If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Human Cloning
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
So, some Italian doctor plans to clone humans.
Is this good, bad or couldn't you give a shit?
Is this good, bad or couldn't you give a shit?
0
Comments
I'm all for screwing with the natural world and genetic structures, I believe the way forward for humanity is through organic technology, not inorganic. However I don't see the point of human cloning at the moment. The success rate for animal cloning is something like 1-5%, and I'd imagine human cloning would be even less. Even those embryos brought to term can have severe abnormalities. Despite my complete lack of ethics even I would refuse to participate in experiments that bring unwanted, potentialy abnormal human babies into the world just to satisfy one guy's scientific ego.
The techniques used need refinement and testing on a wide range of other animals before they can be applied with any guarantee of success to humans.
It is rare for me to take an "anti-scientific" stand, but in this case I think science is being applied too soon to a problem that can be resolved by other methods. Once again science is being exploited.
It took 277 attempts to come up with Dolly the sheep in her present form..That was 276 miscarriages and abnormally born lambs which had to be put down or died on their own quite horrifically..
Now cloning humans is 5 times more difficult than a sheep so thats around 1385 failures on a human baby before they get a decent one...The doctors involved say practice is perfect but im not sure id want to force that many miscarriages and deformed kids in order to get cloning perfected..I would rather wait and let the docs get the theory sorted first.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.
the only thing i support about GM foods is seedless grapes (i think their modified anyway) coz the ones with seeds in are a bastard
lol...
So with one hand on the wheel
The other out the window
With a smile on my face
My middle finger up...
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/tdo13.gif">
But, just like Dinosaurs, the Dodo etc these creatures have become extinct for a reason, god only knows what impact re-introducing them into this enviroment would have. And who decides what species SHOULD be reintroduced?
I find the whole cloning thing offensive on an ethical and moral level. No consideration is EVER given by scientists to the impact their experiments may have - they just seem to want the 'glory' (infamy) of being the first to do something.
As mentioned earlier 'Dolly' came about after over 200 unsucessful attempts - this time we are talking about human beings.
And what happenes to the human Dolly - the sucessful one? Talk about media scrum (or should that be scum) - the poor child would NEVER have a normal life. Look at the problems that children have now when they find out they are ADOPTED. Who wants to sit a child down and say "hey Johnny, do you know what a clone is? - well go and look in a mirror!"?
Charley, seedless grapes aren't the product of modern GM techniques, they have been cut and grafted for decades.
As for bringing back extinct species, it's not as easy as Jurassic Park would have you believe. Firstly you'd need a very good sample of the genetic structure that hasn't been degraded by time or chemical reactions, very hard to find for any extinct species. Second you'd have to have a pretty good "map" of the gene structure, which isn't so hard but very time consuming. Third, a compatible species that could act as a host mother for your created embryo.
There is a scientist in Russia who is planning on bringing back Wooly Mammoths, and as far as bringing back species his case seems to be the most likely. There are plenty of quick-frozen mammoths in the Russian tundra (his main limitation is the shortness of the summer thawing season) of which he is trying to find intact mammoth testicles. He believes he will be able to revive the sperm if they were frozen quickly enough, thus cutting out the genetic mapping part by implanting revived sperm straight into a modern-day female elephant. This will produce a 50/50 elephant/mammoth that can be further cross bred and inseminated to produce a more "pure" mammoth until eventually he will have a 99% genetic mammoth.
As MOK says, many species have become extinct for a reason, but often that reason is human intervention. How many species has the human race decimated?? We can redress the balance.
Wrong, plain and simple. Perhaps many (not all) scientists have simply reached conclusions you disagree with. Hmm?
Let's face it, nuclear power is good. It came at a price. But then, so did fire.
and yeh, itd be cool to bring back extinct stuff like the dodo and whatever. i mean maybe they did become extinct for a reason, or maybe it was our fault. the arguement could go on forever, i.e when do we use it? should we use it at all? when is it called for to be used? theres a lot that needs to be taked into consideration if its gonna be seriously used, but i think that as long as its used correctly, it shouldnt be so bad
but lol, what do i know? i dont even know anythin about seedless grapes <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
[This message has been edited by Shade (edited 31-08-2001).]
Can you say 10 Billion Chinese?
Immortality is nothing to wish for.
I dunno about that, immortality could have it's own social/cultural benefits. The problem comes with trying to reconcile it with today's technological abilities ie; the world can't support 10 billion people yet.
Only users lose drugs
Wasn’t this the same guy who artificially inseminated (or whatever you call it) some 65 year old woman?
As for humans, I think we already have too many humans as it is. If the scientists concentrated their efforts on sending us into space or improving technology then we would be better off.
Thus neatly demonstrating what's wrong with science these days, which is to say it's too heavily aimed at commercial gain irrespective of higher ideals.