Antti wrote:So if someone made a clone of a 40-year-old person the clone would be like a 40-year-old baby, if you understand my point, like it has already been a baby for 40 years, but starts growing only now. I'm not exactly sure of this myself, but that's how I think it goes, at least I read somewhere thet the problem with clones is their cells are already old
That can't be completely true, almost all human cells (excluding e.g. braincells, they are unreplaceable) die after splitting up multiple times. Typically cells die at least after seven years. (I'm not very sure about the time but so I've heard)
But yes, the cloned cells aren't necessarely new ones and have probaply divided many times already.
Olivier wrote:
It's science fiction... but it is questionning ethical question very deeply.
Not so science fiction. We already have a lot natural clones among us: identical twins (they are clones, since they are developed originally from the same cell). And they are most likely even more similar to each other than artificial clones, since they have usually grown together sharing the same environment and experiences.
Also, some animals reproduce by cloning: all single-cell organisms of course (like bacteria), some snails and shrimps. Cloning could be also used to save endangered species. And I saw this article in some magazine that one scientist group is trying to clone bloodcells. So there woudn't be any need for blood donors if this would succeed.
I agree that clones are just like twins... but how many " artificial twins" can it be possible to get without it can be scaring... I mean nobody would be surprised if he sees triplets (or quadruplets)... but if you have en entire family of 10 children, all "twins"...
I think the question is also about "why clonage". Is it to get another similar person (I think about the people who lost a child, for instance, and think they can get another one with clonage)... is it to get a kind of insurance never to die, because your clone will have your genetic patrimonial... ?
It's very complex.
About therapeutic clonage... if we" make" a embryon just for medical experiment, can't we think we just produce a human guinea-pig ?
Antti wrote:So if someone made a clone of a 40-year-old person the clone would be like a 40-year-old baby, if you understand my point, like it has already been a baby for 40 years, but starts growing only now. I'm not exactly sure of this myself, but that's how I think it goes, at least I read somewhere thet the problem with clones is their cells are already old
That can't be completely true, almost all human cells (excluding e.g. braincells, they are unreplaceable) die after splitting up multiple times. Typically cells die at least after seven years. (I'm not very sure about the time but so I've heard)
But yes, the cloned cells aren't necessarely new ones and have probaply divided many times already.
I didn't explain this clear enough, but I meant I read somewhere this story: In the end of each peace of DNA there are some useless proteines(I'm not 100% certain if it was proteine, I read this a very long time ago). Every time the cell divides to two the DNA does that as well and a part of the proteine is lost, so clone babies have less of this proteine than natural babies and that's what the 'old cells' mean
Antti wrote:
I didn't explain this clear enough, but I meant I read somewhere this story: In the end of each peace of DNA there are some useless proteines(I'm not 100% certain if it was proteine, I read this a very long time ago). Every time the cell divides to two the DNA does that as well and a part of the proteine is lost, so clone babies have less of this proteine than natural babies and that's what the 'old cells' mean
Heh, so you meant exactly the same thing in your original post than I described. So we are both right
