First cloned primate

[ProfessorDavey]

To say that cloning is useless as a eugenic tool is nonsense since it must be done to replicate and perpetuate a desired organism based on genes and characteristics. The ultimate in Eugenics I would have thought.

No - I think you misunderstand what most people consider eugenics to be, which is about improving genetic traits - cloning would only maintain those currently present. So unless you have someone considered genetically perfect, cloning isn't going to be of much value. And even if you did have someone considered genetically perfect it would only produce more of the same, rather than improve.

So this is distinct from the classic eugenic approaches which are to persuade those with currently desirable characteristics (in the view of the eugenicist) to reproduce with the view of producing offspring that include the combination of those desirable characteristics from both parents, hence deemed to be an improvement on either parent. Also to prevent those with less desirable characteristics (in the view of the eugenicist) from reproducing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - I think you misunderstand what most people consider eugenics to be, which is about improving genetic traits - cloning would only maintain those currently present. So unless you have someone considered genetically perfect, cloning isn't going to be of much value. And even if you did have someone considered genetically perfect it would only produce more of the same, rather than improve.

So this is distinct from the classic eugenic approaches which are to persuade those with currently desirable characteristics (in the view of the eugenicist) to reproduce with the view of producing offspring that include the combination of those desirable characteristics from both parents, hence deemed to be an improvement on either parent. Also to prevent those with less desirable characteristics (in the view of the eugenicist) from reproducing.

Yes I follow your understanding. However I think it fair to envisage people will not be cloning people with genetic faults. I move that is within the definition of eugenics.

That aside can you justify or provide a reason why anybody should be cloned apart from the ability to do so?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes I follow your understanding. However I think it fair to envisage people will not be cloning people with genetic faults. I move that is within the definition of eugenics.

Given that human reproductive cloning has never been demonstrated then we are purely speculating at to the motivations of people. Certainly in the world of animal cloning there have been 2 main motivations - the first creating a consistent livestock, which isn't eugenic (i.e. improving traits) rather than maintenance of desirable traits. The second is much more personal. I believe there have been cases where individuals have looked to clone a much loved pet who has died. There is no suggestion that that pet lacked genetic faults - unlikely, certainly in the world of pedigree pets where many breed are in fact desired due to their inherent genetic faults.

That aside can you justify or provide a reason why anybody should be cloned apart from the ability to do so?

Various types of mitochondrial diseases.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given that human reproductive cloning has never been demonstrated then we are purely speculating at to the motivations of people. Certainly in the world of animal cloning there have been 2 main motivations - the first creating a consistent livestock, which isn't eugenic (i.e. improving traits) rather than maintenance of desirable traits. The second is much more personal. I believe there have been cases where individuals have looked to clone a much loved pet who has died. There is no suggestion that that pet lacked genetic faults - unlikely, certainly in the world of pedigree pets where many breed are in fact desired due to their inherent genetic faults.
Various types of mitochondrial diseases.

I think your inclusion of the word consistent is just avoiding the word better, So still Eugenic.
The mitochondrial issue is dealt with by ''three parent'' methods surely.

[ProfessorDavey]

That aside can you justify or provide a reason why anybody should be cloned apart from the ability to do so?

And you need to recognise the distinction between 'reproductive cloning' and 'therapeutic cloning' - the latter does not aim at creating a cloned organism, but the generation of early stage stem cells for study and/or ultimate therapeutic use. There are loads of reasons why 'therapeutic cloning' is useful and indeed there are many studies ongoing, including in the UK, using the technique, which is lawful provided a licence is obtained from the HFEA.

[ProfessorDavey]

The mitochondrial issue is dealt with by ''three parent'' methods surely.

Not necessarily and there are proposed methods that are, in effect, cloning, while the 3 parent approach wouldn't be. My point is merely to indicate that there may be circumstances where cloning might be justified other than on the basis of 'just to see if we can do it' or some eugenic motive. Whether this is justified ethically or legally is a different matter.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think your inclusion of the word consistent is just avoiding the word better, So still Eugenic.

I disagree - the process of selective breeding within a pool of livestock to enhance particular traits (via deemed improvement in the genetic characteristics of individual animals) is clearly eugenic - not that we seem particularly bothered for farm animals. Maintaining those traits within the population (rather than improving on them) does really seem to fit with the notion of eugenics which is all about perceived improvement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you need to recognise the distinction between 'reproductive cloning' and 'therapeutic cloning' - the latter does not aim at creating a cloned organism, but the generation of early stage stem cells for study and/or ultimate therapeutic use. There are loads of reasons why 'therapeutic cloning' is useful and indeed there are many studies ongoing, including in the UK, using the technique, which is lawful provided a licence is obtained from the HFEA.

I do...but what a strange reply! There is a world apart from cloning cells and producing a clone as in the case of the full term live borne organism. What would be the function of the latter?

[ProfessorDavey]

I do...but what a strange reply! There is a world apart from cloning cells and producing a clone as in the case of the full term live borne organism.

So-called therapeutic cloning isn't about 'cloning cells' is is about producing a cloned embryo which is then used to derive cells. But that early stage embryo is none-the-less produced and with different motivation could, theoretically, be implanted to produce a full term live born organism.

I recognise the massive difference due to motivation - not all so, hence the very strong arguments against permitting human somatic cell nuclear transfer (the Dolly the sheep cloning method) for any purposes.

[ProfessorDavey]

What would be the function of the latter?

I've already answered that - to allow a woman with certain types of very rare mitochondrial disease to have a baby without the risk of inheriting of that disease. That doesn't appear an unreasonable motivation even if there might be other ways of achieving the same (which come with their own ethical challenges to the conservative ethical community).

Or of course to create a master race - although as I've pointed out that is more science fiction than science fact.

But I think perhaps the wrong question is being asked. Perhaps the more relevant question is a hypothetical one at the moment. Namely, were a cloned human being to be born how would we consider that clone to be in human rights terms. Now my view would be that a cloned human being would be identical in human rights terms to any other human individual. A lot of the issues around cloning (and its taboo) seem to stem from a view that somehow a cloned human being would be different and lesser in human rights terms. But there is no reason why that should be the case, and anyhow it is for society to determine whether this would be so.

I would ask you perhaps to learn a little of the ethical debate that raged in then mid to late 70s surrounding IVF, which included a similar strand of (in my view faulty) thinking. Namely that a 'test tube baby' would somehow be considered not fully human by society, would be considered lesser in human rights terms and therefore harmed by being allowed to exist. That seems a particularly perverse argument now, 40 years on from Louise Brown's birth, but that argument was there none the less.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So-called therapeutic cloning isn't about 'cloning cells' is is about producing a cloned embryo which is then used to derive cells. But that early stage embryo is none-the-less produced and with different motivation could, theoretically, be implanted to produce a full term live born organism.

I recognise the massive difference due to motivation - not all so, hence the very strong arguments against permitting human somatic cell nuclear transfer (the Dolly the sheep cloning method) for any purposes.

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. All I am asking here is what would be the purpose of a clone that went the full term and was born? Are you suggesting live complete born organism human clones harvested for organs?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've already answered that - to allow a woman with certain types of very rare mitochondrial disease to have a baby without the risk of inheriting of that disease. That doesn't appear an unreasonable motivation even if there might be other ways of achieving the same (which come with their own ethical challenges to the conservative ethical community).

Or of course to create a master race - although as I've pointed out that is more science fiction than science fact.

But I think perhaps the wrong question is being asked. Perhaps the more relevant question is a hypothetical one at the moment. Namely, were a cloned human being to be born how would we consider that clone to be in human rights terms. Now my view would be that a cloned human being would be identical in human rights terms to any other human individual. A lot of the issues around cloning (and its taboo) seem to stem from a view that somehow a cloned human being would be different and lesser in human rights terms. But there is no reason why that should be the case, and anyhow it is for society to determine whether this would be so.

I would ask you perhaps to learn a little of the ethical debate that raged in then mid to late 70s surrounding IVF, which included a similar strand of (in my view faulty) thinking. Namely that a 'test tube baby' would somehow be considered not fully human by society, would be considered lesser in human rights terms and therefore harmed by being allowed to exist. That seems a particularly perverse argument now, 40 years on from Louise Brown's birth, but that argument was there none the less.

But there are non cloning methods for mitochondrial disease.

[ProfessorDavey]

But there are non cloning methods for mitochondrial disease.

There are actually no clearly established techniques yet at all, although there has been a reported success of the so-called 3 parent technique in (as far as I'm aware) a single case. Each couple will be different and there may be circumstances whether the 3 parent technique wont work and another technique - for example somatic cell nuclear transfer may. Is it, in your view, unreasonable to even consider this? Why would this not be a reasonable motivation.

You post seems to imply that the issue of parenthood for sufferers of mitochondrial disease is sorted by other methods - it isn't yet. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you suggesting live complete born organism human clones harvested for organs?

Of course not (someone else has already written that book as alluded to upthread). If, as I do, you would consider that a human clone, were they born, would have exactly the same human rights as any other human individual born, then why on earth would you think that organ harvesting would be anything other than the most gross infringement of human rights, and ... murder.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are actually no clearly established techniques yet at all, although there has been a reported success of the so-called 3 parent technique in (as far as I'm aware) a single case. Each couple will be different and there may be circumstances whether the 3 parent technique wont work and another technique - for example somatic cell nuclear transfer may. Is it, in your view, unreasonable to even consider this? Why would this not be a reasonable motivation.

You post seems to imply that the issue of parenthood for sufferers of mitochondrial disease is sorted by other methods - it isn't yet.

And your reply seems to imply that cloning is the way forward.

[ProfessorDavey]

And your reply seems to imply that cloning is the way forward.

Nope you are completely missing my point.

You seemed to be implying that no one could ever consider cloning for reproductive purposes, except for sinister reasons and motivation or merely to prove it to be possible. All I am doing is pointing out that were cloning to prove to be effective to allow people suffering from mitochondrial disease (and obviously were it to prove to be more effective than any other technique) then it wouldn't be unreasonable for those people to want to take advantage of that technique and their motives wouldn't be sinister in any way.

Whether it should be allowed, however, is a matter for society to judge on the basis of its ethical acceptability, and likely regulated in law, as is currently the case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope you are completely missing my point.

You seemed to be implying that no one could ever consider cloning for reproductive purposes, except for sinister reasons and motivation or merely to prove it to be possible. All I am doing is pointing out that were cloning to prove to be effective to allow people suffering from mitochondrial disease (and obviously were it to prove to be more effective than any other technique) then it wouldn't be unreasonable for those people to want to take advantage of that technique and their motives wouldn't be sinister in any way.

Whether it should be allowed, however, is a matter for society to judge on the basis of its ethical acceptability, and likely regulated in law, as is currently the case.

No I want to here what non eugenic purpose there could be for a clone person. If Eugenics is about improvement then even the case of a cloning to avoid mitochondrial condition could be considered Eugenic outside any question of good or bad.

[jeremyp]

Human cloning, which is likely one day, is worrying.

Human cloning already exists. Identical twins are clones.

Even if it is intended for the best of reasons, in the wrong hands it would be catastrophic. Hitler, for instance, would probably have been thrilled to have clones of himself and like minded psychos.

Do you have any evidence that the trait of being a psychotic dictator is in any way genetic?

[jeremyp]

Isn't Never Let Me Go, by our latest Nobel laureate, a more relevant warning?

I've seen the film. I was never able to suspend my disbelief to the point that the central premise became credible.

[SteveH]

Could be handy if he's got a large diocese to administer.