Badgerboy 0 Posted January 17, 2004 [b said: Quote[/b] ]A controversial US fertility specialist claims he has implanted a cloned embryo into a woman's womb. Dr Panos Zavos, on a visit to London, would not say where or when the procedure happened - and critics say there is no evidence that it did. But he said it was a "very recent event" that did not happen in the US, the UK or anywhere else in Europe. The embryo came from the immature egg of the infertile 35-year-old woman, and a skin cell from her husband, he said. He said there was about a 30% chance that the embryo would develop successfully and be born. Dr Zavos also said he was "ready" to split a cloned embryo into two - one to be grown into a baby, and one to be stored for "therapeutic uses". He said the procedure - illegal in the UK without a licence - would provide an "additional tool" for infertile couples. The spare embryo could be stored to become a baby later, he said. But, "futuristically", it could also be stored and used as a source of stem cells - which can then be grown into almost any body part - to treat the first baby should it become ill. Critics say such experimental work should not be carried out on humans. Linkage Edit - Reread the article. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted January 17, 2004 Here comes the debate with the exact same arguments as last time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drewb99 0 Posted January 17, 2004 Is this the same crazy guy that claimed he'd already cloned a baby or soemthing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dauragon 0 Posted January 17, 2004 (drewb99 @ Jan. 17 2004,18:57) said: Is this the same crazy guy that claimed he'd already cloned a baby or soemthing? the Rael guy with the white dress and alot of girl following him ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpecOp9 0 Posted January 17, 2004 Now I know what to do when i wan't to take over the world. CLone myself millions of times Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edc 0 Posted January 17, 2004 While there's very little chance, thats its true, if it is, it's very dissapointing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted January 17, 2004 (edc @ Jan. 17 2004,21:39) said: While there's very little chance, thats its true, if it is, it's very dissapointing. Here we go: Why do you think it is disappointing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KJAM 0 Posted January 17, 2004 [b said: Quote[/b] ]Now I know what to do when i wan't to take over the world. CLone myself millions of times they will only be clones in the genetic sense, they more than likely wont act like you dependant on their upbringing, and they would age the same as a regular human child so dont get your hopes up, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted January 17, 2004 I don't know what the facination with cloning is. We have it in nature: one-egged twins, which are not at all very rare. Sure, your DNA matters, but even more the impact that your environment has on you is much greater. Our primary organ is our brain, and it's a system that learns from experience and doesn't come pre-programmed. Second, one point that is often omitted about artificial cloning is that it's actually a grave misue of the word. Clones like Dolly et al are actually not clones, but half clones. Basically it goes like this: You have one set chromosomes from your mother and your other set of chromosomes from your father. Your DNA is a combination of them. Now, normal cells have a double set of those chromosomes (23x2 - one from each parent per set). Sperms and eggs however have only one set (23x1) which are randomly selected from the 23x2 set. Only half of your DNA is in the reproductive cells. Are you with me? Ok, cloning is done like this: you take a reproductive cell from one individual and replace the cell nucleus (and with it the DNA) of it with the nucleus of a reproductive cell from another individual. Then by chemical means you "zap" the cell and force it to multiply. See the difference? Only half of the original DNA is included and instead of the chromosomes of another individual, the same chromosomes are taken twice. So clones are not real carbon copies as they include only half of the original's DNA (which is split in two in the reproductive cells through a process of random selection). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badgerboy 0 Posted January 17, 2004 (denoir @ Jan. 17 2004,22:06) said: So clones are not real carbon copies as they include only half of the original's DNA (which is split in two in the reproductive cells through a process of random selection What? I want my money back! Err...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gadger 0 Posted January 18, 2004 Religious beliefs hold back scientific progress once more. Â I thought the clone would be taken from the half clone denoir, creating the half clone is just the first step or am I wrong? Over to you Denoir Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted January 18, 2004 (Gadger @ Jan. 18 2004,01:13) said: Religious beliefs hold back scientific progress once more.  It's not religious beliefs, it's normal ethics. Out of cloning attempts 95% fail. They have failed completely in cloning a monkey. Before the technique is perfected it is ethically wrong trying to clone humans when there is a big chance of creating genetic defects on the child. [b said: Quote[/b] ]I thought the clone would be taken from the half clone denoir, creating the half clone is just the first step or am I wrong? Over to you Denoir  No, the half-clone only contains half of the DNA of the original. You can't reconstruct the original when you only have half the information. And since we can only work with reproduction cells for now, getting half the DNA is the only option. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baron von Beer 0 Posted January 18, 2004 Nah, call me when I can walk into a tube, step out, and in 5 minutes, my identical copy walks out. Then pop him in the nitro freezer with the rest, and defrost them when the time is right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gadger 0 Posted January 18, 2004 [b said: Quote[/b] ]No, the half-clone only contains half of the DNA of the original. You can't reconstruct the original when you only have half the information. And since we can only work with reproduction cells for now, getting half the DNA is the only option. Hmm but isn't it a case of "splitting" rather than reproducing, hence why you need to create the "half clone" in the first place. I'll have a little think about this in work tomorrow then go into it in more depth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted January 18, 2004 (Gadger @ Jan. 18 2004,01:42) said: [b said: Quote[/b] ]No, the half-clone only contains half of the DNA of the original. You can't reconstruct the original when you only have half the information. And since we can only work with reproduction cells for now, getting half the DNA is the only option. Hmm but isn't it a case of "splitting" rather than reproducing, hence why you need to create the "half clone" in the first place. I'll have a little think about this in work tomorrow then go into it in more depth. No, reproduction works that way. Reproduction cells only have 23 chromosomes as opposed to the normal 46. Those 23 chromosomes are randomly selected from the 46. In normal reproduction you have the sperm 23 and the egg 23 that are combined into a new cell of 46 chromosomes. In "cloning" you take only one reproduction cell of 23 and double it through through artificial means. In nature you don't have your entire father's DNA, only half of it. Not very strange when you think about it, otherwise the DNA would grow exponentially with each generation. Furthermore all siblings would be identical. A clone is made in a similar fashion, but instead of taking 23 chromosomes from two individuals, you only take it from one and double it. And the clone gets 23 unique chromosomes from the original, missing out the other 23. Hence it's a half-clone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gadger 0 Posted January 18, 2004 Yes but isn't it possible to create identical embryos by splitting the cells which happens naturally with identical twins? You have the first "half clone" embryo, which is then split, one is placed in the mothers womb, one is stored, if both were to be born they would have the same physical characteristics and blood type etc. It's of my, basic, knowledge that this is where the actual "cloning" takes place, which in the given example has yet to happen. Because of this method, the stored embryo can be used as a means of a band aid, for example of the orginal embryo was to suffer from a bone marrow disease (which wasn't genetic) then bone marrow could be "grew" from the stored embryo in order to treat the original embryo, as they would be an identical match, just as in the case where the identical twin has donated bone marrow in the past to save their sick siblings. well, i'm feeling pretty confused and got a sore head now so I'll take your word for it and just call em half clones Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted January 18, 2004 Aha, ok. Now I understand what you mean. Yes, a full clone of a half-clone would be possible  - if you find a way of duplicating and storing a reproductive cell. I don't know if we can do this today, but the idea sounds reasonable. Clones of naturally concieved individuals are however always bound to be half-clones, as long as we use the reproductive cells as a base for cloning. And that's what they are doing today - duplicate 23 out of 46 chromosomes of an individual, making it a half clone. Now if you repeated the process for the half clone, the two 23 + 23 sets should be identical. If you then take the reproductive cells from that individual, you should be able to get the 23 original chromosomes (I'm not at all sure in this part though) and the next clone would be a real one. But, I'm no biologist - I'm just repeating what I've heard - so I don't really dare to make more elaborate statements others than that what I've heard first hand  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hellfish6 7 Posted January 18, 2004 Does the world really need more people? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gadger 0 Posted January 18, 2004 Not really a case of creating more, but saving more Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hellfish6 7 Posted January 18, 2004 Cloning means saving lives? Stem cell cloning yes, it'll save lives. But it will only save the lives of us in the Western world who can afford it when it becomes available. The other 5.5 billion people will still be dying from malaria, the plague and AIDS while we clone our way into the future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted January 18, 2004 (Hellfish6 @ Jan. 18 2004,02:58) said: Cloning means saving lives? Stem cell cloning yes, it'll save lives. But it will only save the lives of us in the Western world who can afford it when it becomes available. The other 5.5 billion people will still be dying from malaria, the plague and AIDS while we clone our way into the future. Well, yes and no. Â Modern medicine does reach the third world too, only later. Understanding the cellular mechanisms may very well also contibute in finding a cure to AIDS and other diseases that plague the third world countries. While cloning itself has little practical value, it's a milestone in molecular biology. On the long term, very practical things can come out of that research. [b said: Quote[/b] ]Does the world really need more people? I call him "mini-me" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gadger 0 Posted January 18, 2004 Cloning to the basis of creating more people is impractical. The stem cloning, which is what the article is referring too, opens up all posibilities of curing rare diseases or diseases that require a doner of some sort, whether it be blood, tissue, bone marrow or organs. Most people that are against are against it for the same reason they are against abortion, religion. Technically they it's almost the same thing in practice, the termination of the embryo before its developed into what we we would recognise as a human. Although in stem cloning the "stored" embryo does offer the possibility of saving its matches life in some form as the match lives its life. It's because of this that people are against it, you don't really see people up in arms over fertility treatment which is "almost the same" (although in this process chromosomes are taken from both parents and not duplicated from just one) as what is happening now, in the insertion of the artifically created embryo into a hosts womb. Now, I ain't no doctor, so I'm sure this is full of holes, most of my knowledge of this just comes from what I see in the news or read in the newspaper. Denoir: More than one of you is enough Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pipski 0 Posted January 18, 2004 (Hellfish6 @ Jan. 18 2004,02:58) said: Cloning means saving lives? Stem cell cloning yes, it'll save lives. But it will only save the lives of us in the Western world who can afford it when it becomes available. The other 5.5 billion people will still be dying from malaria, the plague and AIDS while we clone our way into the future. In the current climate it's the 3rd world that's more likely to sanction cloning research than the Western world. Â The word `genetic' today has the same kind of impact on the Western public that the word `atomic' had on people in the 50s (when it was synonymous with Godzilla and other irradiated monsters wandering around in the desert). Â In India, on the other hand, black market GM crops are already feeding people very successfully. EDIT: btw, stem cell cloning might be neatly avoided soon anyway. A recent news article (in New Scientist iirc) described a novel technique for generating what are effectively stem cells from ordinary human tissue. If I can find it I'll link it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gadger 0 Posted January 18, 2004 Yea i read about that a while ago, taking tissue from something like your ear and being able to create a lung, that sounds like its a long way off tho. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pipski 0 Posted January 18, 2004 Found the link. Last line says possible proof of success by the end of March. New Scientist story from November Share this post Link to post Share on other sites