdicate responsibility for such attrocities as nuclear weapons, the hydrogen bomb, the holocaust (you think Hitler knew the best way to gas jews?), the list goes on. "It wasn't me!" the scientists cry
Notwithstanding Godwin's Law [tuxedo.org], you've just abjured responsiblity yourself, by foisting it all off on those evil, mean scientists who are obviously out to sell all our souls to Hell with their Godforsaken investigations. This kind of thing is nothing more than Frankenstein revisited. If you want to be a Luddite, fine. But why drag the rest of us down into this morass of fear? Some of us prefer to look on every new discovery as an opportunity, instead of a reason to be afraid.
Cyclopatra
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
Re:What exactly is the problem with human cloning? (Score:5)
There have been studies of identical twins who were separated at birth (I think there was a special on "20/20" or "Dateline" a few years ago). These twins never knew they had a sibling until they had kids of their own. The twins were astonishingly similar in habits, likes/dislikes, career choices, etc., even though they had grown up thousands of miles away from each other.
Now think of things in terms of this new, cloned kid. The saying "You are original, just like everybody else" won't be so funny anymore.
He or she will know exactly what they will look like later in life, what kinds of grades they're capable of in school, what kinds of jobs they'll be predisposed towards. They will be constantly compared to, well, themselves (about 20-30 years down the road). What if they don't live up to the standards already set by their parents, who set them by simply going through life?
Additionally, this kid will know what diseases or habits he/she will probably contract later in life, be it balding, tendancy for alcoholism (I'm not sure if I believe this study or not), diabetes, cancers, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, sickle-cell, (etc.), which all have genetic links.
Basically, this kid's whole future will already be known. Where's the excitement in that kind of life?
You are right - ban twins! (Score:3)
--