X-Message-Number: 26228 Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:17:39 -0600 From: anthony <> Subject: cloning References: <> > CryoNet - Sat 21 May 2005 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message #26210 > Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 23:45:46 -0400 > From: Randolfe Wicker <> > Subject: How to save cells for cloning? (SNIP) > On May 20,2005, Korean scientists reported that they had mastered the cloning of human embryos. This meant that therapeutic cloning would possibly be able to cure many terrible human diseases. It also meant that anyone willing to "violate guidelines" for therapeutic cloning could give the gift of life to the first child conceived through cloning. This seems to be a good development for therapeutic cloning. But then you go on to talk about reproductive cloning as if this were the way that humans can improve their health and life-span. Stem cell research takes two main strands of inquiry: reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Both kinds result in the conception of an embryo, but the purpose of the lines of inquiry is in conception and birth (reproductive) or the healing of diseased or injured people (therapeutic). Cloning is that technique whereby embryos are created through a process of nuclear DNA transfer from non-germ cells (like skin cells) to donated ova which are emptied of their original DNA. The female germ cell then has the DNA of another person which can then be used to create an embryo which is a genetic copy of the DNA donor - an identical twin. This cloning method was pioneered by the reproductive cloning researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, UK. They conceived an identical twin of a sheep born earlier called Dolly. Recently, Woo Suk Hwang, of Seoul National University, South Korea, used an improved technique for therapeutically cloning embryos to create stem cell lines for 11 patients with various diseases or injuries. The lines exactly match the patients nuclear DNA and immune system which means that stem cells harvested from the embryo-clones can be grown into exact replacements for injured or diseased organs, tissues or bone that will be accepted by the DNA donor's body without complication. Reproductive cloning will allow people to conceive identical versions of their bodies (and inherited elements of their Selves, whatever those personality traits may be). Therapeutic cloning will allow people to be cured of many diseases and injuries by replacing damaged cellular structures and partial or whole areas of the Body. Perhaps one day any part of the Body will be replaceable, making prosthetics obsolete and allowing people to recover from any disease or injury and to continually renew themselves, replacing aged areas with youthful parts grown from their own germ-line. In a sense people will be able to re-birth themselves via science rather than religion, postponing death until the time that they fail to have something crucial to living replaced in time, or when too much of, or even the whole Body is destroyed leaving nothing left to renew. > So, human reproductive cloning is now a possibility. It is not just a > possibility, it is inevitable. To me therapeutic longevity is more exciting than the possibility of reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning could mean longevity for people alive today. Reproduction is a good thing for someone else (your child), but it does not do much for ones own life-span. I'm not interested in having an identical twin 27 years younger than myself, I would rather have a longer life. People that do not exist yet (whether grown from your germ cells or cloned from your skin, whether conceived in a laboratory or a womb) are less important than people living today. > Why are people so afraid? Is the idea of a "second incarnation" of themselves- a later-born twin- a threat to their own personhood? Or does it really raise more basic questions. Does surviving death through a later-born twin defy death its traditional totality? Does cloning offer an alternative to immortality through traditional religion? I am not afraid of my identical twin, only less interested in him than in the idea that I and others living today could live much longer and healthier lives. However, raising a baby whose DNA is identical to mine could be something I would want to do given that I might live many centuries and go through many changes of mind regarding reproduction. The idea of a second incarnation is somewhat inaccurate, so I'd expect that the idea of reproductive cloning bothers people because it seems unnatural, even though identical twins are a natural example of this phenomenon. The challenge to traditional religion is implicit in this science because cloning involves the manipulation of germ cells which have an inherent "sacredness" for some religious believers. Such belief is part of the problem for cloning science, which would probably do best selling itself as a medicine for aging, disease and injury rather than the Path to Immortality through "clonincarnation". > As the world's first reproductive cloning activist, I say that cloning proves that continued life is possible after death. Of course, life goes on. But when you die, your Self (experiences/memories etc) go with you. A cloned life is a new life with copied DNA and all its inherited features (whatever they are) who will develop a different Self. > Ultimately, our genotype and the experiences/memories that are us will also be able to live on. How is this achieved through cloning? Or are you claiming that DNA stores experiences/memories? Anthony Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26228