The First Cloned Human?

[Wicked Pilot]

Have you stopped to consider some of the serious ethical and legal complications of real human cloning? I'm not talking super-men clones or clone army crap, I'm talking things like black mail, organ harvesting and other serious moral and legal question/

You must destinguish between a cloned clump of cells, and a cloned baby. I think that most on the board would agree that to bring into the world a fully developed clone would be unethical, especially if it was grown to be harvested, experimented on, etc. However if we are just talking about cloning some stem cells, or growing simply an organ, I don't see how that could be construed as wrong.

[Stormbringer]

Have you stopped to consider some of the serious ethical and legal complications of real human cloning? I'm not talking super-men clones or clone army crap, I'm talking things like black mail, organ harvesting and other serious moral and legal question/

You must destinguish between a cloned clump of cells, and a cloned baby. I think that most on the board would agree that to bring into the world a fully developed clone would be unethical, especially if it was grown to be harvested, experimented on, etc. However if we are just talking about cloning some stem cells, or growing simply an organ, I don't see how that could be construed as wrong.

I can and do understand the difference between the two. And frankly stem cell research and such doesn't bother me much.

Being able to make full blown clones does. I think society will abuse it and we don't have the legal and ethical implications thought out. Half of the people out there probably think of clones like Clonetroopers. Frankenstiend monsters.

And clones made of unwilling donors could be a lot of trouble and we don't have anything like the legal structure to deal with the possible (and probable) abuses of the technology.

[Colonel Olrik]

Being able to make full blown clones does. I think society will abuse it and we don't have the legal and ethical implications thought out. Half of the people out there probably think of clones like Clonetroopers. Frankenstiend monsters.

Any ideas of genetically improving a clone, in any therms, are well beyond our actual science. Much of a person personality / inteligence is also environment related, so any attempt to clone Hitler, for example, would probably produce, at best, a mediocre painter.

A clone of me would be a different individual, like two true twins are different individuals. True twins are allowed and generally accepted in society.

Organ cropping is a scary thought . But it is impractical to wait years for a clone to mature before the organs are available. It's far more profitable to genetically modify other fast growing species, like pigs, to produce those organs. Or, with enough advances in the technology, to clone the organs themselves.

Other fears, like producing a clone to insert one's brain/mind into it, are ludicrous and will be for several decades, at least.

The vast majority of the population will continue to reproduce naturally. It's much more fun, and cheaper. A bunch of clones will just dilute themselves in the croud.

The military does not need an army of clones. Modern warfare tend to rely less and less in sheer man numbers. And there are enough volunters to fill the vacancies.

So, what are exactly the imediate dangers of cloning?

[Darth Servo]

Who cares about cloning a complete person? I just want them to perfect organ cloning. I could use some new Islet cells.

[Enlightenment]

Have you stopped to consider some of the serious ethical and legal complications of real human cloning? I'm not talking super-men clones or clone army crap, I'm talking things like black mail, organ harvesting and other serious moral and legal question/

We're not talking about zombies grown in vats who will mature to adulthood in six months with complete memories and a desire to be used for biotech feedstock. Human clones are just babies with the same gentic makeup to some other person, much like identical twins. A clone baby is going to mature to be an adult in exactly the same way as any other child and is legally entitled to the same rights. No one goes screaming that the sky is falling when identical twins are born, so what's the big deal about making an identical twin--separated by a significant time interval--artificially?

[Colonel Olrik]

That's pretty much what I think.

BTW, What's a "Curmudgeon"?

[Enlightenment]

Who cares about cloning a complete person? I just want them to perfect organ cloning. I could use some new Islet cells.

Growing new organs is more a matter of stem cell research rather than cloning. If you really want your islets, scrape together a few hundred million dollars and 'advise' Shrubby about the stupidity of his religiously-motivated anti-stem cell research policy.

[Enlightenment]

BTW, What's a "Curmudgeon"?

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=curmudgeon:

An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions.

[CorSec]

I'm behind in my news reading, so I only just caught an article about this issue. Other than radio sound-bites, this is my first and only look at the Raëlian spawned baby.

"What a sad day for science," said Dr. Robert Lanza, medical director of Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., a company that has cloned human embryos to provide cells for research but not to create babies. "What they've claimed to have done is both appalling and scientifically irresponsible, and whether or not it's true, they have done a tremendous disservice to all of us in the scientific community. The backlash could cripple an area of medical research that could cure millions of people, and it would be tragic if this announcement results in a ban on all forms of cloning."

Like some others here, I doubt the veracity of what they claim to have done. Did they actually clone a person or was this a bait and switch with the switch being a artificial insemenation? Without their reports on what they did, it's only speculation that will be our answers.

All that aside, there's still the discussion of the ethics of what was done. Maybe I'm too liberal minded, or perhaps to lazy to be concerned about it, but I'm not as disturbed as many other people seem to be. Reading Dr. Lanza's words gives me some pause, but only with the modifier of how it effects future scientific research. The backlash of this event is sure to cause a ruckus which could set honest to goodness research back a few years.

"All responsible scientists oppose reproductive cloning," said Dr. Steven L. Teitelbaum, a pathology professor at Washington University in St. Louis and president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. "The concern that we have is that because this is an emotional issue, because of the moral and ethical implications, the emotion will spill over into areas which have great potential to help patients with diseases like Parkinson's, diabetes and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis."

I'm curious as to why "all responsible scientists oppose reproductive cloning." Can I get some speculation on this? Other than the following quote, I'm afraid my understanding of the hows and whats is greatly limited.

Dr. Lanza and Dr. Teitelbaum warned that children born as a result of cloning might have a high risk of genetic problems. Their concerns are based on the results of studies in animals, in which clones from several species of mammals have developed health problems.

This is an excellent reason to not endorse reproductive cloning. But this won't always be an issue.

In January, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report urging that the United States ban reproductive cloning, but recommending that therapeutic cloning be permitted.

A member of the panel that prepared the report, Dr. Mark Siegler, director of the MacLean Bioethics Center at the University of Chicago, said: "We went so far in the report as to call for something that was very unusual for scientists to do — a legally enforceable ban for five years on human reproductive cloning. At the same time our committee came out very strongly in favor of cloning for research and therapeutic purposes."

As I've said, I'm not outright opposed to reproductive cloning. I'm also not bothered by a proposed ban on reproductive cloning. Simply put, I think (and this is only what I think) our society isn't ready for it to happen. Not only that, it doesn't seem that the scientific powers that be know enough to produce anything worthwhile. In a number of years, we may advance enough to where an otherwise normal, healthy child could come from a parent's donated cells.

Unusual? Certainly. I don't want to start dissecting the psyche of someone who thinks it's a great idea to have a clone baby of themselves. That is something I could easily find objectable.

I just get the feeling there's something missing. There's something that I'm not taking into account. Some one little thing that when I see it or hear it, I'll go "a - ha!" and join the majority in opposition to clone babies.