Human cloning

[drippingwet]

Should human cloning be allowed for medical reasons?

[Gav]

Depends on what you mean by human cloning.

[drippingwet]

Why does it depend? Do you mean it depends wether the cloning would lead to an actual child being born, or development into a fetus, or the poduction of an embryo?

[Gav]

There are different levels of cloing. Different methodologies. Different applications.

So it depends on what you mean.

[drippingwet]

I'm not sure how methodology might differ.

And the application I'm talking about is medical.

But if I misunderstand you, take this example:

Mr. A has degenerative brain disease, Mr. A needs stem cells to make new brain tissue. Doctor B takes a swob of cells from Mr. A's mouth and a cell is isolated in the lab. The nucleus is removed and injected into an ovum which has had its genetic content removed. Mr. A's nucleus is injected into ovum and ovum is placed into a female human volunteer/animal (not sure exactly). The ovum with A's genetic material is activated and grows in the female for a while until the embryo is removed and stem cells are harvested. These are injected into the brain and new brain tissue grows, replacing that which is being lost.

I'm not sure if any of the above is incorrect.

[glowstix]

for "medical reasons" i'm FOR it.

[MikeHarm]

I'm in favor of cloning for medical reasons. I think it would also be good for military reasons, entertainment (why use an elvis impersonator when you could use a genuine Elvis clone?), cheap labor, and space colonization, though I'm opposed to cloning for cannibalism.

Cloning could be a great benefit to our economy. For instance if you could produce genetically altered consumers in a factory with a disposition to buy your corporation's products you might greatly increase profits over a long period of time.

I also think it would be a good thing to find genes to use to make the clones evil that you would have to kill for medical purpouses. If the clones were evil it would be a good thing to kill them so it would clear up a lot of the moral dillemas in using them.

[strongbad94]

Here is the thing.People think that if we clone ourselfs and we need a kidney than we can just take it from them but, what if THEY need a kidney? It's ok to clone a certain part of the body, but not a full human.

[Inquartata]

If they need a kidney, clone THEM. And so on. And so on...

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

I'm not sure how methodology matters?

And the application I'm talking about is medical.

But if I misunderstand you, take this example:

Mr. A has degenerative brain disease, Mr. A needs stem cells to make new brain tissue. Doctor B takes a swob of cells from Mr. A's mouth and a cell is isolated in the lab. The nucleus is removed and injected into an ovum which has had its genetic content removed. Mr. A's nucleus is injected into ovum and ovum is placed into a female human volunteer/animal (not sure exactly). The ovum with A's genetic material is activated and grows in the female for a while until the embryo is removed and stem cells are harvested. These are injected into the brain and new brain tissue grows, replacing that which is being lost.

I'm not sure if any of the above is incorrect.

Somatic-cell nuclear transplantation for cell-based regenerative or reperative therapy?

Sure, why not. IMO, this is not cloning a human. It is removing the genetic material of a liquid-filled sphere whose wall is composed of a single layer of cells (the blastocyst).

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by MikeHarm

I'm in favor of cloning for medical reasons. I think it would also be good for military reasons, entertainment (why use an elvis impersonator when you could use a genuine Elvis clone?), cheap labor, and space colonization, though I'm opposed to cloning for cannibalism.

Cloning could be a great benefit to our economy. For instance if you could produce genetically altered consumers in a factory with a disposition to buy your corporation's products you might greatly increase profits over a long period of time.

I also think it would be a good thing to find genes to use to make the clones evil that you would have to kill for medical purpouses. If the clones were evil it would be a good thing to kill them so it would clear up a lot of the moral dillemas in using them.

Did you type your modest proposal swiftly, or did it take time to contemplate?

Perhaps if we limited cloning to Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and other media punching bags, people wouldn't be so adamantly opposed. They're already being cloned at an astonishng rate, so what if a few are missing their kidneys...

[mrbiggs]

I say yay to all cloning once we perfect it.

All cloning that isn't intended to eventually create a human is fine with me.

True human cloning is fine with me once we perfect the process. With animals, now, it takes many, many bad mutations and painful deaths before one of the clones gets lucky and comes out right. Once we can get near 100%, I'm all for it. Of course, there have to be some restrictions. But I don't think we should ban it completely in order to avoid making restrictions.

[Elemental]

I think stem cell/medical purpouse cloning mentioned prev is a good idea, but I don't think creating a fully developed clone (ie functioning adult) is a good idea.

I think that it would be too easy for our society to go all "Brave New World" or "Gattica" on us.

[richard]

...cloning...medical reasons...

while there are so many issues attached to this, there is one that
i thought of that has not been discussed in the media, at least.

life expectancy and pensions.

if your government promised to pay X number of people until they die,
and medicine advances faster than you can save for pensions, what are
the implications ?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by richard

...cloning...medical reasons...

while there are so many issues attached to this, there is one that
i thought of that has not been discussed in the media, at least.

life expectancy and pensions.

if your government promised to pay X number of people until they die,
and medicine advances faster than you can save for pensions, what are
the implications ?

That's already occurring with people refusing to die at the proper age of 70.

[Elemental]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

That's already occurring with people refusing to die at the proper age of 70.

yes... how dare they!!

[Gav]

Considering that pensions were invented by the Kaiser to raise his popularity, I find the fact that we are all crying about it slightly strange. The original idea was that he promised his countrymen that if they lasted until the retirement age that they would then receive their pension. He deliberatly picked an age that he knew most people in his country, at the point, would live to so that he didn't have to pay up. What it means is that, unless we become rich or have a BIG pension pay out, we will all have to work longer. In turn this means that employers will have to alter the way they think of older employees.

[Teme]

Quite simply you don't save for pensions, but they are paid by the workforce. You only need to make sure there's enough workforce to provide for the elders. The problems appear when female fertily rate drops below 2.0 and the age pyramid starts to tip over...

There's really no need for a cloned embryo for stem cells. Any stem cell will do, within limits. They have used human stem cells to revive mouse nervous system (mouses paralyzed by virus regained the use of their hind legs).
Tests treating Parkinson's Desease with human neuronal stem cells have been done, with varying results, while we're still years away from cloning humans.