🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2012-05-20 09:24:44 +0000, Jevan Pipitone said:

> I came across the issue of whether dna cloning is ethical, after the 
> news mentioned someone cloned a dog 3 times.
> 
> It's possibly not such a good idea to clone animals or humans when the 
> original is still going to live on. After all, how would you know which 
> one was which, it seems unfair to take away that originality, even 
> identical twins have differences in their dna.
> 
> However perhaps if a human was going to die soon of an incurable 
> condition, it might be alright to clone them (especially if they were 
> someone like einstein). The fact that the original wasn't going to live 
> anymore, might make it alright/ethically fine to clone them, perhaps.
> 
> What do you think?

Late to this, but ...

Nothing I've seen indicates that cloning has eliminated the 'cell 
death' problem. In other words, if you take the DNA from the cell of an 
animal that has gone through 25 divisions (half its life span), and 
whack it into a sterilsed ovum, the resultant animal will only live for 
another 25 divisions (the other half of the lifespan allotted in the 
gene).

You don't get an animal that will live for a 'natural' life span … and, 
unless the cloners develop the technology to fundamentally repair the 
gene, replace the missing telomeres and the like before they insert it 
into the egg … you won't.

Dolly the Sheep died young, and so have any number of othe mammalian 
clones  … other phenotypes may differ.

The question is, is it ethical to routinely create clones that will 
have a reduced lifespan? (NB. I have no problem with doing it for 
research … but I have serious problems with industrialising same.)

Just my 2 cents worth ...