Stem cell research being, of course, at the heart of cloning much of which is banned and/or heavily regulated in the U.S. There are some groups authorized for stem cell research includinf Standford University in California. Among the biggest controversies over stem cell research is the sources for the cells themselves - special, "universal" cells that may branch into other types of cells (blood, tissue, neural, etc) largely found in fetuses and in bone marrow. Of course bone marrow is kind of tough to get at without painful surgery and donors willing to deal with this. And fetuses is downright controversial being that it requires killing an unborn baby (bear in mind that humans are not the only species that this research is confined to - animals are subject to the same methods of operation).
There is a lot of awesome research that comes from this science, much of which has huge potential for advances in medicine, treatment and organ transplants, etc and for that reason I support it. However many are concerned with the thought of:
A) supporting human abortions by drawing from that source of stem cells
B) cloning of human beings which seems morally "wrong"
And both are strong arguments and contentious topics in and of themselves. I think abortions are NOT the solution to birth control (however I am in favor of higher-learning rather than rights infringement / revokement.) I also think cloning humans is a strange thing to do.. somewhat in line with having children with blood relatives.
DNA is a tricky, tricky thing that is so complex and detailed, we have yet to fully undsertand what it all does (or even a significant portion of it, for that matter!) - I remember when they cloned Dolly the sheep everyone was so excited, yet nervous all at once. There was fear that the DNA's "end caps" (whatever the scientific tem for it is) on cloned DNA from a mature origin may cause premature aging for the cloned subject. The end-caps are a repeating series of links at the very ends of the DNA strand that divide down each time the strand replicates itself through cellular division. Eventually it reaches the end of the caps and is no longer able to sub-divide, and is thereby incapable of further duplication. Thus, once the cell dies, it's gone for good, no more copies. If you apply this system to all the DNA-bearing cells in the entire body (not all cells have DNA!), you end up with what, in my mind, is a formula for the maximum age a body can reach by way of typical rates of cellular division and thus: a mathematical representation to the answer of "how long can we live?".
Further, if you take already-divided DNA and CLONE it into a sheep embryo, etc then what you start with is a pre-aged creature as it develops. Now how long do you give it to live? Average life expectancy minus the age of the DNA source specimin? Can you imagine this being applied to humans who already only tend to live on average less than 100 years? What if the source was taken at the half life of the donor, perhaps 45 years old? Though a cloned infant may appear as an infant, it would in fact have 45 year old DNA - possibly even greater than that given the accellerated rate of cellular reproduction during infantile growth. I would anticipate the child not living to the age of 60. What happens if that child, too, became a DNA donor for a Bob version 3.0?
This is one of the problems facing the group (forget who it is now? ) who wants to clone human bodies and transplant the brains (disregarding all the difficultines and/or presently insurmountable tasks involved with the notion of brain transplantation - we can't even repair most spinal cord damage today, perish the thought of re-attaching an entire brainstem! ) into the rejeuvenated bodies - perpetual life for the subject! Sure.. if only the brain didn't have so much to do with hormonal balances (imagine a 60 year old brain in a teenaged body.. how do you suppose puberty would take place?).
Another idea they seem to have overlooked entirely is the fact that brains wear out and die every bit as quickly as bodies. Replacing a body doesn't necessarily address the health of a brain. One of my grandmothers has alzheimers.. she was one of the sharpest people our family ever knew, and now at 80-something she is entirely incapacitated. Forget her physical, bodily woes - she can't even think any more!
And let's not forget about cancer. And let's not forget about the fact that centuries of emotional stresses would be unbearable for most humans. Keep dreaming.
If they're going to replicate bodies, it seems they should at least be doing it to harvest organs.. better yet would be to create organ farms rather than growing whole bodies. This would be tremendously beneficial to transplant patients of all kinds world-wide.
Ah well.. it's a pretty extensive topic, so I'll let it rest there for now.
All ethical arguements aside, what about overpopulation? All arguements seem to meddle over whether it is right or wrong to research in the field of cloning, while most people ignore the obvious truth that if cloning is utilized for all medical purposes, it will reach a point in which nearly all diseases are irradicated. At what point will we be content with our progress in this field? It is reasonable, almost likely, that if and when we do discover a successfull means of cloning human beings, technology in the medical field will evolve to the point at which the process of aging will be slowed or even stopped. Even at the least, it is not unrealistic that human life spans will increase significantly. If overpopulation exists in modern society, it could grow to be unbearable when we begin to flirt with immortality. Aside from discomfort, this level of overpopulation could lead to starvation, rioting, and may lead extremists on the edge to indulge in genecide. I realize that i have gone out on a limb with a few of my statements, but my point is that there are many other factors to consider besides ethical and theological concerns.
Sean Kelly: I agree completely with your theory on organ transplantation through cloning. The idea is one of the ways that cloning could truly benefit humanity and is appealing in terms of the health of the species. Organ donors are too few and far between. This means that there is a lot of people that need organs who can't get them. Bring cloning into the field and it would be a simple matter of cloning a person's organs using their own DNA (which has a much smaller chance of being rejected) as long as the original problem does not reoccur. If that is not an option similar DNA (siblings or parents) could be used to replicate an organ.
As for the DNA 'end cap' they’ve been working on ways to add onto that for some time already and I do believe that that is not actually too far off. Our mortality is one of our greatest fears and if a product can stop us from aging as fast as we do then there is a large buyer market for such a product (and, off course, we're all motivated by capitalistic thought to some extent.) Further more, in terms of religion their would be less qualms about extending the life of a human being by lengthening the 'end cap'.
I predict that within forty years the end cap of the cells will be lengthened. Why? Because its big bucks and pharmaceutical companies are out there to earn big bucks.
Maynard46Scoot2: I understand your concern about overpopulation but I think that extending people’s lives and giving them more time on this earth will make certain that that problem becomes a smaller one. Looking at population statistics we find that most western countries are no longer truly growing in size, the populations have stabilized and some are actually shrinking (Austria, for example). The only reason the population stays steady in these countries is through an influx of foreign workers. If it is possible to bring the entire world up to a higher standard of living I think you will find that overpopulation will become a less pronounced problem.
That requires bringing places like the Middle East, which are currently experiencing technological advancement and population booms. (Something not un-similar to what happened in Europe and America during the 19th century, as our medical abilities sky rocketed and the population still had too many children due to cultural beliefs and future security).
There is also a great and undeniable advantage to preserving our elderly and giving them the option to retain youthful and healthy bodies. We don’t lose their knowledge. To refer to Sean’s post above, his grandmother had a huge amount of knowledge to call upon plus a sharp mind, a combination like that could benefit us as whole. Our top scientists, who have spent decades mastering their field, would not just have ten to twenty years of being at the top but possibly might have half a century of time to experiment and explore.
I believe it is essential for our species to find a way to have more time on this earth. It is only by making certain that people live longer that we can start making people aware that the far future does matter. We, as a people, could slow down and stop rushing around in mad cap attempts to be happy through such strange means as money, power or control. Our children could enjoy their youth longer without being forced to ‘grow up’ as quickly as is demanded, our elderly would not just have twenty years of sitting back and enjoying it through their kids (-Queen) but might have fifty, or more.
And what about the thought of being healthy until the day you die? I don’t know about you, but that sounds might appealing to me. I don’t know any old person who is happy with the decay of their body, do you? Would you deprive them of the chance to retain their physical robustness?
No, I think that if we can handle it intelligently and with forethought, these two things can benefit our species as a whole. It will require more then just invention, it will also require the examination of ethics and morality to a extensive degree, yet if we can (for once) pull that off, I think we might, by means of these technological advancements, possibly enter another (the first?) golden age.
Symbol: You make some good arguements, but i can't help but think you are a little nieve when it comes to human nature. You say that by extending our lives, we could put an end to the desire for money, power and control. These three things are the product of greed, which is not a means of seeking immediate gratification, but rather one of the greatest weaknesses of the human psyche. I agree that there is a chance that the potential advantages of cloning may have a fighting chance of outnumbering the disadvantages given that we handle it "intelligently and with forethought," but when have we as human beings ever handled any advancement in technology with either of these things? Granted, this is not the atomic bomb, but i believe it offers the same double edged sword. Forgive me for not having great trust in mankind, but i can't help but fear that cloning could be a disaster, especially if the technology fell into the wrong hands (which everything seems to do eventually).
01-14-2003 02:36 AM
