Comments on: Cloning

By: msg

msg — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:25:10 +0000

thomas dent— The ‘muck’ in question is ignorance, the darkness against which the accumulated discoveries of human intellect are a bulwark. I am not attacking science or scientists. But it is as naive to think that individual scientists are freely going about their science, like poets going about their poetry, as it is to think that the wealthy become so by devising enterprises that benefit us all. Scientific research is funded. There are, I’m sure, sources of funding that are as unbiased as a reference librarian’s attention, but they are much much rarer in this world. Insinuating that most if not virtually all current scientific research is not ‘greed-driven’ is unrealistic, almost willfully so. The ‘grotesque selfishness’ is not in the labs, it’s in the boardrooms, and in that the parallels with Iraq are virtually note for note. Soldiers on the ground, patriotic or not, doing what’s in their field of view, that their position calls for them to do. ‘Leaders’ hidden away, making life-and-death-for-others decisions with no higher aim than profit and the defense of privilege. Inasmuch as the word science can also be used to describe a philosophy, a particular approach to inquiry, and an attitude toward the application of results, current science is ‘irreverent’, not just to current religion, which is itself irreverent, but to everything outside the reach of its lenses and its blades. Anyone who enters anything approaching true wilderness without the protective buzz of technology around them will quickly have to choose between reverence and antagonism. Fear does that. The wilderness is frightening. You conflate two images in your snide rebuttal. The ‘chain of biological truth’ I’m trying to point to is the deceptively simple physical connection we all have right back through the joined zygotes of our parentage, to the beginnings of organic life. That is an unbroken chain, physically intact all the way. The ‘arc’ in question is the still airborne, for now, flight of human attainment. Words like ‘diversity’ become reft of meaning with overuse. And they provide the illusion of known quantity. We not only don’t know what’s in the disappearing forests and seas, we don’t know the patterns of the movement of those things through time, and our place in that movement. To alter them as violently as we have without knowing, or caring, what the result would be, is heedless irreverence. At best. — I haven’t read anything by Ms. Noonan, her speechwriting efforts passed by me at a time I wasn’t listening to much public intercourse, so I’m unable to respond to what I take to be an insult of some kind. My apologies for the hyperbole and floridity, the level of discourse here is intimidatingly high, and if I’ve been excessive it was in an attempt to meet the standard displayed.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:54:54 +0000

“Or better yet, figure out how to grow a complete clone except for the brain and replace your entire body with a 20 year old version.” I doubt that you could induce microencephalitis such that the the clone would be viable (for 20 years!) while satisfying a sufficient portion of the polis that it’s not in any sense a person. And even if you could achieve essentially zero brain, maintaining essential functions somehow, and incure the enormous expense it would be to keep that body fit for 20 years, I imagine that it would still really hit the “yuck” factor hard for most and likely be socially discouraged if not outright prohibited. I suspect that many other hypothetical technologies that would achieve nearly a similar result would be much less expensive and much more socially acceptable. And before that happens, I imagine we’ll be able to control to a large degree the aging process.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:44:52 +0000

“One of the more egregious symptoms still to come is Rupert Murdoch purchasing immortality.” A necessary step along the way to all of us being able to purchase immortality (or at least anti-aging treatments). And I think an anti-aging treatment would rank among the greatest human advances of all time. Faster, please. (Preferably before I turn 50) “Before such a thing would come to pass (though still far in the future), I think it much more likely that cloned organs will be able to be grown in vitro. There would be a huge benefit to everyone from this technology and all it is dependent upon, and it would be much, much less expensive (and slow) than cloning an entire person for their organs, which they are unlikely to be eager to give up.” Or better yet, figure out how to grow a complete clone except for the brain and replace your entire body with a 20 year old version. That prospect, all by itself, is a powerful argument in favor of allowing cloning research.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:31:53 +0000

"...and the replacement of worn-out organs with, don’t think too hard about how, ‘harvested’ ones. Clone harvesting." The wealthy can use their wealth to find and purchase the "generosity" of a suitable donor today for a much lower cost than would be incurred in cloning and waiting for the clone to reach maturity. Yet, this doesn't seem to be a serious problem. Why not? We worry about it, and it probably does happen occasionally, but the great leverages of wealth have failed in making this a legally and socially acceptable practice. And you don't seriously believe that children would be allowed to be donors, do you? Before such a thing would come to pass (though still far in the future), I think it much more likely that cloned organs will be able to be grown in vitro. There would be a huge benefit to everyone from this technology and all it is dependent upon, and it would be much, much less expensive (and slow) than cloning an entire person for their organs, which they are unlikely to be eager to give up.

By: msg

msg — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:51:28 +0000

‘The rich become so by enriching others.’ And bears get fat for winter by eating honey. It isn’t really about the morality of cloning itself, or genetic modification, or even nuclear weapons for that matter. It’s who’s doing it, who’s going to be doing it, and why. Everything else is symptom, not cause. One of the more egregious symptoms still to come is Rupert Murdoch purchasing immortality. Two strains move in that direction: the return to a bastardized darwinism, now that the mammalian/biological version has been circumvented long enough to give the upper hand to the previously marginal; and the replacement of worn-out organs with, don’t think too hard about how, ‘harvested’ ones. Clone harvesting. This is the primary impetus behind cloning research, benefits to the general public are a smokescreen. Mary Shelley was a prophet.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:57:56 +0000

I’d like to revisit Kieran’s earliest comment and its implications. Many of the objections to cloning are centered on the presumption of something near to an essential identity between clones. Assuming this identity, then the arguments trace out various social difficulties and ills that would follow. But Kieran doesn’t accept this identity. In Kieran’s nurturist view, a clone is a very different person from his/her original and thus those arguments don’t apply. But isn’t it interesting that so many people are inclined to start with a naturist assumption in this particular argument when, otherwise, they’re nurturists? It seems to me that given the results of solid and replicated twin studies, there’s a great deal of evidence that genotype plays a larger role in a great number of aspects of personality than we’ve previously believed. Few people are very comfortable with this; I know that I’m not. On the other hand, twin studies show that even twins raised in identical conditions are not, in fact, identical people. In some ways, some times, they can differ profoundly. The fingerprints example, I think, should serve as a reminder that there’s a great deal of important development that goes on in and out of the womb that is the product of microcosmic chance, some of it no doubt leading to macro consequences. Texas A&M’s “cc” is another example of this. Perhaps some here aren’t aware that cc doesn’t look exactly like her original. Cc is a calico, which means that her coloration, like all calicos’ coloration, is the combination of a semi-dominant gene that causes bicoloration, and the sex-linked gene that causes orange coloration. (This combination is why calicos are almost always female.) In the case of bicoloration, the relevant gene is expressed in the embryonic cells which will become black pigment-producing cells—and those embryonic cells arise on the fetal neural crest, along the back, and migrate outward from there. They don’t reach the entire surface; where they don’t reach results in white cells. This occurs during development and is not deterministic. Similarly, in the case of the latter gene, because of “X chromosome inactivation”, some embryonic pigment cells have the orange pigment activated, and some do not, and remain black…randomly. This is also not deterministic. So, both processes that determine a calico’s coloration pattern occur non-deterministically during gestation. Calico clones are likely to look quite different from one another. As is the case with cc. Now imagine how many processes that give rise to personality could be similarly genetically initiated (thus strongly influenced) but not determined. Clones will give us an opportunity to discover— in some ways better than we have with twins—how much is nature and how much is nurture. And I suspect that those with an enthusiasm for one extreme or the other will be dismayed at the result. But in any event, we don’t think twins are the same person, why would we think clones are the same person? We won’t.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 16:14:40 +0000

“Anyway, how many divorced guys do you know who would willingly marry a younger version of their ex-wives?” None that I’m aware of. And my ex-wife was very young went we married, so I can’t use myself as an example. But it seems to me that this might be a larger number of people than you might expect. Perhaps much larger. But…who cares? I don’t. “If a 25 year old woman decides to have a child by cloning herself, are not those cells starting with 25 years of mistakes already in them? It would seem a undue burden to place on a child.” This is the traditional argument against the viability of clones. Isn’t it the case that all (or at least most) of the successful clones of mammals have been made from something like fetal-aged genetic material? I could be wrong about that. But this was the answer I got from a close friend, a distinguished molecular biologist, when I asked him years ago. However, it seems to me that eventually technology will have an answer to this. Given a large enough sample of genetic material from a person, you could statistically determine the pristine sequence, then artifically recreate it. This is light years beyond what’s being done today, but will probably be possible sooner than we think. (Just having access to a corrected genetic code, and unlocking the key to stem cells, could have profound therapeutic implications.)

By: dop

dop — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:59:43 +0000

Something else that comes to mind are the errors in cloning. As we age, it is errors in the reproduction of our cells that causes the actual aging bit of it—it’s why our hair gets grey, why our skin becomes less smooth and more imperfect, and so on. If a 25 year old woman decides to have a child by cloning herself, are not those cells starting with 25 years of mistakes already in them? It would seem a undue burden to place on a child. Not that that is any reason to prohibit it—after all, we don’t prohibit parents with congenital diseases from having children despite how “abhorrent” some may view it.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:14:07 +0000

“There’s a plentiful supply of children available for adoption, and I don’t see why, while that supply lasts, people should be allowed to spend lots of their own or other people’s money begetting biological relations.” There is not a plentiful supply of babies available for adoption, which is what people in the market for IVF, cloning, whatever would be looking for. “But the problem will be that allowing the wealthy to clone themselves makes others — those competing with the off-spring — worse off than they would otherwise have been. So it does not make the disadvantaged adults in the parents generation worse off — but it does make their children worse off.” No it doesn’t. The wealthy (usually) don’t get that way by stealing; they get that way by enriching their fellow-citizens in return. More people with an unusual talent for doing so will benefit their fellow citizens, not harm them. “Beyond that, humans being what they are, my mind wonders to what an aging man would do with a 15 year-old clone of the woman he married in the house who is, for all realistic intents and purpose, not genetically related to him (I’m not saying it would be different should the genders be reversed, either). It’s not pleasant to think about the situations that could arise. And it seems compounded, to me, by the frequency of divorce and remarriage. While the original parent might feel more parently, I’m not sure a step parent would experience great confusion.” Well, step-parents, by definition, are already living with children that are not biologically related to them – the fact that they’re clones doesn’t really change that. A 15 year old clone would be off-limits the way a 15 year old non-clone would be. What about an 18 year old clone? My inclination is to not worry about it – the original justification for incest bans is the risk of genetic damage, which is not present here, and once the guardian relationship ended at age 18, it’s not worth worrying about. Anyway, how many divorced guys do you know who would willingly marry a younger version of their ex-wives? “The moral argument that without good reason against it any action, most especially greed-driven tinkering with the source code of organic life, is and should be permissible is beyond specious. This is the stance of an adolescent denied the family car on a Saturday night.” Adolescents are denied lots of things. Adults should not be, without good reason.

By: Thomas Dent

Thomas Dent — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:46:03 +0000

“…the arc of human evolution, risen from bestial unknowing to the fragile architecture of social cohesion, is poised to slam back into the muck, or at best end in a buzzing hive of insects. Something is being lost, there’s no rational argument against that statement.” What, has Peggy Noonan arrived in the comments section? We’re all about to turn into muck or buzzing insects because of the mere possibility of human cloning or genetic therapy? Scientists working on human genetics are “greed-driven” are “grotesquely selfish”? Their science “lacks reverence” and will wreck the “unbroken arc of biological truth” (whatever this might be)? Truly, someone in this debate has “no rational argument”. But it ain’t Brian Weatherson.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:27:46 +0000

“Wouldn’t they typically have different mitochondrial DNA (and thus be less genetically similar than identical twins)?” Is mDNA considered part of one’s genetic makeup? Well, of course it is, but in the sense that you mean? In any case, unless there’s a specific effort to also duplicate the mDNA, then you’re correct. However, I’m not sure how important this is relative to some other factors that are also not being duplicated, namely the cellular millieu of the original. Current research about the non-identity and failure of clones is focusing on this area, I believe.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:20:06 +0000

You’re over-sensitive, Ms. Benson. Perhaps I should have seperated with a paragraph break the “naivete” sentence from the sentence mentioning you particularly. I think there is naivete on display here about the current unfortunate clone-free state of affairs regarding parents and their children…your comment is an example. Saying so isn’t a personal attack, unless one has very, very thin skin, which perhaps some do. In any event, you’ll notice that I referred to many writers by name when responding to their arguments. It may surprise you to know that I do so out of respect. At any rate, in the future I urge that you email me with similar complaints, as personal grudge matches are incredibly boring to everyone but those involved. My email is always available via the link on my name, but for reference it is kmellis@io.com.

By: msg

msg — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 03:53:14 +0000

The arguments against human cloning that get presented are usually that puerile I guess. But that bit about ‘God wouldn’t approve’, that’s an indication of something else, isn’t it? I came into my majority at the precise moment in recent cultural history when ‘natural’ began to be held up as a banner, and as a signpost for an alternate route. There was a lot of specious babble around the term then as well. On both sides. Science and religion are presented here and virtually everywhere as two separate expressions of human recognition of the world. That’s a false dichotomy. And it produces what you’d expect, world-views that are incomplete, unsatisfying, and dangerously inaccurate. Consistently, the rationale for these post-modern Promethean experiments is the lives that will be saved, the illnesses that will be cured, the crippling defects soon made whole. And nowhere is it ever mentioned even in passing that the human race is about to suffocate under its own obese bulk. I don’t believe the relief of suffering is anything more than a by-product, something which makes good p.r. and masks the truer, grotesquely selfish motive. There is no reverence in the science presented, just as there’s no sustainable logic in the religion referred to. The idea that there are meta-systems of organized being here, a biology of systems larger than the organisms we recognize as such, has been presented by far more brilliant minds than mine, but it hasn’t stuck, and it isn’t capable by itself of answering these questions, and I think ultimately it won’t ever be. Because at heart it’s a matter of what you care about, and whether you care at all. Where your allegiance truly lies. ‘Natural’ was and is a euphemism for something still not clearly defined. Harmony with nature sounds like a breakfast cereal’s advertising copy. But something came with us all the way from the beginning of life on earth. An unbroken chain of biological truth that can be preserved or broken just as any other living thing can. A child whose life is stopped before reproduction takes place represents a potential genetic modification of the distant future that is exponentially immense, yes; and the Maya, in the laboratories of their fields altered maize forever. Yes. And heartless logic can disassemble any moral code it’s applied to but one, the imposed law of will. Brute force trumps logic every time. So that it seems now the arc of human evolution, risen from bestial unknowing to the fragile architecture of social cohesion, is poised to slam back into the muck, or at best end in a buzzing hive of insects. Something is being lost, there’s no rational argument against that statement. What it is that’s being lost may well be beyond our ability to recognize, and by that go unnamed. The moral argument that without good reason against it any action, most especially greed-driven tinkering with the source code of organic life, is and should be permissible is beyond specious. This is the stance of an adolescent denied the family car on a Saturday night. Only now there’s no parental authority to withold the keys.

By: aa

aa — Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:41:47 +0000

A clone would clearly have the same DNA as the donor. Wouldn’t they typically have different mitochondrial DNA (and thus be less genetically similar than identical twins)?

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:12:41 +0000

I’m dubious that cloning will have significant social impact. First, it’s unlikely to be widely practiced, being expensive, and not nearly so much fun as sex. Second, it only results in individuals with pre-existing genetic patterns, no novelty there. The “yuk” factor will vanish when that first cute little baby is born, just like happened with IVF. That’s why the “bioethicists” are always so hot to ban things before they’re tried, because it’s easier to scare people about things that haven’t happened yet. The REAL significance of human cloning is that it’s a necessary step in producing genetically altered humans. You can change the cell before causing it to develop. That’s where your social impact comes in.