First steps in cloning from dead

[grinner]

First steps in cloning from dead
By Rachel Ellis in London
August 30, 2004

A FERTILITY expert is set to provoke international uproar this week by claiming he has taken the first step towards cloning a dead human being.

In what many will regard as a grotesque experiment, maverick American scientist Dr Panos Zavos will announce that he has taken DNA from two corpses and used it to create embryonic clones of the dead people.

Zavos says he has taken DNA from an 11-year-old girl called Cady and a 33-year-old man, both of whom died in road accidents, and implanted it into living eggs that subsequently divided in the laboratory to form embryos.

But an attempt to make a third clone, using DNA taken from a dummy and nasal extractor belonging to a baby who died, has so far failed to provide results.

The controversial experiment is certain to provoke a furious backlash from critics, who will accuse Zavos, from Lexington, Kentucky, of using gruesome Frankenstein science and of playing God.

It will also lead to accusations that he is exploiting vulnerable people by raising false hopes that they can bring their dead loved ones back.

Earlier this year Dr Zavos claimed to have implanted a cloned human embryo in a woman's womb. The announcement was greeted with derision by mainstream scientists and fertility experts, who called his work odious.

He later revealed the attempt had been unsuccessful.

The doctor will announce details of his macabre new research in London tomorrow, but Britain's The Mail on Sunday was given a preview of a film in which he claims to be helping three families to create genetic replicas of loved ones who have died.

In the film by award-winning British documentary maker Peter Williams, who recorded the creation of the world's first IVF baby, Louise Brown, in 1978, Zavos claims to have implanted DNA taken from the corpses into living cow eggs.

These are bigger than a human egg and therefore easier to manipulate. The cells started to divide to create embryos but were not allowed to go beyond 64 cells.

Zavos says he would never consider putting the resulting hybrid embryos into a human womb, nor could they survive anyway.

But he claims the same technique could be used to implant DNA from a corpse into a human egg, creating an embryo that, if implanted into a womb, could develop into a true clone of the dead person. link (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10613578%255E401,00.html)
Why does this seem like a bad idea?

[TheBladeRoden]

link (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10613578%255E401,00.html)
Why does this seem like a bad idea?

Perhaps you are just an undeadcowhybridcloneophobe.

[who45]

Sounds kinda creepy to me.

[Boron]

I get visions of dead heros and presidents being cloned. Of course, they would not be the same people, because their environments and situations would have to be recreated, but it would be neat to see someone who actually is Abe Lincoln play the role in a movie, or give a speech.

[Jellyfish]

That can not be a good idea...... sound more like someone exploiting other people grief.

[Digger]

I think Stephen King said it best when he said "Sometimes dead is better".

[Judith]

maverick American scientist Dr Panos Zavos

This is almost too perfect of a name for an evil scientist for this to be real.

Would that it were so.

[AgentSun]

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!!

[NYPinTA]

What is the matter with some people?! :g2f:

Hey, is he by any chance affiliated with those nut jobs that "cloned" a baby for some American couple a few months ago... and then never supplied the proof they did it?

[Darth Buddha]

O.K., to play devil's advocate, can anyone find a legitimate argument against this?

I'm not talking idiosyncratic arguments based on this, that, or the other religion... though many of the arguments FROM religions have legitimate non-religious basis. I'm talking a logical argument, or an ethical one based on either utility or "the golden rule" of intent based ethics.

[scaperbuddy]

I can't find an arguement for it. But Dolly the sheep's cloning had some problems with it didn't it? Didn't she die young because of errors in the cloning? I personally think it's unethical to clone humans and in the situation above.

[DRD2001]

O.K., to play devil's advocate, can anyone find a legitimate argument against this? From what I've read, they have yet to create a healthy clone from animals. It seems they suffer from pre-mature aging and conditions such as advanced arthritis. Until they have perfected the system (or at least remove many of the existing errors), I think they should not be testing or experimenting on humans. What kind of grief will the parents go through, to get a clone of their child and then watch that child suffer with all sorts of health problems, and possibly dying young again.

The money would be better spent in grief counseling.

[JadedLegend3]

Not only that, but it's just weird! Plus, I mean, what if some bad guys get ahold of this technology or figure out how to do it...they could clone the likes of Hitler or frelling Rasputin! I know that they wouldn't necessarily have the same traits as those guys, but they might, and that's reason enough not to...IMO.

[AyuRocks]

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!!

Your avatar agrees.

[Darth Buddha]

I can't find an arguement for it. But Dolly the sheep's cloning had some problems with it didn't it? Didn't she die young because of errors in the cloning? I personally think it's unethical to clone humans and in the situation above.

That's the best one I can think of too... since it is far from a perfected technique, this constitutes nothing short of ramrod human experimentation.

[B Sharp]

I get visions of dead heros and presidents being cloned. Of course, they would not be the same people, because their environments and situations would have to be recreated, but it would be neat to see someone who actually is Abe Lincoln play the role in a movie, or give a speech.

the Boys from Brazil....

[Darth Buddha]

Good flick, good book too. Lawrence Olivier and Gregory Peck.

Didn't work so well for Dr. Mengele, though!

[grinner]

I would hazard a guess that IF Germany had won WWII, Mengele would have been doing studies like this already.

[Ouroboros]

O.K., to play devil's advocate, can anyone find a legitimate argument against this?

Best I can come up with is a two fold argument, first that it could potentially devalue and cheepen the lives of our historical figures or even those of ordinary people who were copied. Secondly that it would be difficult to envision a reason for such copies to be created outside of exploitation.

Much of our reverence for certain people comes from the idea that they are "exceptional" and "one of kind". While this would still be true in reality as their mind, let alone their deeds, could not be replicated, I can't help but think that the sight of an Elivis clone in every record store would somehow diminish who and what the man was.

There's also the question of how such clones would be treated. It seems to me that the only reason you would want to clone a dead person would be with the expectation that the new clone person would "fill in" where their dead predecessor left off. This would mean robbing them of the freedom for self determination and essentially scripting their lives for them. In such a scenario expliotation seems extremely likely to occur.

In my opinion there is little benefit that can come from this particular type of cloning.

I can't honestly think of a reason why a clone of a dead person would be more desirable to a normal baby other than the above mentioned expectation that they would take on the life of their dead predecessor.

[Judith]

What's wrong with it? It's the worst exploitation of grief and loss I've ever heard of. I've already heard of people doing that with beloved pets. Sorry, but that's not your pet. Now imagine when people start doing this when they lose a child?

[scaperbuddy]

I agree. You can never replace that special person once they're gone but you can always cherish them in your heart and in your mind.

[AgentSun]

and this is where science goes "but we can take their place!" and really believe that they can do something like this. i do believe that scientists will stand before a public and say "we can bring you back a loved one"...and the sad part is, the public will go for it.

this reminds me of the movie Godsend.

[ChianaGray]

I don't understand it, why arguements such as the moral and ethical codes, particularly in this kind of cloning has to exclude a spiritually logical argument. Not just being able to practicly hear christians screaming rapture but it always seems like its the scientific application vs belief. They're creating clones because they can and people trying to clone their loved ones, aren't they trying to fullfill some spiritual need by a scientific means?

I'm just thinking without a spiritual context people don't really have good arguments against something like this except it makes the stomach turn. Particularly mixing humans into cows, sheep or any animal should've gone out with the Nazis but it hasn't and it won't. People are going to be running around someday cloned from the dead with some rat DNA or another to boot like some Namtar.

IMO the psychology of cloning seriously needs a shrink. What I feel is wrong with it is self identity. Whole nations can come across having an identity crisis, what will happen to these clones some generations from now? Is it just another extension of the way most of mankind dislocates from his spiritual sense into the material world, where these clones, generations later, don't know who they are, what their heritage is, where they belong and can't explain a deep ache in their heart. What kind of movement would that make in the societies? The million clone march ...?

Some people have really good reasons to want to do something like clone their dead child to end their grief, carry on their family line. I don't know if it's wrong in the nature of the universe but it could be wrong in the nature of the way our social structures are built at present day. I mean, societies already seem to be falling apart at their seams - in a quick fix material world always looking at putting a bandaid on a problem rather than getting to the source. Got a problem? Have some xanex. No? Here's some valume ... but kids, don't smoke that crack ...

Cloning is a nice little breakthrough fashion to become the next Benjamin Franklin - and I believe that's going to be at the expense of the clones themselves and inevitably everyone while it's being exploited and abused as a means to resolve and question - spiritually and ethically - about the right of life.

My ethical view is that it's not wrong to live, every living thing has a purpose in life and cloning can't change the life purpose to the greater whole, but it can be wrong to impose new forms of creation of life and not feel responsible to the future of the entire worlds evolution. The question to me is, does everyone want to be imposed these sorts of possibilities and just let something like cloning go willy nilly like stopping by McDonalds. Just because they can? People could end up being body slaves, cloned just to extract organs. That could very possibly be okay with Jack in 3004 like donating his own blood to the bank. The standard it was set by to make it legal though, might be today.

There will be cloning, it's really a matter of what kind of cloning will people be allowed to get away with, in any consideration to the value and quality of that life and the healthiness of their own self identity ... I don't think people can provide it, I think clones are going to feel like a freak.

How would you feel if your parents had to explain to you, you're the clone from DNA of the child they lost? Or, they couldn't have kids so you're really the clone of your father/mother/relative. Never mind adoption, just stick all those kids back into work houses or something, at least it'll be more perminant than foster care and cloning will certainly be cheaper, easier and more lucrative as a buisness.

That's what clones are right now IMO, notariety and buisness quietly setting up for a world change that could potentially explode like a new age baby boom like some new steam locomotion ... and isn't it classic to show the chemical guy in the lab and the experiment blows up in his face ...

errr ... I'll shut up now

[AgentSun]

good thoughts, CG. good points...the value of life apparently has been reduced to a test tube. it matters not that we are individuals, that we are created unique (if you believe in creation, and not evolution). human value of life apparently depends on simply living, which is a biological process. if that's all it takes, then why do we enjoy our lives, why do we have feelings? isn't that what makes us human, NOT the simple fact that our brain and our hearts function? would these clones have souls? i doubt it. they weren't created, they were produced by men in a lab. just like cars...handmade is more valuable than factory.

another idea....in some cases, babies are born with defects. with genetic engineering, they can possibly skim down the probability of these defects. what if they could combine that with cloning? parents who didn't want a "defective" child could feasibly just clone him or her without defects, or lessen the defects....and what is human life worth to us?

[ChianaGray]

Ty, I felt kind of eep making such a long post

That's the biggest thing that really gets to me about it ... I believe in creation and evolution, I see them as one in the same, no divisions. But everything else is divided with the world around me. Science and spirit, earth and material world, all kinds of divisions and angsts all over the place. And here comes the clones, the new social freak, is it live or is it memorex? How can they be provided for? Who are even thier real parents on this earth? How can parents explain what they gave to them and wholely expect that child to understand they are loved? How many of these parents would do this and love this child as a different child and not the one that died? And all that if they're even loved at all and not just produced out like cattle for the meat market.

[Darth Buddha]

and this is where science goes "but we can take their place!" and really believe that they can do something like this. i do believe that scientists will stand before a public and say "we can bring you back a loved one"...and the sad part is, the public will go for it.

this reminds me of the movie Godsend.

Don't blame science. Blame business. Lots of scientists work in the non-profit arena, where they are truly working for pure science, not profit. A lot of others are working for big business, and are miserable because big business isn't really interested in pure science. They want the results they want, and restrict you from finding out anything bad about something they might market (ergo bad drugs and products making it to market - contrary scientific data is buried EVERY DAY).

This guy is doing this for fame and money. Not for science.