Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

Woman "eight weeks pregnant with clone"

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:35 / 06.04.02

From the New Scientist:

A woman taking part in a controversial human cloning programme is eight weeks pregnant, claims Severino Antinori, one of the two controversial fertility specialists leading the effort.

"One woman among thousands of infertile couples in the programme is eight weeks pregnant," Antinori is reported as saying at a meeting in the United Arab Emirates. If true, this would represent the first human cloning pregnancy....

Many countries have banned reproductive cloning and most prominent scientists have warned of the high risk of severe birth defects, as well as very high rates of miscarriage. The technology is also opposed by many on ethical grounds....

In a nutshell: Cloning is a technology in its earliest infancy. Most cloned mammalian embryos show some degree of genetic or chromosomal abnormality, usually a degree which would dramatically decrease the life-expectancy of an individual thus produced. Even if there are no obvious abnormalities there may be a single-gene defect which could result in cancer (amongst other things).

Even if we leave aside for a moment the ethical problems which surround the creation of a human clone, is it ethically defensible for this man to press ahead with the creation of a potential human child which will almost certainly be severely impaired?

11:55 / 06.04.02

Is it ethical for people with learning disabilities to breed? is it ethical for people with a family history of cancer to breed? is it ethical for people who need glasses to breed? The above three examples are not there for facetouseness sake but to underline how truly complex this issue really is. at what point does this line of 'ethics' become eugenics?

11:58 / 06.04.02

Hell no. I'd say this falls in the same area as the people who use fertility drugs improperly to achieve multiple births, thus massively increasing the likelihood that their offspring will suffer cerebral palsy, autism, retardation, etc. The issue here isn't the "cloning-is-unnatural" taken by the US govt as of right now, but the fact that the researchers are willfully gambling with the quality of life of the neonate to prove a point.

12:11 / 06.04.02

sleaze - I'd say the difference between your examples and the enumerated case is that this is less an issue of global ethical-morality, but rather of the ethics of research medicine.
The disabilities likely to stem from this are not the product of genetic stochasticity, and the expression/suppression of alleles alone, but rather of the degeneration of chromosal order inherent to the process.
I'm pretty sure that this skates on some serious ethical ice vis-a-vis the Nuremburg protocols.

But if you really want to get into it, is it moral or fair to create a life using technology, knowing that it is going to be damaged, closed to most of the options in the world, just so an infertile couple can have the join of bearing and having a child? Is this acceptable just to gratify some emotional want about having "one of their own" rather than adopting one of the millions of children without parents across the globe?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

17:57 / 06.04.02

sleaze: I'm glad you made that point. It's a seductive argument and one which I'm sure we'll be hearing ad nauseum from Antorini and his ilk. It's also largely irrelevant in this instance.

As monkey points out, the abnormalites we see here are not the result of heredity or some other mischance. They are a direct result of the process itself. Perhaps more importantly, the choice facing the women in this programme is not between a baby with a high probability of mortality/morbidity versus no baby at all, but between tried-and-tested technology versus a technology which is known to be deeply flawed. If these women are capable of carrying a cloned fetus then they are capable of carrying a fetus produced using a sperm and an ovum. In vitro fertilization, for example, has a proven track record; while it is not without risks, these risks are known and can be minimised. Under these circumstances, Antorini's cloning programme seems like the height of irresponsibility.

(I note that I forgot to link my initial post to the original article. Here is the link: Cloning pregnancy claim prompts outrage

Less searchable M0rd4nt

18:08 / 06.04.02

Some related articles, also from the NS:

Cloned monkey embryos are a "gallery of horrors"
Clones contain hidden DNA damage

00:56 / 07.04.02

I agree that it does seem way too soon to being doing human cloning. But assuming it was safe (or, say, as safe as IVF) what is there that's inherently wrong with cloning? Sure you would't get the genetic variation in the individual but then it is just one individual or maybe thousands or even millions or clones. But there are billions of humans and the vast majority of them are not going to give up procreating the 'old fashioned' way. So the lack of genetic variation introduced within humankind is not really an issue.

I ask this mainly because most objectors to this seem to argue against it just because it is cloning and not about the genetic deterioration. If you're going to argue against cloning then surely IVF is a no no also? If nature dictates that you shouldn't have children then there is probably a reason and you should just learn to live with it. Speaking from an evolutionary developement point of view.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

13:10 / 07.04.02

For myself, I wouldn't have any enormous problems with human cloning in principle. The reason I got my knickers in a twist over this story is that these guys are cheerfully ploughing ahead with a programme based on severely flawed technology. How are their human lab-rats going to feel when they miscarry, or give birth to babies with fatal genetic abnormalities?

My main problem with reproductive cloning (assuming it could be made safe or safe-ish) is that it's a way for rich Westeners to produce more little rich Westeners. Which might not be wrong, exactly, but it makes me slightly uncomfortable.

The Return Of Rothkoid

11:05 / 08.04.02

My problems with this are pretty much the same as MC's. I read about it on Saturday in a story in The Guardian (here) which carried an argument against the clone which was pretty compelling until the end:
Rudolf Jaenisch, professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading specialists in cloning, said yesterday: "It's appalling that this guy [Antinori] is really doing this. I think it's outrageous.

"Seven mammalian species have now been cloned. Very few clones survive. I believe there are no normal clones in existence. The lucky ones die early. The ones who survive are unlucky because the prediction is that they will be ab normal. To argue humans might be different from these seven species... ignores all scientific evidence. These people need to be stopped. I think what they do is evil."

The "I think what they do is evil" bit seemed to stick in my craw a bit... bringing the morality into what was basically a scientific position seemed to undermine all he'd said before. But I guess it was just an off-the-cuff comment - though it still doesn't explain my uneasiness...

Less searchable M0rd4nt

11:34 / 08.04.02

Yeah, but it's not a scientific position to claim that human cloning is safe. All- and I mean all- the evidence points to gross genetic abnormality as standard in a human clone. If a doctor stood up and said "Well, I'm going to give my pregnant patients thialidomide, because the idea that thialidomide is dangerous is only a scientific position," I'd have no hesitation in branding him immoral, maybe even "evil".

The Return Of Rothkoid

12:12 / 08.04.02

No, that's what I'm getting at - I've caught snippets that say that human cloning as a no-go. (I don't want it to sound like I'm in the cloner's cheersquad, is all.) I just thought (bearing in mind that the guy was referring to other mammals, not humans) that the moral bit at the end (no matter how much I agree with it) seemed to be a bit weird. I can't be any less fuzzy on why it does, but it does. Maybe I'm still stuck in the philosopher/scientist split mode.

Bah. It's annoying - can't articulate what I'm feeling. Sigh.

14:05 / 08.04.02

Well, yes, it did sound a bit weird. Probably because we're not used to scientists using that sort of language on a regular basis. Possibly, we're also subconsciously buying in to the whole caricature of scientists operating in a moral vacuum, as the religious conservatives would have us believe.

I don't think there's anything unethical in wanting to find out what happens when you clone a human. I do think its unethical to use a technology that we know will have such serious and unnecessary side effects on the clone.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

17:48 / 10.04.02

never mind human cloning
whats dangerous is the alien human hybrid cloning
I saw alien ressurection, the movie was not only made worse through cloning, but all those mutant ripleys freaked me out.

But really, this is a pretty stupid thing for them to be doing at this point, and i wonder what kind of waivers the parents signed so the lab is not liable if the kid is ...lets say "incorrect" to avoid using words like mutant.
Realistically though, there is only so much mutation going on with the genes that are active in regular children, is there any evidence pointing at NEW mutations and disorders from cloning?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

00:22 / 11.04.02

Realistically though, there is only so much mutation going on with the genes that are active in regular children,is there any evidence pointing at NEW mutations and disorders from cloning?

Okay, that's a good question. It's valid, smart, intuitive, and completely undeserving of the inappropriatly facetious and stupid response which I'm now about to give: "Is there any evidence pointing to NEW mutations and disorders caused by Chernobyl?"

I'll post some stuff on genetics and mutation when I wake (read: sober) up. In the meantime, I refer the honourable gentleman to the New Scientist links above, especially this one.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

12:10 / 11.04.02

wow, i finally start posting outside the convo and comics book areas and in both threads i get shit

Back to smallville and new xmen i go

16:59 / 15.04.02

nah, elijah, just chack the link Mordant posted...

I'd agree that all the evidence available at the moment suggests that reproductive cloning is not remotely ready for humans yet. Or animals, come to that. Therapeutic cloning, OTOH, has me very excited and I am looking forward to being able to pop into Next You in about 30 years and order a bespoke retrovirus to fix my eyesight, knock out genetic preledictions to various degenerative conditions, and install a pair of working wings. There might be a 10% chance of it fucking up, but it would be my choice to make- a pretty fictional choice, sure, but therapeutic human cloning technology as a concept works for me because there is a willing subject.

the kind of 'scientific detatchment' that permits a practicioner to subject an unwilling victim to an unknown and unknowable risk is outrageous, and not in any way defensible whether that victim is human or animal.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

20:36 / 14.05.02

From the New Scientist, yet again:

Single gene failure "explains cloning deaths"

The catastrophic failure of a single gene's regulation seems to explain the early death of most cloned embryos, suggests a new study in mice.

Hans Schöler of the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues found that the gene that encodes the protein Oct4 was mis-regulated in about 90 per cent of clones from somatic or adult cells.

Oct4 is a transcription factor protein responsible for switching on other genes. Because the gene for Oct4 known is crucial for embryonic development, its failure alone could account for the majority of clone deaths.

The work should be an additional warning to self-proclaimed human cloners such as the controversial Italian fertility doctor Severino Antinori, says Schöler. "Antinori has said he'll be able to pick only good embryos for human cloning. Our embryos can look very nice. But they are ticking time bombs."

11:11 / 11.06.06

Haven't kept up with the leading edge of cloning technology, but I think the problem is with telomeres being shorter with every generation of cloning until programmed cell death occurs even before the entire organism is set to die of age.
Anyway, this is a technology that we cannot really stop from developing eventually. Therapeutic cloning like in the movie Island (and the movie Clone) is a process that may have to be passed through before organ-tissue culturing technology comes about. The immorality sickens us all but which revolutionary technology did not go thru the same ruckus?

08:27 / 13.06.06

Cloning of humans for reproductive purposes is just so pointless. Even if there were no risks of defects in the children (and there are), it's entirely unnecessary to resort to this technique to get a child.

(I should point out at this juncture that I find the concept of using reproductive technologies when there are hundreds of thousands of orphans in the world to be nothing more than sheer genetic egotism on the part of the people who utilise it to reproduce).

This kind of scientific grandstanding damages the reputation of NT technologies, the application of which is more properly devoted to the development of spare organs/tissues for transplant and theraputic purposes.

Unconditional Love

15:28 / 29.06.06

Where does this guy severino antinori get his funding from? i would be intrested to find out, very unfortunate first name as well. He works with this guy as well Dr Panos Zavos The genie is out of the bottle This article gave me alittle more insight, but i really would like to know who all of these private funders are.

21:11 / 29.06.06

You mean you've not heard of the Raelians? They're pretty cool, in a Dharma Initiative kinda way, except crazier and without the TV show.