🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jevan Pipitone" <jp@jevan1.com> wrote in message 
news:4fb8b8a1$0$31820$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net...
>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?
>

# Cloning is a reversion to asexual reproduction, but what exactly is the 
point of it, apart from the fact that human research can do it?
   Do species which use sexual reproduction have an advantage over the 
asexual type?
   Maybe when environmental changes are occurring rapidly, as they can 
potentially adapt faster.
   One exception might be the species Homo Sapiens, as Nature has produced 
an animal with an over-large brain, coupled with primitive instincts - 
surely a recipe for disaster?  Especially if it dogmatically insists on 
letting its instinct of Complacency ignore rational ecological Prudence.
   It no longer adapts to change (if it even recognises it), but wants 
Nature to do the adapting.
   The Mad Ape?
   And the species has now reached plague proportions.... 

On 20/05/12 19:24, Jevan Pipitone wrote:

> 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.

I don't have a problem with cloning animals as long as the clone taste 
as nice as the original :)

> 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.


Not much good cloning Einstein if the clone doesn't have his 
memories/knowledge/experience/etc.

No guarantee that the clone CAN re-learn everything the original knew.

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 ...