schu

Well, the Raelians say they have cloned a baby! What is the consensus here?

Primates have not been cloned, but scientists argue that the techniques of human embryo manipulation have been refined in the dozens of in-vitro fertilization clinics, making it theoretically easier to clone a human than a monkey.

Did they do it?

Schu

Seeker196

I'll believe that Italian guy if he says he did it, but the Raelians are silly, look at their site and its claims.

Remember, Rael will speak in public debate for $100 000.....

Feather

I am curious as to what the significant difference is between a human egg and other animals' eggs that makes human cloning that much more difficult.

The media always describes the process as, for example, sticking the nucleus of an existing cell into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed, shocking the "new" egg and viola.

Of course, the media always oversimplify everything, so I'm curious as to the true differences.

Echo

If the scientific community is skeptical, then I, a mere layperson, am skeptical as well.

I will believe it when it is confirmed by scientists with expertise in the relevant fields and not affiliated with the Raelians.

If it turns out to be true, the ramifications should be most interesting!

Rich Brown

It seems they are allowing an independent verification of their claims. I suppose a DNA comparison between the baby and mother conducted by an independent lab should do the trick. I will await the results.

This does pose an intresting question regarding DNA evidence in trials. Would a defense in future years be, "well...must've been the clone!"

Rich Brown

Lady MacDuff

If this turns out to be true, we are in for a heck of a lot of discussion on the ethics of cloning.

Personally, I think it's kind of gross that someone would clone themself. Plus, there's the huge risk of genetic problems in the kid, down the road.

Isn't Dolly the sheep suffering from some problems they didn't see when she was born?

Krieger

I hope it is true.

Vicar Philip

Should this be true, and an actual human clone WAS in fact created, do you think theists will lament its lack of a soul?

And, carrying this a little further, if the individual created turns out to be healthy and normal in every perceivable way, will this DISPROVE the theistic theory of a soul? What will the ramifications be for theists?

Demosthenes

Well, it'll certainly throw a curve ball for the theists. If anything, they'll just say that the cloned person now have a new soul, in a complete reversal of their previous claims.

I have no problems with cloning people, as long as the procedure does not entail a higher probability of having congenial defects and other problems later in the life. That's where I'm a bit skeptical, it would be just amazing if the cult had managed to address all the problems of cloning in such a short time span. The child would certainly be the outcome of many failures.

I roll my eyes every time I hear people saying how cloning would have huge ethical ramfications, would be abhorrent(only abhorrent to their christian belief system), and so on. Not so from my point of view, the only ethical questioning I have os the possibility of cloning resulting in defects. The only way to resolve all the problems is to continue cloning and experiementing with the human genetic material. As for abhorrence, there's really no abhorrence at all, it's just all in the heads of the naysayers. As I was reading the column, I experience a degree of detachment, all I felt was that I was happy for the parents for having a child of their own, and though as questionable the Raelians' motivations may have been, I also felt admiration for them for successing and willing to show just how ridiculous all the overblown hype about cloning is, assuming, that the Raelians did actually manage to clone a human being.

As for those people who wants to ban the entire field of cloning, I have no sympathy for at all. Do those people actually understand what cloning is all about?? It's not just cloning an entire person, but it's also about cloning organs, tissues, and lines of cells. That field alone promises to bring about new medical possibilites for those stricken with currently difficult to cure or uncurable dieases as well as organ/limb regeneration. Banning cloning altogether would be a terrible tragedy, banning reproductive cloning, yes I can understand while personally I have no problems or qualms about this area of cloning, a cloned baby is just a genetic twin of a person, not a literal copy of the person.

AtomSmasher

There are all kinds of interesting implications:

If the clone grows up to become a devout christian (even fundamentalist), does that mean he can't go to heaven?

It could also be a sort of relief. Considering all the worrying that so many people do about what happens when they die, so they go through all kinds of madness trying to have a preferential afterlife. A person who is cloned, not having a sould would therefore be relieved of any future rewards or consequences.

Perhaps the clone gets it's fair share of the original soul. Maybe if your clone dies (accidentally...) you can get it back.

And what about identical twins? If a cell divides into an identical copy of itself, then does one half keep the soul? Or do they split it? If that's the case, then quintuplets are really in trouble. How much soul do you have to have for everlasting life?