Human cloning could start within 50 years

[wjfox]

Human cloning could start within 50 years insists a leading scientist whose work led to the creation of Dolly the Sheep

Heartache of losing a child could be eased, says Nobel prize-winner

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...lly-Sheep.html

[AltinD]

Do you mean become mainstream (i.e. commercalized), cause I doubt it will take that long, heck I even doubt no one has already tried in the present

[VelesHomais]

I have always assumed that there were numerous attemps at human cloning in China already. Probably unsuccessful.

[Jan]

Two Justin Biebers

[wjfox]

[MasonicStage™]

50 years time sounds reasonable.
Although, is it really necessary to clone a human? Who would actually want that and what for?

Animal cell culture will be pretty advanced branch of science in that time, so clones as organ reservoirs will be useless.
And of course, you can't get 100% identical child, because there are various mechanisms that influence someone's development.

[bnk]

5 years max. Hell its probably already been done. We have been cloning mamals since 1996. Hell we cloned a monkey [ primate ] back in the last century.

Its an ethical political and religious hot potatoe for the time being so it will not be popular for a while.

But if one objectively looks at it clones geneticly are no different than idential twins.

Identical twins are clones.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...c/cloning.html

[MasonicStage™]

What about accelerated aging in clones?
You know that Dolly died way before her normally expected lifetime...

seems like that there are still some unexplained molecular mechanisms that influence premature aging in clones.

[k%]

Originally Posted by MasonicStage™

50 years time sounds reasonable.
Although, is it really necessary to clone a human? Who would actually want that and what for?

Animal cell culture will be pretty advanced branch of science in that time, so clones as organ reservoirs will be useless.
And of course, you can't get 100% identical child, because there are various mechanisms that influence someone's development.

I would rather want for my child to be made in vitro where I could chose some good genes for him and erase all the bad.

I could pay big amount of money for that.

[MasonicStage™]

Originally Posted by k%

I would rather want for my child to be made in vitro where I could chose some good genes for him and erase all the bad.

I could pay big amount of money for that.

I guess no one would have anything against having absolutely flawless genome, with zero chance of developing various diseases.
But you know, people are prone to abuse such things, so who knows what would develop if people had a chance to pick their genes 'À la carte'.

[_BPS_]

Originally Posted by bnk

But if one objectively looks at it clones geneticly are no different than idential twins.

Identical twins are clones.

They are embryonic clones (the identical twins), but their phenotypes are not identical, hence the reason why identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. Stem-cell cloning I think would produce the same phenotypes (if current issues such as their short mortality is eradicated).

Originally Posted by MasonicStage™

I guess no one would have anything against having absolutely flawless genome, with zero chance of developing various diseases.
But you know, people are prone to abuse such things, so who knows what would develop if people had a chance to pick their genes 'À la carte'.

What would happen if every son born was an alpha-male? I cannot even imagine.

[gramercy]

i would be shocked if this hadn't been attempted already