doc58

What are the implications for religous people, particularly fundamentalists of cloning humans, assuming it can and will be done?
They talk about all life being precious and created by God. Do they believe God creates cloned babies even though we can see it happen in the laboratory?
I may not be asking it clearly but it seems there is a fundamental variance with conservative Christian doctrines and man creating life in the laboratory.
Can someone expound on this?
Thanks

seebs

A lot of people complain when you do *anything* using a process other than the most common natural process for doing that thing; I'm not sure why.

The Christians I know (self included) don't think that God "creates us" in the sense of waving a magic wand and poof there's a baby; we're well aware of sperm and eggs and such. As to souls... I dunno, I assume that anything that acts like "people" has a soul, whether it's a clone, a twin, or a perfectly "normal" person born the boring way.

I can't think of any arguments against cloning that don't also apply either to test tube babies or twins.

Thieving Magpie

Perhaps the main problem with cloning that many religions have is it's capacity to be used in an 'unethical' manner - principally by eliminating the percieved 'importance' of an individual.

How unique can someone be (with, or without any conception of the soul) if there are others like them? If we could easily make clones, could we deny them certain recognized human rights? Could they be created for use as human experiments for example, or as organ donors? Also, cloning is by no means a perfect science (well, at least not as perfect as some might think acceptable). There is a good chance that any cloned human will be very abnormal, and suffer unduly because of it.

Really though, I think the major concern is that of neophobia, or fear of the new. Everyone has this I think, but to different degrees.

These ramblings of mine are not supposed to point to anything decisively or conclusively, so please do not interpret them as such. Everyone will have different reasons for believing what they do, and these reasons will not all be clearly grouped together by religion, culture, or political beliefs.

I am afraid I have little else to say on this.

MzNeko

This particular point doesn't worry me - identical twins, anyone?

A clone of someone wouldn't BE that person - it wouldn't have the same memories or experiences, it would simply have the same genes. Basically a much younger identical twin.

Some of the other points definitely do need to be addressed though, such as the fact that it's not perfected and things can go wrong in the development. Also the organ donor question. Wouldn't it be cool if we could clone just an organ, though?

Doubting Didymus

Embryonic stem cells, anyone?

pz

Adult stem cells, even better?

Doubting Didymus

Once again, you will have to enlighten me. I was under the impression that adult stem cells are limited in important ways that embryonic stem cells are not. Exactly what do you mean by 'adult' stem cells in this sense, anyway?

Shake

I believe the point was made that your clone would no more be you than your identical twin. Yes, I understand that the clone would truly be an identical genetic copy of you. But a clone or twin who even has the same experiences, will likely interpret them at least slightly differently from you. The clone might have some of the same predispositions perhaps. For example, an inclination towards alcoholism, being homosexual, getting gray early, etc. Our experiences shape us nearly as much as our genetic makeup does. It's the whole nature vs. nurture (genes vs. environment) debate all over again. I believe that our nature gives us particular leanings towards types of behavior and thought, but our nurturing focuses us to become who we are as adults.

It would be interesting to see how a clone would compare to an actual person, especially if the DNA were originally taken from a very young subject, so that you could make more accurate comparisons between the two. If the 'naturally created' person were brought up in, say, New York, and the clone taken to live in LA (or Paris, Rome, London, or just some small town in the Alps), and they were brought together as adults, would really expect to see two people between whom you would notice no difference? Diet, exercise, climate, and intellectual environment would be factors in the person's development. I'd assume they'd probably have many similar features: hair and eye color would most likely be the same, overall body build too perhaps. The actual height might possibly differ (I know 2 brothers, not twins mind you, but the younger ended up over 6' tall, while the older stopped around 5'9". Doc's said that the older would probably have been over 6' also, but had his growth stunted by starving himself for wrestling). But they would be different people. I can't help but think they'd still be different even if raised together.

I don't know. It doesn't look like the Raelians are going to allow testing of their "clones" so we may have to wait longer to find out.

JerryM

I am by no means an expert on cloning, but it is my understanding that even though clones have identical DNA, they may appear different. The reason is that the nucleus which is transplanted into an ovum usually comes from an already differentiated tissue, such as a liver cell, or connective tissue cell, etc. Though the nuclei of such cells contain the complete genome, some genes are repressed, or inactivated. A clone produced from a liver cell may have a somewhat different pattern of gene activity than one produced from a skin cell or fibroblast. I believe this is the presumed reason why Dolly, the cloned sheep had a different coat color and pattern than her "parent." This may not be true in the future if cloning techniques can make any type of nucleus behave just as a normally fertilized egg does. Perhaps someone more familiar with the biology of cloning can expand on this.

brighid

My main concern at this point regarding cloning are for those people who want to clone a deceased child, relative, lover, etc. in an attempt to “resurrect” that person AND the doctors/scientists who may play into that scenario. I think people have such an uninformed understanding about the nature of individual development that they simply do not understand that little Billy won't come back if he is cloned, etc. A clone will likely be similar but not identical for ALL the reasons thus far stated by others. I would not be the sum total of my experiences, as I am today if I had different experiences or even different outcomes for any experience. Selling false hope, or making unattainable promises to people in emotionally vulnerable situations is not ethical … but if those people are duly informed and choose to cling to those notions I don’t see any reason NOT to clone humans.

I think the science of cloning should be approached very cautiously because we simply do not understand all the things that can happen by meddling with human DNA and the resulting product will be a human person.

I am excited at the prospect of science discovering ways to create organs, tissues and essential bodily fluids from nothing more then ones own cells, or the cells of a healthy donor. Hopefully I will live to see such scientific marvels go beyond the creation of cartilage and skin.

I do think we should be mindful of the ethical quandaries that will arise as we embark upon yet another phase of human and scientific development, but I don’t think this vital progress should be stopped by fear of the unknown. We don’t really know what will happen until we try.

Brighid