They are called telomeres. Telomeres are strands of junk DNA on the ends of chromosomes. Every organism has a biological clock built in to it and dies because as cells replicate in mitosis the telomeres shorten a little each time.
It will be interesting to see how scientists circumvent this. One way would be telomerase. Cancer cells use this to keep replicating. That's right, cancer cells replicate without shortening their telomeres! There is a culture of cancer cells from a woman a long time ago (60 years? this was last year in bio) that's still multiplying.
Actually, it's even more interesting, because it appears that the DNA snippets just behind the telomeres are suicide triggers... if they aren't in a newly formed cell, it can't function.
Ie, the length of the telomeres in a cell tells you what the finite lifetime of that cell is... once they're gone, it's line is going to die off soon.
And yes, clones inherit the telomere chain length of their parent *at the time of cloning*... in other words, they have shorter chains, and therefore shorter lifespans (in theory... we'll see how it pans out with Dolly, et al).
So the Raelians dreams of immortality are going to be problematic unless they figure out a way around this (in which case why not 'fix' the problem in the original body, and forget about cloning).
As for why they're a religion, I say why not? They have a belief system that fundamentally is based on faith alone, and they have a bureaucracy to provide a community and administrative framework. Pantheism doesn't have belief in a god or gods, (the divine is in everything, but not as entities) but it's generally regarded as a religion. I don't believe that an external conscious entity is required for a belief system to be considered a 'religion'.
Hmm. I was told today that Dolly is suffering from some kind of accelerated aging. Something like 2x normal. Haven't had much time to look into it for myself, but this is interesting.
In vitro fertilization uses about 15 blastocysts for every successful pregnancy. Guess what happens to the rest of them? Tossed out.
Now enter the evil stem cell researchers that want to create blastocysts for research... same blasted cell groupings, but since some random *one* of them isn't going to end up as a kid, it's wrong. Hmmm.
Sorry, go back to the cloning discussion, nothing to see here...
- try to be a sport's journalist for care races, in order to drive big cars for free.
Declared to be the new Jesus and coming from the ET. Makes many moneys with that, a lot of it being using for his race car team. Since the three years made a big propagenda about cloning.
However Rael has a lot of money : it's not totally impossible he suceed cloning human, but the result will certainly give failures, dues to the famous telomere.
Dolly who is three years old, already looks like nine years and suffers from arthrosis.
Cloning human for reproductive purposes is totally crazy : bring genetic troubles and no advantages, since the normal reproduction is a far better process in any point of vue.
Anyway there is no proof that he suceed a cloning. Rael is a sect guru, an another liar will not kill him, in the contrary it will bring some more nuts in his sect.
Regarding telomeres and, more generally, why the clones suffer from disease and appearant advanced aging-
Having worked in a couple labs focused on telomere research I can say that telomere length regulation is important in aging, but is not the only reason why we age. It's certainly limiting if you start out with abnormally short telomeres as seems to happen with cloning, but many other things such as post-mitotic oxidative damage are important.
Solving the telomere problem is fairly simple, just add recombinant telomerase or find the molecular triggers to turn it on briefly either during injection into the oocyte or in cell culture of the somatic cells prior to injection.
A far bigger problem is the reality that when you use a somatic cell (something other than sperm or egg) it has had a long time to gain unchecked mutations in important developmental genes. Somatic cells also loose some of the more elusive information known as imprinting and the cloning process appears to rewire the imprinting with unpredictable results.
It's important to note that these problems are surmountable. We may one day be able to read an entire genome with ease (Venter is already offering the service for a few million) and confirm that the cloned egg has no serious mutations. We might even be able to restore the proper imprinting to the nucleus. It's quite feasible that one day cloning (done with such rigorous controls) could produce healthier children than "naturally" conceived kids. Not being vain, I would still opt to have kids with my wife instead of cloning myself, but you can bet I would use all the techniques I could to make them as genetically healthy as possible.
The major take home message is that there simply is no ethical justification to use the current risky technique on humans. Work the stuff out with chimps and once it's proven as safe or safer than normal conception let people who want to clone themselves go right ahead.
Wait a minute, do we actually beleive this "Rael" has a cloned a baby after he's also told us that he was obducted by aliens and given "an unforgettable bath" by beautiful cloned women?!
As for the morals of cloning this could start a whole new debate, there's nothing really wrong with cloning in itself, all it is is using a different cell instead of a sperm cell to fertilise an egg so that the DNA is duplicated rather than changed (as far as I understand). The immoral part is that scientists could end up producing many deformed children before getting it right if they try processes never tried before.
From a religious point of view, let's say christians, believe that a baby has been born becuase God has allowed it to. Therefore if a cloned baby has been allowed by God to be born, it must have a soul.
On a more physical point of view the idea of people being copied to serve only as a donor to their originals, I think is immoral, whether the soul exists or not they still have feelings and are still a person. Just because they have been created with the intention of being killed does not make it okay to kill them, it's like farming humans.
However I do not think it is wrong to clone stem cells from foetuses. The people who are against this are mainly against it becuase the don't understund it, they think of a foetus as a tiny baby when the foetuses being used are only a tiny bunch of cells, they do not have a brain, or feelings and therfore aren't really a person any more than a sperm cell or a hair is a person.
Any way, I doubt this claim of a human clone is true, It seems to me like nothing more than a publicity stunt or possibly one of "Rael's" strange dreams again.
come on the people who claoim to have a human clone are a cult that believes that aliens have taken people and the leaders of the cult have come back... doesn't it sound kinda fishy
<strong>come on the people who claoim to have a human clone are a cult that believes that aliens have taken people and the leaders of the cult have come back... doesn't it sound kinda fishy </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes I agree. Succesful cloning is years into the future...
<strong>come on the people who claoim to have a human clone are a cult that believes that aliens have taken people and the leaders of the cult have come back... doesn't it sound kinda fishy </strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course, I'm suspicious of the validity of this claim considering the source. The only reason I think it's possible is that cloning is really not too difficult if you don't take the proper ethical controls. I can easily see these nuts performing the procedure on 200 or more women just to get one to term.
I also think that it is probably true that cloning in humans would be easier (if not safer) than animal cloning since a lot of expertise in in vitro fertilization exists.
Comments
It will be interesting to see how scientists circumvent this. One way would be telomerase. Cancer cells use this to keep replicating. That's right, cancer cells replicate without shortening their telomeres! There is a culture of cancer cells from a woman a long time ago (60 years? this was last year in bio) that's still multiplying.
Ie, the length of the telomeres in a cell tells you what the finite lifetime of that cell is... once they're gone, it's line is going to die off soon.
And yes, clones inherit the telomere chain length of their parent *at the time of cloning*... in other words, they have shorter chains, and therefore shorter lifespans (in theory... we'll see how it pans out with Dolly, et al).
So the Raelians dreams of immortality are going to be problematic unless they figure out a way around this (in which case why not 'fix' the problem in the original body, and forget about cloning).
As for why they're a religion, I say why not? They have a belief system that fundamentally is based on faith alone, and they have a bureaucracy to provide a community and administrative framework. Pantheism doesn't have belief in a god or gods, (the divine is in everything, but not as entities) but it's generally regarded as a religion. I don't believe that an external conscious entity is required for a belief system to be considered a 'religion'.
Silly me
[quote]You're not religious but you're talking about souls? <hr></blockquote>
We're not Biologists, Biochemists, Bioethicists but we are still questioning a cloned baby!
Was she a monster?
It's just a baby, cloned or not.
If rich folk want to clone themselves, so what?
If the baby is wanted and loved, how is it any different from any other technique?
How is this worse than having a dozen children because 'every sperm is sacred'?
<strong>Its true, she is an alien!
Sexy (Kidding)
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
:eek:
In vitro fertilization uses about 15 blastocysts for every successful pregnancy. Guess what happens to the rest of them? Tossed out.
Now enter the evil stem cell researchers that want to create blastocysts for research... same blasted cell groupings, but since some random *one* of them isn't going to end up as a kid, it's wrong. Hmmm.
Sorry, go back to the cloning discussion, nothing to see here...
A small resume of his biographie :
- try without success to be a singer
- try to be a sport's journalist for care races, in order to drive big cars for free.
Declared to be the new Jesus and coming from the ET. Makes many moneys with that, a lot of it being using for his race car team. Since the three years made a big propagenda about cloning.
However Rael has a lot of money : it's not totally impossible he suceed cloning human, but the result will certainly give failures, dues to the famous telomere.
Dolly who is three years old, already looks like nine years and suffers from arthrosis.
Cloning human for reproductive purposes is totally crazy : bring genetic troubles and no advantages, since the normal reproduction is a far better process in any point of vue.
Anyway there is no proof that he suceed a cloning. Rael is a sect guru, an another liar will not kill him, in the contrary it will bring some more nuts in his sect.
Having worked in a couple labs focused on telomere research I can say that telomere length regulation is important in aging, but is not the only reason why we age. It's certainly limiting if you start out with abnormally short telomeres as seems to happen with cloning, but many other things such as post-mitotic oxidative damage are important.
Solving the telomere problem is fairly simple, just add recombinant telomerase or find the molecular triggers to turn it on briefly either during injection into the oocyte or in cell culture of the somatic cells prior to injection.
A far bigger problem is the reality that when you use a somatic cell (something other than sperm or egg) it has had a long time to gain unchecked mutations in important developmental genes. Somatic cells also loose some of the more elusive information known as imprinting and the cloning process appears to rewire the imprinting with unpredictable results.
It's important to note that these problems are surmountable. We may one day be able to read an entire genome with ease (Venter is already offering the service for a few million) and confirm that the cloned egg has no serious mutations. We might even be able to restore the proper imprinting to the nucleus. It's quite feasible that one day cloning (done with such rigorous controls) could produce healthier children than "naturally" conceived kids. Not being vain, I would still opt to have kids with my wife instead of cloning myself, but you can bet I would use all the techniques I could to make them as genetically healthy as possible.
The major take home message is that there simply is no ethical justification to use the current risky technique on humans. Work the stuff out with chimps and once it's proven as safe or safer than normal conception let people who want to clone themselves go right ahead.
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>
As for the morals of cloning this could start a whole new debate, there's nothing really wrong with cloning in itself, all it is is using a different cell instead of a sperm cell to fertilise an egg so that the DNA is duplicated rather than changed (as far as I understand). The immoral part is that scientists could end up producing many deformed children before getting it right if they try processes never tried before.
From a religious point of view, let's say christians, believe that a baby has been born becuase God has allowed it to. Therefore if a cloned baby has been allowed by God to be born, it must have a soul.
On a more physical point of view the idea of people being copied to serve only as a donor to their originals, I think is immoral, whether the soul exists or not they still have feelings and are still a person. Just because they have been created with the intention of being killed does not make it okay to kill them, it's like farming humans.
However I do not think it is wrong to clone stem cells from foetuses. The people who are against this are mainly against it becuase the don't understund it, they think of a foetus as a tiny baby when the foetuses being used are only a tiny bunch of cells, they do not have a brain, or feelings and therfore aren't really a person any more than a sperm cell or a hair is a person.
Any way, I doubt this claim of a human clone is true, It seems to me like nothing more than a publicity stunt or possibly one of "Rael's" strange dreams again.
Andrew
[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: Andrew Xt ]</p>
<strong>come on the people who claoim to have a human clone are a cult that believes that aliens have taken people and the leaders of the cult have come back... doesn't it sound kinda fishy
Yes I agree. Succesful cloning is years into the future...
<strong>come on the people who claoim to have a human clone are a cult that believes that aliens have taken people and the leaders of the cult have come back... doesn't it sound kinda fishy
Of course, I'm suspicious of the validity of this claim considering the source. The only reason I think it's possible is that cloning is really not too difficult if you don't take the proper ethical controls. I can easily see these nuts performing the procedure on 200 or more women just to get one to term.
I also think that it is probably true that cloning in humans would be easier (if not safer) than animal cloning since a lot of expertise in in vitro fertilization exists.