Panel backs human cloning research -
August 18, 2000 8:02 AM   Subscribe

Panel backs human cloning research - One word about it: worrying.
posted by kchristidis (19 comments total)
 
I suppose it depends on who you are, just what your attitude is.

Go ask someone who's waiting for a kidney transplant what they think of this.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:21 AM on August 18, 2000


if it were possible, would you clone yourself? this would make an interesting poll. creeps me out.
posted by subpixel at 8:38 AM on August 18, 2000


Blah, the point of the research is not to see if we can make a copy of someone, although that may be a possible use for egomaniacs and their differently-ethical doctors. The hope is that they'll be able to control the development of stem cells which eventually differentiate themselves into various organs and structures in the body. I think this is an awesome idea, and personally I'm willing to accept a little bit of research on just-fertilized human embryos if it yields results.

My dad has Type I diabetes, and his health is slowly degenerating as it has all his life. Imagine if he could have a doctor extract some of his own DNA, implant it into some new embryo, add a few chemicals and grow himself a new pancreas, kidneys, and a fresh pair of eyes! Wow! I'm excited by that prospect. The sooner the better.
posted by daveadams at 8:59 AM on August 18, 2000


I just want a clone of myself to go to work for me and do every thing else that I find unpleasant. Personally, I don't think there is anything unethical about that. We are all entitled to having our own cloneslave.
posted by Popstar at 9:54 AM on August 18, 2000


haha. I always picture Clonus Parts Horror film, was it?
Ohh well, though, I wouldn't mind new kidneys, hearts and so fourth, but, legs? eyes? a new pair of them? Now, how is this done? I mean, do they just grow them in a lab? or is there like a whole body grown and then they kill them for parts? hehe.
posted by tiaka at 10:32 AM on August 18, 2000


The discussion around the issue of cloning is much deeper than simply having your own slave. Religions are afraid of it, because the successfull cloning of a human being has the potential to disprove the existance of free will, and in turn, loads of religious foundations. Allow me to elaborate.One of the things discussed in my pyschology class was the theory that human existance revolves entirely around DNA: your past, present and future is imprinted inside of you from birth, along with your future personality, decisions, and many other physical/mental aspects. If what you are going to become is destined to you from birth via DNA, where is God's free will? If a human being were successfully cloned, and isolated from the original person, and that clone grew up to be the exact same person it was cloned from, and lead that person's exact same life, and take that person's exact same path, then everything that person was to become was obviously imprinted in their genes, giving them no real choice over what they would become. Personally, I don't beleive in this theory and would never want to see it proved factual. The truth can be scary some-times, and this makes it pretty obvious why so many people are opposed. It threatens the very basis of our existance.On an unrelated issue, if we were to clone ourselves, why do you expect to own that clone as your own personal slave. If we give clones the same rights as natural born people, than obviously slavery and intentured servitude is illegal. Let's not set back history 200 years...
posted by tomorama at 10:58 AM on August 18, 2000


I don't think, however, that I would be opposed to cloning separate body parts for transplant. Being able to grow people a new heart, lungs and liver would be a great service to the world.
posted by tomorama at 11:01 AM on August 18, 2000


Identical twins are equivalent to genetic clones of eachother and the fact that twins manage to lead distinct lives from eachother ought to go a long way toward alleviating your concerns about a person's entire life "path" being imprinted in his/her genes, tomorama. I am surprised this point was not raised in your psychology class.
posted by plaino at 11:09 AM on August 18, 2000


[Popstar] I just want a clone of myself to go to work for me and do every thing else that I find unpleasant. Personally, I don't think there is anything unethical about that. We are all entitled to having our own cloneslave.

The question, Popstar, is whether you would do anything you told yourself to do. I'd probably find myself so damn annoying I would kick the crap out of me.

[tomorama] If we give clones the same rights as natural born people, than obviously slavery and intentured servitude is illegal. Let's not set back history 200 years...

I'm pretty sure Popstar was just joking.

[tiaka] I wouldn't mind new kidneys, hearts and so fourth, but, legs? eyes? a new pair of them? Now, how is this done? I mean, do they just grow them in a lab?

Well, that's the whole reason they want to do this research. Although the theory that your genes determine your life-path is blatantly false, I'm pretty sure the same genes would produce identical organs. What happens when an embryo begins to grow is that up until a certain point, all the cells are the same, and then they begin differentiating and becoming bone cells or liver cells or brain cells or tongue cells or whatever. The whole point of this "cloning" research is to see if we can control what those cells become. So if you needed a new liver, for example, you could just implant your DNA into a fertilized embryo, and force those cells to grow into a liver that could then replace your soggy, old, alcohol-drowned one. Obviously there are more problems to solve than just being able to grow the liver (like bloodflow and nerves that have to be in there already, etc. etc.), but that's the kind of thing these scientists hope to find.
posted by daveadams at 12:05 PM on August 18, 2000


Wow. I love it when there's such diversity of opinions.Replying to Steven's post, I guess what you're saying is certainly right.But I keep wondering, if they 'give birth' to a new human, just to turn him into spare parts, isn't this cruel? Unetchical?And something else. If man gets the ability (and actually creates) new 'humans', wouldn't that be a bit dangerous? I mean, man turning into God?

Sorry for my not-so-good english. I'm not a native english speaker :)
posted by kchristidis at 12:50 PM on August 18, 2000


If man gets the ability (and actually creates) new 'humans'

Man already has this ability. Many of my own friends have created new humans. I myself am the product of this process. You see, when a man and a woman love each other very much... and that's how babies are made.

But seriously, folks: But I keep wondering, if they 'give birth' to a new human, just to turn him into spare parts, isn't this cruel? Unetchical?

Absolutely! That's why they hope to be able to control the stem cells of the embryo to have them become just the "parts" that are needed. I guess the question that needs to be answered instead is, is it unethical to grow a new liver without a body? Or more relevant, is it ethical to do experiments involving living just-fertilized embryos which will eventually be killed? Those who are strict about the perception that a fertilized egg is a human life and should not be ended artificially would probably have a problem with this kind of research. To me, it's worth it if it can save millions of adults' and children's lives.

But you are right, it would be wrong to grow a full clone of a person in order to harvest the organs and discard the rest.

You know, I think I've contributed more to this thread than everyone else combined. Either because it's Friday or no one really feels that strongly about it, there isn't much feedback so far.
posted by daveadams at 1:23 PM on August 18, 2000


:) You see, when a man and a woman love each other very much ...You got me on that one. I meant creating humans in the laboratory. Excuse me for using the wrong phrase before.I totally agree with the rest of your post (and ideas). You've given the correct dimensions to the issue.It only remains to see what the future holds for us.
posted by kchristidis at 1:51 PM on August 18, 2000


I think I've contributed more to this thread than everyone else combined. Either because it's Friday or no one really feels that strongly about it...

I thought every other daveadams comment was being submitted by your clone...
posted by wendell at 1:54 PM on August 18, 2000


I thought every other daveadams comment was being submitted by your clone...

Actually it was, I've been ordering it around, dictating my Metafilter posts and having it give me summaries of all the sites I'm too busy drinking mai tais to read. Worked pretty well until the other day when it wised up, figured out we were exactly the same, and started making anti-Canadian posts. So I shot it, and its organs are currently being cryogenically frozen for later transplant when I need them. So it's a win-win.
posted by daveadams at 3:03 PM on August 18, 2000


dave's new site coming soon: STUFFEDCLONE.COM

(well, I sure sucked all the serious dialogue out of THIS thread, didn't I? Who cares... IT'S FRIDAY!)
posted by wendell at 3:52 PM on August 18, 2000


kchristidis: The process they're trying to develop would not result in a complete human from which select part would be removed for transplant and then the remainder discarded. Clearly that would be immoral, and no-one is considering it so far as I know.

They're attempting to figure out how to grow just a kidney or justa liver or just a pancreas without anything else.

Where it begins to get ethically sticky is when you start considering how this could treat Parkinson's patients, which it might be possible to do. But to do so it would be necessary to create justbrain cells; and right now the legal standard of death is brain death. So if you create part of a brain in a Petrie dish, is it considered alive?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:13 PM on August 18, 2000


I think it will be difficult or impossible to grow structured organs sans body. Amorphous tissue, on the other hand, will most likely be accessible once a suitable method of culturing human tissue from stem cells is developed. This would probably limit the technology to brain, liver, pancreas, and possible kidney tissue all of which would be imported as partial transplants only. Of necessity some of the original organ would have to remain in order for the entire organ mass to stay integrated with the blood supply and other systems.

The reason structured organs (like the heart) are likely inaccessible is that their structures are as much dependant on carefully timed signalling events during normal fetal development as they are on the genetic instructions being carried out by the organ-specific cells. This signalling is controlled by other organs and systems which are developing simultaneously. Therefore, the careful developmental coordination required to grow complex structured organs will most likely be impossible or at least prohibitively impractical to imitate in a laboratory. This is the driving force for research into animal organ donors (like pigs).


posted by plaino at 1:34 AM on August 19, 2000


Plaino, I think you're giving up much too soon.

Once they've worked out the genome and can locate the state machines which control differentiation, it's not implausible at all that they could create entire organs. The REAL problem is how to keep them nourished while they're doing so. That's a tough problem but it may not be insoluble. For instance, in the case of something like a kidney or pancreas, what you might do is create the beginnings of the organ (say, up to the size of a dime), and surgically implant it while it's small; it would then complete its growth cycle inside the person, using the person's own systems for life support while it grew to full size. You then perform an operation where you remove the older malfunctioning organ which is no longer needed. I wouldn't want to say that a heart was impossible, either; it's just a little too soon to be using words like impossible.

It's exciting. It's also going to be unbelievably expensive. Can we afford it for everyone? If not, who decides who gets it and who doesn't? THAT is the really BIG problem. (On my web page I have a long article about that problem, but I'm not supposed to link to it. It's labeled "I'm an ethical cynic".)

By the way, they're actually creating skin now. It's being used to treat burn patients.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:36 AM on August 19, 2000


This is like an online Theory of Knowledge class... I love it
posted by Satapher at 5:07 PM on August 19, 2000


« Older   |   The "dickie game" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments