[email protected]

Have you all heard about the baby, due soon that an Itallian Doctor claims he
has cloned? I wonder if it is really true! I saw a segment on our local news
last night and was floored. I really don't know how I feel about cloning and
the morality of it all. I wonder if the ban will be lifted here if this is
successful?

~Nancy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fetteroll

on 11/27/02 3:18 PM, Dnowens@... at Dnowens@... wrote:

> Have you all heard about the baby, due soon that an Itallian Doctor claims he
> has cloned? I wonder if it is really true! I saw a segment on our local news
> last night and was floored. I really don't know how I feel about cloning and
> the morality of it all. I wonder if the ban will be lifted here if this is
> successful?

His name is Severino Antinori. He's also responsible, for those who remember
it from 1994, of helping the 63 yo woman give birth.

There was an article about him in the April 2002 Scientific American,
"Father of the Impossible Children." He calls it "genetic reprogramming" and
says it's to help couples concieve when the husband produces no sperm.

Cloning is used in scary science fiction stories but what do you think would
happen if it were readily available? How would families be different if a
few or even many were raising a child that was a gentic copy of the father?

This has some links:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2001/Apr/hour1_040601.html

I think the objection most fertility doctors and geneticists have is that
these types of techniques create a lot of chromosomal abnormalities. This is
especially true in cloning (I think I read only 3 out of 1000 cloned embryos
in animals are viable) but also other methods where the genetic information
from the sperm is injected into the egg rather than letting the egg "decide"
which sperm to let in. And even of the cloned sheep born that passed all the
tests for defects, many end up suffering from nervous system disorders and
other ailments after birth.

It seems to me the biggest problem isn't what genes the child carries but
how healthy those genes are. Natural reproduction is way better at weeding
out the dud combinations -- and even that isn't perfect -- than is
laboratory reproduction.

Joyce

[email protected]

Are the cloned sheep fertile? Would all the eggs and sperm be the same? Or
would they still have the same range of randomish DNA strands as the
parent/donor/master-copy (what's the term for that clone-parent?) has?

Sandra

Kate Green

He announced this at a conference I was at here in Abu Dhabi a few months
ago and it caused all kinds of stirrings and noise in the audience. The
conference was about ethics in medicine and research -- he sure picked his
spot!
Apparantly there are 3 women due in January -- guess he figures 1 of them
might be genetically OK. Pretty scary stuff I think. He sounds persuasive
when he's discussing it but the stats aren't so positive.

Kate




At 03:18 PM 11/27/02 -0500, you wrote:
> Have you all heard about the baby, due soon that an Itallian Doctor
>claims he
> has cloned? I wonder if it is really true! I saw a segment on our local
news
> last night and was floored. I really don't know how I feel about cloning
and
> the morality of it all. I wonder if the ban will be lifted here if this is
> successful?
>
> ~Nancy
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema

To the best of my understanding:

>Are the cloned sheep fertile?

Yep. At least one has already had a viable kid.

>Would all the eggs and sperm be the same?

No. Eggs and sperm only contain half the genetic information which means
that the 16 individual chromosomes in each gamete came from one of the two
matched sets (16 pairs, or 32 altogether.) This selection happens in the
case of eggs during fetal gestation and in the case of sperm, during
adulthood. It would be very rare to have even two gametes with an
identical genetic complement much less all of them.

>Or
>would they still have the same range of randomish DNA strands as the
>parent/donor/master-copy (what's the term for that clone-parent?) has?

Yes, the clone would have the same range of DNA strands as the parent, but
not necessarily in their eggs/sperm because of the selection that goes
on. S/he's otherwise a supposedly identical genetic copy of the parent...
although there are always randomized mutations during transcription, as
well as processes whereby genes are 'turned on' or 'off' which might
produce an inexact physical duplicate.
I don't know if there's a term for a clone parent besides 'Parent'.
Remember, this is just a baby who had it's genes picked out for it. It's
not going to necessarily think or act like it's parent! I think a lot of
the media lose sight of that.

..and I heard that there are three women expecting and the first mother
expected to give birth is carrying the baby-genes of a Saudi man, but
that's all I've heard. I only hope the babies are viable.
Heidi

Joylyn

This is very interesting. Thanks for explaining it.

I have decided that in no way would I want a clone of either of my
children. However, I would most definately want a clone of my first
daughter, Jasmine, who was adopted by me when I was sixteen, walked on
four legs and was the most beautiful, smartest sheltie in the world, and
with whom I shared a very special bond and whom I miss daily.

Joylyn, who knows that Jasmine 2 would never be like Jasmine one, but
the idea is good, if on paper only.

Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema wrote:

> To the best of my understanding:
>
> >Are the cloned sheep fertile?
>
> Yep. At least one has already had a viable kid.
>
> >Would all the eggs and sperm be the same?
>
> No. Eggs and sperm only contain half the genetic information which means
> that the 16 individual chromosomes in each gamete came from one of the
> two
> matched sets (16 pairs, or 32 altogether.) This selection happens in the
> case of eggs during fetal gestation and in the case of sperm, during
> adulthood. It would be very rare to have even two gametes with an
> identical genetic complement much less all of them.
>
> >Or
> >would they still have the same range of randomish DNA strands as the
> >parent/donor/master-copy (what's the term for that clone-parent?) has?
>
> Yes, the clone would have the same range of DNA strands as the parent,
> but
> not necessarily in their eggs/sperm because of the selection that goes
> on. S/he's otherwise a supposedly identical genetic copy of the
> parent...
> although there are always randomized mutations during transcription, as
> well as processes whereby genes are 'turned on' or 'off' which might
> produce an inexact physical duplicate.
> I don't know if there's a term for a clone parent besides 'Parent'.
> Remember, this is just a baby who had it's genes picked out for it. It's
> not going to necessarily think or act like it's parent! I think a lot of
> the media lose sight of that.
>
> ..and I heard that there are three women expecting and the first mother
> expected to give birth is carrying the baby-genes of a Saudi man, but
> that's all I've heard. I only hope the babies are viable.
> Heidi
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705542111:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/28/2002 11:54:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
joylyn@... writes:
> However, I would most definately want a clone of my first
> daughter, Jasmine, who was adopted by me when I was sixteen, walked on
> four legs and was the most beautiful, smartest sheltie in the world, and
> with whom I shared a very special bond and whom I miss daily.
>
> Joylyn, who knows that Jasmine 2 would never be like Jasmine one, but
> the idea is good, if on paper only.

But if you bought her from a reputable breeder, you could very probably find
a great-grand-niece who would be line-bred and very similar in many ways to
Jasmine. The "plus" of buying from a long-time reputable fancier.

~Kelly


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joylyn

Yeah, that's true. However, we've really gone with rescue dogs the last
20 years. Jasmine was my last reputable breeder dog. It's hard to
justify spending 500-1000 or more bucks for a dog when there are so many
who are homeless in shelters and rescue places.

Joylyn

kbcdlovejo@... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/28/2002 11:54:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> joylyn@... writes:
> > However, I would most definately want a clone of my first
> > daughter, Jasmine, who was adopted by me when I was sixteen, walked on
> > four legs and was the most beautiful, smartest sheltie in the world,
> and
> > with whom I shared a very special bond and whom I miss daily.
> >
> > Joylyn, who knows that Jasmine 2 would never be like Jasmine one, but
> > the idea is good, if on paper only.
>
> But if you bought her from a reputable breeder, you could very
> probably find
> a great-grand-niece who would be line-bred and very similar in many
> ways to
> Jasmine. The "plus" of buying from a long-time reputable fancier.
>
> ~Kelly
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1705542111:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

amyanda2000

--- In AlwaysLearning@y..., Dnowens@a... wrote:
> Have you all heard about the baby, due soon that an Itallian Doctor
claims he
> has cloned? I wonder if it is really true! I saw a segment on our
local news
> last night and was floored. I really don't know how I feel about
cloning and
> the morality of it all. I wonder if the ban will be lifted here if
this is
> successful?
>
> ~Nancy

I think its very sad. This child will never have a normal life.
Scientist will study her all her life, and treat her as if she is
there property. Also, I think cloning cheapens life. To create a
thousand embrios and let 999 die, just to prove that we "can" clone.
Then to let this person be a science experiment from birth till
death, never knowing what dangers might be in store for this person.
And then theres the idea that a lot of people may want to clone a
loved one or themselves. Does that make the original "obsolete" or
disposable? Not that its neccesarily available to ordinary people
(just yet) but what if my grandmother was dying, so I had her cloned,
so I wouldn't have to loose her. What about the life of my real
grandmother? Can anyone see how this would discount her life and
facilitate an unhealthy denial? It would be much healthier and
respectfull to mourn her passing and accept it. I look at this
cloning thing as a reflection of our fear of death, and desire for
imortality. But it is only an illusion of immortality. Also, I can
see in my mind, commercials similer to the ones we have now for baby
formula. "Natural conception is best, but for those who can't or
don't want to....Simiclone is a safe and effective alternative."
Gives me the creeps. I wonder why scientist spend so much time and
money trying to duplicate what mother nature already does so well
without help instead of finding a cure for deadly diseases and a way
to end war and famine. It realy boggles the mind.
amanda
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fetteroll

on 12/4/02 7:02 PM, amyanda2000 at amyanda2000@... wrote:

> Scientist will study her all her life, and treat her as if she is
> there property.

The babies aren't scientific experiments. Dr Antinori runs a fertility
clinic so the babies will be part of families just like any other baby from
a fertility clinic. I would hope that the clinic would collect health
information on the children, but, since it isn't in Antinori's best interest
to have reports of unhealthy babies, I'd be skeptical of the quality of data
collected.

Dr Antinori says he's against cloning just for the sake of it, but is in
favor of helping infertile couples that can't be helped with other fertility
procedures. And he's been working in the field of fertility since 1986.

That doesn't rule out the possibility of him being tempted by really good
money from some rich people without fertility problems who wanted to clone
themselves but are those people really a threat to society and humanity?

> Also, I think cloning cheapens life. To create a
> thousand embrios and let 999 die,

How many fertilized eggs aren't viable in other fertility procedures? And
the body naturally gets rid of nonviable ones too. In fact I think the
incredible process they need to go through in the lab gives us a hint to the
incredible process of what's going on invisibly in the body.

> just to prove that we "can" clone.

There is no we. The majority of the scientific community is against it for
practical as well as ethical reasons. But this isn't research being funded
by government or corporate money. It's private funding. (Aparently heavily
supported by rich Asian and Arab men the SciAm article says.)

And it's just Severino Antinori and Panos Zavos (an American fertility
specialist) and his clinic, Associated Researchers for Human Reproduction
(RAPRUI).

I think it's human emotions compelling his need to clone, not scientific
curiosity. I think he wants to acheive this for ego reasons. And for money
and business reasons. His clinic exists to provide help for couples who
can't conceive naturally. And people are willing to pay a *lot* of money to
get that. He has (so he says) 6000 couples from the US and 60 from Italy
waiting for the procedure.

The scary person, though, is Brigitte Boisselier. Apparently she's a
respected biologist working for a rather out of this world religious
organization, the Raelian Revolution
(http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html). (They believe we were created
by extra terrestrials in their image.) And they've spun off a cloning
company, Clonaid (http://www.clonaid.com/). (If it were a science fiction
novel, people would think it's a schloky idea ;-)

There's an MSNBC interview with her at
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/602030.asp?cp1=1

> Then to let this person be a science experiment from birth till
> death, never knowing what dangers might be in store for this person.

That's what fertility doctors and geneticists are objecting to. Not all the
sheep born are perfectly healthy. Dr. Antinori says humans are more closely
monitored and tested. Of course he has a huge stake in having people believe
that he can eliminate genetic problems.

> And then theres the idea that a lot of people may want to clone a
> loved one or themselves. Does that make the original "obsolete" or
> disposable? Not that its neccesarily available to ordinary people
> (just yet) but what if my grandmother was dying, so I had her cloned,
> so I wouldn't have to loose her. What about the life of my real
> grandmother? Can anyone see how this would discount her life and
> facilitate an unhealthy denial?

It's a scary idea. But would you? The clone wouldn't *be* your grandmother.
It would just be a baby who happened to have the same genes as your
grandmother. Would you pay $300,000 for the process? And would you carry the
baby? Or would you pay someone else on top of that to carry the baby?

And then she'd take 50 years to grow into the woman you remembered. She'd
probably have a similar personality but her upbringing that may have shaped
who she was would be entirely different. Would you want to wait until you
were a grandmother for that?

There's a great deal in between wanting another copy of someone who just
died and actually having that copy.

I think a more compelling ethical question is what about cloning a child who
has died.

What does seem to capture people's interest though is cloning pets. If you
type in pets and cloning into Google it turns up over 12,000 hits.

> I look at this
> cloning thing as a reflection of our fear of death, and desire for
> imortality. But it is only an illusion of immortality.

Why do we have kids? We may have higher order thinking that gives us the
illusion we're making rational decisions about having children but it's
lower order chemistry that compels us to reproduce and makes it seem like
something so energy intensive and life threatening (in the natural world
even more so) would be a good idea.

> I wonder why scientist spend so much time and
> money trying to duplicate what mother nature already does so well
> without help instead of finding a cure for deadly diseases and a way
> to end war and famine. It realy boggles the mind.

Scientists are humans and they pursue what they find compelling. (Isn't that
what we hope unschooling will do for our kids?) If we only "allowed" people
to pursue science who investigated things that benefited humanity, who would
decide what was allowed and what wasn't? And would we eliminate pure
research that investigates the workings of life and the universe to stick
only to research that solves problems?

The benefit of freedom is that it allows people to pursue a huge variety of
ideas that may serendipitously lead to great things. The downside of freedom
is it gives people the freedom to do things that many people disagree with
or think is a waste of time. (The people behind the American Revolution
weren't very popular with most people!)

Joyce

Kate Green

It's private funding. (Aparently heavily
> supported by rich Asian and Arab men the SciAm article says.)
>

I read this in one article but I am not sure about Arab support after
hearing them be so vocal and against this at the conference held here. It's
really considered anti-Islamic and (like everything:) scholars support not
cloning thru Koranic verses.

Kate

[email protected]

In a message dated 12/5/02 8:47:45 AM, karegree@... writes:

<< I read this in one article but I am not sure about Arab support after
hearing them be so vocal and against this at the conference held here. It's
really considered anti-Islamic and (like everything:) scholars support not
cloning thru Koranic verses. >>

But Arabs have the same freedoms researchers do. If no Moslem ever did
anything against the Koran, Iraq would be peaceniks and the Twin Towers would
be standing.

Sandra