Ten years after Ian Wilmut announced that he had cloned the first mammal ever, where are the clones of me, you, and my dog, Brownie?
Friday, March 02, 2007
Ten years ago last week, on February 22, the world first heard about the birth of Dolly the sheep, who was born on July 5, 1996, and died on February 14, 2003. In 1997, the announcement that Scottish geneticist Ian Wilmut had created an exact genetic duplicate of an adult ewe caught almost everyone by surprise. Until then, the public thought of clones in terms of science fiction--clone armies in Star Wars and Adolf Hitler redux in The Boys from Brazil.
The appearance of a fuzzy little lamb created a sensation, generating a great deal of talk about when humans--and pet poodles and perhaps saber-toothed tigers--would be cloned. Surely, it was said, if a sheep could be xeroxed, so could, well, Hitler, if there is any of his DNA around. Or my grandmother. Or Mother Teresa. Or Genghis Khan.
Obviously, none of this has happened. A few pets have been cloned, and at least two hoaxes have been perpetuated in which people claimed to have cloned humans: one in South Korea that involved a cloned human embryo, and the weird claim by the Raelians that they created a human clone that was brought to term and was said to be living in Florida. It turns out to be extremely difficult to clone a mammal, and those animals that are cloned tend to develop rare disorders that shorten their lives. This is what happened to Dolly, who suffered from premature aging and a rare form of arthritis before being put down after being afflicted with lung disease.
There is also a powerful moral issue about cloning humans: whether it should be done or not given the health issues of clones and the much larger issue of what it means to be a human being. What legal status would a clone have? Would clones be grown to provide spare organs to "natural-borns"? Would there be a temptation to further bioengineer clones by manipulating their DNA in ways that right now are considered unethical in humans? Geneticists struggling to be allowed to clone embryos for stem-cell research have all sworn that they have no interest in cloning finished humans, and I believe them, but that doesn't mean that a scientist somewhere isn't trying.
Of course we already have millions of clones in the world: identical twins, who share identical DNA. And some thinkers and scientists believe that we should produce clones--and that once the kinks are worked out, it will actually be a safer way to reproduce humans. Read my friend Greg Stock's book Reinventing Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future, which argues that cloning humans is inevitable and will one day be about as controversial as heart surgery is today. A century ago, few surgeons would venture into the heart, then considered the repository of the soul.
As of now, the failure of science (as far as we know) to actually clone a human--and the ethical reluctance of most scientists to take this step--means that we haven't had to face the issues. I suspect that by the time another 10 years has gone by, we may be hearing for real about a baby clone being born.
As we watch this human Dolly laughing and crying and spitting up formula like a "natural" baby, how will we feel?
Comments
Buckwheat469 on 03/02/2007 at 8:16 PM
32
Stem cell research is a very controversial issue because many people believe that researchers only use babies to obtain the stem cells. These cells can be obtained in various ways, including bone marrow reconciliation techniques and cloning techniques. The clones in this case are copies of the person who needs the stem cells, so if a copy of a person is created then destroyed is there any "murder" going on? The original person was never harmed, so can someone really murder someone who never should have been alive in the first place?
The stem cell issue peaks my interest because it would ensure quicker discovery of a cure for Diabetes, type 1 (stem cells would help the pancreas, but researchers still need a way to control the immune system).
I mention the cloning problems in the subject line because the issues with the health of Dolly may have been caused by immune system problems, similar to AIDS related diseases. The complicated connections of the mammal body aren't fully understood and may not be for some time. These connections are very complex and may not be able to be transferred completely to a clone, so all clones may be flawed.
A bit of recent news: meat that has been cloned will be available in grocery stores without special labels. So if you have an issue with cloned meat then you may have to switch to organic food, just watch out for E-Coli and Salmonella.
gabrielg01 on 03/03/2007 at 12:12 AM
295
Think of a clone, as a twin sibling with a time delay. Your twin sibling born 20-30-whatever years later.
And sorry, but most likely the stem cell hype won't cure your diabetes. Read up.
Buckwheat469 on 03/03/2007 at 12:38 PM
32
As for the Diabetes stem cell treatment, if you read my comments I did mention that the treatment is a two-phase treatment. The beta cells (or Islet cells) need to be recreated, using stem cells is the best method, and also the immune system needs to be reprogrammed or handled appropriately. As I mentioned these points already it makes your comment more of a argumentative flame rather than an intellectual argument.
gabrielg01 on 03/03/2007 at 1:16 PM
295
Gurthang on 03/06/2007 at 1:06 PM
13
desolation0 on 03/06/2007 at 5:23 PM
13
Personally I agree with most forms of stem-cell research, and find myself likely to embrace cloning. However, I would not like to imagine a clone being brought into existence simply for the health and well-being of another person at the expense of said clone's health and well-being.
Phineas on 03/04/2007 at 1:47 AM
46
BTW, neupogen will never make it as a recreational drug.