Scientists Make First Embryo Clones From Adults

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303626804579507593658361428

by zcase • 12 years ago

64 46 12 years ago

online.wsj.com

acjohnson553• 12 years ago

Impressive from a perspective of science, but also deeply unsettling to me. It's clearly only a matter of time before a human clone is created.

Snail_Commando5• 12 years ago

Impressive from a perspective of science, but also deeply unsettling to me. It's clearly only a matter of time before a human clone is created.

Identical twins are "natural" clones. They are genetically identical. (Barring mutation.)

People take issue with "artificial" or reproductive cloning.

If you reproductively cloned an identical twin, you would end up with three genetically identical people. One is just born later, with a more certain outcome.

[Edit: I am not advocating anything. This is a descriptive observation of genetics, not a normative one.]

tokenizer• 12 years ago

Keyword is natural though. It's one thing to push science to it's limits. It's another entirely to delve into eugenics.

It's pretty understandable and a default position to advocate for it, but it could be a slippery slope, and will definitely push the politics towards engineered babies over natural ones.

staircasebug• 12 years ago

Probably not all. Moral issues generally stem for religious & cultural upbringing. China is a country that has minimal issues with human cloning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/science/20tier.html

acjohnson553• 12 years ago

I think it's not quite that simple. We're more than just our chromosomes. How much more is a matter of philosophy, but even restricting ourselves to just what we know by science, we know that the fetal environment, mitochondria, etc. play a role. Artificial cloning methods as I understand them are distinct from the way natural identical twins form. If it were so simple to reproduce "natural cloning", it would already done and commonplace. In reality, it seems to require quite a bit of hacking.

I don't think something having a natural analog makes it any less unsettling. I also have not specifically advocated anything, although it's probably clear that I have reservations.

3rd32• 12 years ago

Damn, we will very likely see illegal clones of superstars within the next couple of decades.

3rd32• 12 years ago

Why the down-votes? It is actually pretty easy to get some tissue from pretty much everyone. And knowing there are perverted, rich individuals out there it's quite conceivable this will happen.

cliveowen• 12 years ago

Not completely related since "the embryos created in these recent experiments may have certain limitations that would prevent them from giving rise to a human clone", I was thinking how would a clone embryo differ from a twin? We know that environmental factors physically change twins, and that also applies to clones. So if we consider twins to be different people, we should also consider a clone to be a different person.Then why all the pushback and "laws explicitly banning human reproductive cloning"?

spcoll• 12 years ago

I believe these laws target human cloning experimentation, rather than cloning as "twin manufacturing". The fact is, we don't know how to make fully viable clones yet (see the fate of our most advanced animal experiments for reference).

As such, it would be unethical to attempt to create a possibly failed human clone.

frankus• 12 years ago

I've seen a clone described as a "twin born at a different time." I don't see it as inherently raising any ethical dilemmas.

But since by definition we would need to perform experiments on non-consenting humans to perfect the technique, there isn't any ethical way to get to there.

hyp02• 12 years ago

You'll likely produce many deformed babies before you get it right. Horrific.

Note that they haven't managed it yet on monkeys (surprised me).

Prediction: when it's been working perfectly on all primates for quite a while, these laws may start to change... perhaps at first for special cases, such as infertile couples (or a clone of an infant who died of non-congential causes - I don't know what to make of that, it's simultanesouly creepy and tugs at my heart-strings). IVF programs have similar restrictions.

ericcumbee• 12 years ago

probably going to get jumped on for using this phrase. but that feels like it goes against the "sanctity of life". In that it seems like it diminishes the value of the individual both the original and the clone, When you can just order up a replacement.

riggins4• 12 years ago

Here's a prediction I've heard that I actually thought was kind of interesting.

China will be the first to clone humans because they don't have our ethical restraints. Since China already is interested in eugenics, its easy to infer that they'll be interested in cloning geniuses.

It will get interesting if a large population of geniuses in China starts to tip the technological and military balance and whether other countries would feel compelled to respond.

caustic• 12 years ago

How does it relate to this discovery: https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-smashes-barrier-growin... ("By manipulating the appropriate signaling, the U.Va. researchers have turned embryonic stem cells into a fish embryo, essentially controlling embryonic development.")

hyp02• 12 years ago

Just wanted to clarify that these were fish stem cells. It's not ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny or anything.

smrtinsert• 12 years ago

Genetics major here - I think I'm going to be sick. I have no problem using genetics as a source code from which to print replacement parts if you will, but the idea of creating life from an existing person terrifies me for some reason. Is our future some version of an awful Bruckheimer movie (The Island)?

mitochondrion2• 12 years ago

Are you, by any chance, terrified by the concept of having a child?

adamdavis• 12 years ago

I never really got this line of thought. While creating life in a laboratory and creating life through sexually reproduction between a man and woman (or however it is other organisms manage it) have the same end result, I think it's fairly reasonable to recognize that they are two very distinctly different things.

Lanz• 12 years ago

This is wonderful news for the many women who are currently forced to carry someone else's child via in-vitro fertilization if they want a child. Hopefully they'll be able to have a child that is biologically theirs in a reasonable timeframe as further developments occur.

acjohnson553• 12 years ago

By "theirs" do you mean a clone of themself? That's a pretty weird prospect to me. I don't see how cloning could be used to create an embryo that shares only one set of chromosomes. If the woman's eggs are still viable, it seems like regular IVF could be used. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

throwaway78082• 12 years ago

An identical twin is a clone. Do you have anything against identical twins?

jakobe• 12 years ago

I find it odd that the only moral issue people seem to find with procedures like this is whether it is okay to kill an egg cell, or an early stage embryo.

These egg cells don't grow on trees. They must be harvested from human beings. Egg cell harvesting is a complex process, requiring the donors (young women) to take experimental drugs with possibly harmful long term sideeffects.

If we are using human egg cells for experiments, or at some point in the future, for curing old people, aren't we exploiting the young woman we take those egg cells from?

aganders32• 12 years ago

Well, all of the egg donors are adults with (presumably) the ability to make rational decisions. They should of course give proper informed consent and potentially be given due compensation, but in that case I don't think it's fair to call it exploitation.

e: I hate to complain about downvotes, but did totally miss your point here or something? I think this is a good conversation to have, and I was replying in good faith.

meric• 12 years ago

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

There is a significant proportion of feminists who are against prostitution and pornography because it exploits women's bodies, and your statement can be used as a potential argument to dislodge their beliefs.

On the other hand, it is more unacceptable to suggest at times a person might not be always fully rational, and even more unacceptable to generalize this to a group of people. So your statement has brought up a contradiction in the beliefs of a subset of people, which you're not supposed to do.

joeclark772• 12 years ago

They are being paid to become mothers to children who they will never know, who will likely die in miscarriages (implantation of IVF embryos is not very successful), and (per the WSJ article linked) may very likely be intentionally murdered by "scientists" to collect "tissue" (and citations, and grant money). These are young women, typically college students with poor earning prospects and lots of debt, being enticed with large amounts of money they may not feel free to turn down.

I'm sure that your comment is in good faith, and I'm not one of the ones who downvoted you. I only want to show you that, from this point of view, "informed consent" is not a good enough excuse for how these women are being used. (And I would also question whether these girls are truly "informed" about what's really going to be done to their children.)

pygy_• 12 years ago

AFAIK, they use the embryos left after a successful IVF (if the parents agree).

The sucess rate of an IVF is relatively low, and the procedure to extract the ova is complex, inconvenient and not risk-free.

Ovaries are overstimulated to produce more than one egg. They are all collected and fertilized, but, usually, only two or three are implanted at a time, to balance the low success rate and the non-null chance of multiple pregnancy (that's how octuplets are made :\).

If a successfull pregnancy occurs before running out of embryos, the mother/couple may donate the remaining embryos for research (that's how it works in Belgium, at least).

riggins4• 12 years ago

I really struggle to understand people who view prohibiting the use of embryos that would be thrown out otherwise as supporting 'life'.

Serow225• 12 years ago

Current practice from the doctors I've talked to in North America is to encourage people to implant one egg per attempt, with two eggs being allowed if the couple insists.

dekhn• 12 years ago

somatic cell nuclear transfer isn't really cloning because it doesn't include the mitochondria.

Snail_Commando5• 12 years ago

somatic cell nuclear transfer isn't really cloning because it doesn't include the mitochondria.

That really depends on how you define "cloning". It absolutely can be considered therapeutic cloning, and it would serve as an initial step in reproductive cloning.

dbcooper• 12 years ago

The WSJ article is pretty damn light, and is just an update of a May 2013 article.

Original source publication:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1934590914...

msie• 12 years ago

I believe the next season of Orphan Black starts this Saturday.

Scientists Make First Embryo Clones From Adults

Related Stories