Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Genetic Engineering News)   Scientists make breakthrough in development of cell replacement therapies, although some think it brings us a step closer to human cloning. Research team of Krieger, Krieger, Krieger and Krieger say it's not a concern   (genengnews.com) divider line 89
    More: Cool, Oregon Health & Science University, Ph.D., egg cells, cell divisions, cell type, cloning, antigens, stem cells  
•       •       •

2131 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Jun 2014 at 5:53 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-02 09:35:50 AM  
uproxx.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-02 03:43:52 PM  
What is it with all these irrational fears about stem cell research? Does it have to do with keeping people sick? It is a big industry.
 
2014-06-02 05:58:13 PM  
The only thing holding back human cloning is ethics, money and/or laws depending on what country you are in.  We already know how to do it.

OH NOES THE WORLD IS MUCH SCARIER NOW
 
2014-06-02 05:59:38 PM  
All the Healthcare Money Can Buy is based on treatment, not cure.

Right around the corner, War on Stem Cells.
The opening salvos were under Shrub, but They'll be baaccck.
Remember the "lines" quota?
 
2014-06-02 06:02:56 PM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-06-02 06:03:38 PM  
The Kriegers will say that.  At least until they get Pulp Fictioned in a Toyota by some panicy fat boy in sweats.
 
2014-06-02 06:05:23 PM  
Go ahead and clone, I don't give a fluck.  Just don't clone carrot top.
 
2014-06-02 06:05:44 PM  

lennavan: The only thing holding back human cloning is ethics, money and/or laws depending on what country you are in.  We already know how to do it.

OH NOES THE WORLD IS MUCH SCARIER NOW


True.  There seems to be a lot of people that spool up about this without asking the simple question. Who would want a clone.  Most people just aren't that narcissistic.  Unlike scifi movies, clones have no tactical or strategic combat advantages.  All things considered narrowing your genetic diversity is all around stupid. HOWEVER, Cloning human cells is an AWESOME idea!  "I'll take a new cloned liver please."
 
2014-06-02 06:06:44 PM  
Which one of me gets my peppy touched by Andie MacDowell? This is important.
 
2014-06-02 06:13:31 PM  
For the $100,000 a year my insurance pays for my MS treatments they could just pay for the stem cell transplant and be done with it.

I get my $60,000 med for free thanks to co-pay assistance and my $40,000 med for $40 a month. No one is making money off of me. I would rather have a cure than assistance paying for meds that MIGHT slow progression or MIGHT help me walk.
 
2014-06-02 06:17:50 PM  
www.tvtyrant.com

afterellen.mtvnimages.com

media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-02 06:19:26 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Which one of me gets my peppy touched by Andie MacDowell? This is important.


I wanna eat a dolphin!
 
2014-06-02 06:23:19 PM  
cdn.themetapicture.com
 
2014-06-02 06:24:52 PM  
img.fark.net

/does not approve
//does not approve
///does not approve
////sort of approves
//does not approve
//does not approve
//does not approve
 
2014-06-02 06:40:29 PM  

trappedspirit: Go ahead and clone, I don't give a fluck.  Just don't clone carrot top.


Holy shiat. That never occurred to me. END CLONING NOW!!! for that matter, we should kill off all the identical twins too, just incase one of them is a secret carrot top.
 
2014-06-02 06:44:28 PM  
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-06-02 06:46:31 PM  

ElLoco: [img.fark.net image 750x422]

/does not approve
//does not approve
///does not approve
////sort of approves
//does not approve
//does not approve
//does not approve


I'm currently catching up on the current season of that show, so I'm getting a kick.

/episode 2 is on right now
 
2014-06-02 06:46:37 PM  
What are the objections against human cloning anyway? I've never understood it.
 
2014-06-02 06:55:17 PM  
occupyfun.com
 
2014-06-02 06:58:24 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: I'm currently catching up on the current season of that show, so I'm getting a kick.

/episode 2 is on right now


Just wait until you see an unlikely pair re-enact a memorable scene from Pulp Fiction.
 
2014-06-02 07:06:28 PM  

fusillade762: What are the objections against human cloning anyway? I've never understood it.


Mostly a mix of "we don't know all of the possible implications beforehand because we're not psychic" and "you're playing god."  Probably also a dash of "devaluing human life if they can be grown in a lab," which is a blend of naturalism with another shade of Thog Am Play God.  You know, the usual objections to just about any major scientific advancement.
 
2014-06-02 07:15:24 PM  

corgimommy: For the $100,000 a year my insurance pays for my MS treatments they could just pay for the stem cell transplant and be done with it.

I get my $60,000 med for free thanks to co-pay assistance and my $40,000 med for $40 a month. No one is making money off of me. I would rather have a cure than assistance paying for meds that MIGHT slow progression or MIGHT help me walk.


LOLWUT. You are generating a $100k of economic activity, without which the GDP wouldn't grow!
 
2014-06-02 07:16:58 PM  
we can haz clone bone?
 
2014-06-02 07:17:52 PM  

fusillade762: What are the objections against human cloning anyway? I've never understood it.


Depends on who you are.  From a layman's point of view, I think the objection is simply against tinkering with life itself.  While I'm not sure people would narrow it down as such, I think it really boils down to scientists shouldn't be selecting or farking with the genetics of new humans.  That's something I agree with.   Cloning means you're selecting 100% of the genetics.

From a scientist's point of view, the objection would/should be we're reducing genetic variation, and thus reducing our adaptability and our population fitness.

I don't understand any argument for human cloning.  The best I can come up with is your clone would be a good match for organ donation and whatnot but I'm all for cloning specific tissues/cells/etc.  Just not the entire human.

Before you go silly, I'm a research scientist.
 
2014-06-02 07:18:54 PM  

fusillade762: What are the objections against human cloning anyway? I've never understood it.


Because some crazy bastard will probably start cloning people with just brain stems, first for organs, and then later for fast food:

asset-4.soup.io
 
2014-06-02 07:21:47 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Just wait until you see an unlikely pair re-enact a memorable scene from Pulp Fiction.


Such an unlikely pair of characters to re-enact that scene, honestly. I'm really looking forward to the fallout.
 
2014-06-02 07:25:04 PM  
Ever seen identical twins?  Then congratulations, you've seen human clones.

Twins are identical -- more identical than any artificial clone ever would be.  Not only do they have identical DNA, but they were born at exactly the same time (and are therefore of the same age).

Nothing sci-fi or scary about it.

/ meh
 
2014-06-02 07:28:12 PM  

lennavan: Cloning means you're selecting 100% of the genetics.


Cloning means you're copying an existing individual.  If you're making changes to the genes, then that isn't really a clone anymore, it's something much more sophisticated (and difficult).  A clones genes aren't "selected" anymore than the original individual's were.

/ just like a copy machine isn't a word-processor
 
2014-06-02 07:30:45 PM  

Last Man on Earth: fusillade762: What are the objections against human cloning anyway? I've never understood it.

Mostly a mix of "we don't know all of the possible implications beforehand because we're not psychic" and "you're playing god."  Probably also a dash of "devaluing human life if they can be grown in a lab," which is a blend of naturalism with another shade of Thog Am Play God.  You know, the usual objections to just about any major scientific advancement.


My biggest argument against human cloning is the inevitable push towards organ uses (because a clone would be a match). Growing a human to maturity and parting it out like an old Corvette may save a lot of lives, but it's an extremely dangerous place to go as a society. I don't like the idea of treating my own species (or derivatives of my species) as a commodity.
 
2014-06-02 07:32:02 PM  

jshine: If you're making changes to the genes, then that isn't really a clone anymore


Yes, those are two different things.  Both making changes and cloning are selecting the DNA of the next generation.

jshine: / just like a copy machine isn't a word-processor


When I make a copy, I'm selecting what the next piece of paper has written on it.  Random gibberish doesn't come out.  You knew that, right?
 
2014-06-02 07:32:55 PM  

Mad_Radhu: fusillade762: What are the objections against human cloning anyway? I've never understood it.

Because some crazy bastard will probably start cloning people with just brain stems, first for organs, and then later for fast food:

[asset-4.soup.io image 500x779]


I'd be cool with that. Especially if it meant I could get a two-headed, chain-smoking cat.
 
2014-06-02 07:33:33 PM  
rileybrad.files.wordpress.com
But what will the clones eat?
 
2014-06-02 07:36:18 PM  

lennavan: jshine: If you're making changes to the genes, then that isn't really a clone anymore

Yes, those are two different things.  Both making changes and cloning are selecting the DNA of the next generation.

jshine: / just like a copy machine isn't a word-processor

When I make a copy, I'm selecting what the next piece of paper has written on it.  Random gibberish doesn't come out.  You knew that, right?


By that logic, it's immoral to select someone to be the father/mother of your children with consideration of their genetics.  There may be a greater margin of error, but that's still the idea whenever a woman gets impregnated by a donor, or a couple decides to impregnate artificially because the father has some genetic disorder.
 
2014-06-02 07:42:09 PM  

Last Man on Earth: lennavan: jshine: If you're making changes to the genes, then that isn't really a clone anymore

Yes, those are two different things.  Both making changes and cloning are selecting the DNA of the next generation.

jshine: / just like a copy machine isn't a word-processor

When I make a copy, I'm selecting what the next piece of paper has written on it.  Random gibberish doesn't come out.  You knew that, right?

By that logic, it's immoral to select someone to be the father/mother of your children with consideration of their genetics.  There may be a greater margin of error, but that's still the idea whenever a woman gets impregnated by a donor, or a couple decides to impregnate artificially because the father has some genetic disorder.



Yes, but using unsophisticated techniques is natural; employing science is hubris.
 
2014-06-02 07:44:25 PM  

Unknown_Poltroon: trappedspirit: Go ahead and clone, I don't give a fluck.  Just don't clone carrot top.

Holy shiat. That never occurred to me. END CLONING NOW!!! for that matter, we should kill off all the identical twins too, just incase one of them is a secret carrot top.


But on the other hand, we could have additional Scarlett Johanssons, Bradley Coopers, Jennifer Lawrences or Benedict Cumberbatches (Cumberbatchen?), whatever you prefer.
 
2014-06-02 07:45:48 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: My biggest argument against human cloning is the inevitable push towards organ uses (because a clone would be a match). Growing a human to maturity and parting it out like an old Corvette may save a lot of lives, but it's an extremely dangerous place to go as a society. I don't like the idea of treating my own species (or derivatives of my species) as a commodity.


That scenario might not be necessary if we can generate individual organs, which would be a more practical method.

Brain transplant comes to mind, but there are a number of technical barriers currently in the way of that scenario.
 
2014-06-02 07:47:12 PM  

Dinjiin: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: My biggest argument against human cloning is the inevitable push towards organ uses (because a clone would be a match). Growing a human to maturity and parting it out like an old Corvette may save a lot of lives, but it's an extremely dangerous place to go as a society. I don't like the idea of treating my own species (or derivatives of my species) as a commodity.

That scenario might not be necessary if we can generate individual organs, which would be a more practical method.

Brain transplant comes to mind, but there are a number of technical barriers currently in the way of that scenario.


Currently re-reading John Scalzi's Old Man's War series, getting a kick out of all this... :D
 
2014-06-02 07:53:44 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Last Man on Earth: fusillade762: What are the objections against human cloning anyway? I've never understood it.

Mostly a mix of "we don't know all of the possible implications beforehand because we're not psychic" and "you're playing god."  Probably also a dash of "devaluing human life if they can be grown in a lab," which is a blend of naturalism with another shade of Thog Am Play God.  You know, the usual objections to just about any major scientific advancement.

My biggest argument against human cloning is the inevitable push towards organ uses (because a clone would be a match). Growing a human to maturity and parting it out like an old Corvette may save a lot of lives, but it's an extremely dangerous place to go as a society. I don't like the idea of treating my own species (or derivatives of my species) as a commodity.


www.hotflick.net

"I don't wanna be a commodity. I wanna go the island. I WANNA GO TO THE ISLAND!"
 
2014-06-02 07:54:09 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-02 07:56:32 PM  

Last Man on Earth: By that logic, it's immoral to select someone to be the father/mother of your children with consideration of their genetics.


It requires a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of understanding of genetics and statistics to believe this.

You have two of each chromosome (you are diploid).  Let's ignore mom for now.  Which chromosome of yours will I get for chromosome #1?  There's a 1/2 chance of either one.  What about chromosome 2?  There's a 1/2 chance of either one.  Let's combine the two, there's a 1/4 chance of either one!  Wow!  So if a woman farks some random diploid guy with only 2 chromosomes, there are 4 different babies you could have.  So she would be "selecting" 4 and one would be randomly assigned to her.

Humans have 23 chromosomes.  Now comes some math and then there are 8,388,608 babies that male could have, solely due to random assortment.  So by selecting a male, a woman limited her chances to 8,388,608 possible babies.  Note, we are ignore a significant amount of other factors (we'll get to those later).

Of course, that woman does not always donate the same egg, so now we need to account for mom.  Here comes some more math and now there are 7x10^13 possible babies.  So by "selecting" you mean there are 70,000,000,000,000 different babies they could have and one will be chosen at random.

Now on top of that 70,000,000,000,000 number there are random mutations possible in both mom and dad.  There are also recombination events.  These will happen on all chromosomes, possibly multiple times per chromsome, significantly increase the number of potential chromosomes.  That 70,000,000,000,000 number is 10,000 times the population of the entire farking earth and is also the lowball estimate.

In summary - you know absolutely nothing about biology or genetics.  Nothing wrong with that, just don't post about it pretending you do.  Thanks.

Hug?
 
2014-06-02 07:57:23 PM  

Arachnophobe: Unknown_Poltroon: trappedspirit: Go ahead and clone, I don't give a fluck.  Just don't clone carrot top.

Holy shiat. That never occurred to me. END CLONING NOW!!! for that matter, we should kill off all the identical twins too, just incase one of them is a secret carrot top.

But on the other hand, we could have additional Scarlett Johanssons, Bradley Coopers, Jennifer Lawrences or Benedict Cumberbatches (Cumberbatchen?), whatever you prefer.


www.hotflick.net

What a ScarJo clone might look like.
 
2014-06-02 08:00:08 PM  

Dinjiin: Brain transplant comes to mind, but there are a number of technical barriers currently in the way of that scenario.


Not least of which is the whole "genetic memory isn't a real thing" problem.  We could create a physical duplicate, but last I heard, memories don't literally transcribe themselves on the brain.  On the downside, this means Calvin won't be able to send the other him to school/work in his place, but on the other hand, there's no real risk of a clone going nuts and Single White Female-ing the original, either.
 
2014-06-02 08:01:58 PM  

Last Man on Earth: Not least of which is the whole "genetic memory isn't a real thing" problem. We could create a physical duplicate, but last I heard, memories don't literally transcribe themselves on the brain.


Christ, I just saw biology literally raped in front of my very face reading this post.  Your training was a high school bio class you got a C in a decade ago, right?
 
2014-06-02 08:02:59 PM  
Ah, the parade of horribles.  There is literally no position that you can't make into doomsday with a properly constructed parade of horribles.  Gotta love it.  Everything and anything can lead to apocalypse if you're sufficiently creative and your audience is sufficiently gullible.
 
2014-06-02 08:04:22 PM  

lennavan: Last Man on Earth: By that logic, it's immoral to select someone to be the father/mother of your children with consideration of their genetics.

It requires a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of understanding of genetics and statistics to believe this.

You have two of each chromosome (you are diploid).  Let's ignore mom for now.  Which chromosome of yours will I get for chromosome #1?  There's a 1/2 chance of either one.  What about chromosome 2?  There's a 1/2 chance of either one.  Let's combine the two, there's a 1/4 chance of either one!  Wow!  So if a woman farks some random diploid guy with only 2 chromosomes, there are 4 different babies you could have.  So she would be "selecting" 4 and one would be randomly assigned to her.

Humans have 23 chromosomes.  Now comes some math and then there are 8,388,608 babies that male could have, solely due to random assortment.  So by selecting a male, a woman limited her chances to 8,388,608 possible babies.  Note, we are ignore a significant amount of other factors (we'll get to those later).

Of course, that woman does not always donate the same egg, so now we need to account for mom.  Here comes some more math and now there are 7x10^13 possible babies.  So by "selecting" you mean there are 70,000,000,000,000 different babies they could have and one will be chosen at random.

Now on top of that 70,000,000,000,000 number there are random mutations possible in both mom and dad.  There are also recombination events.  These will happen on all chromosomes, possibly multiple times per chromsome, significantly increase the number of potential chromosomes.  That 70,000,000,000,000 number is 10,000 times the population of the entire farking earth and is also the lowball estimate.

In summary - you know absolutely nothing about biology or genetics.  Nothing wrong with that, just don't post about it pretending you do.  Thanks.

Hug?



Yep, who you select for a mate has absolutely no impact on the child you have.  That's why when two (for instance) two Scandinavian people have a baby, it sometimes comes out Asian.

Of course you're correct that the number of combinations is huge -- and you didn't even go into chromosomal crossover during meiosis.  Nevertheless, the fact that there are a large number of possible combinations and the genetic identify of the offspring isn't deterministic doesn't mean it's a completely random process either.  Selective breeding (or "eugenics", when applied to humans) certainly does work.  It's just not something that can be completely controlled in one generation.
 
2014-06-02 08:04:54 PM  

lennavan: Now comes some math and then there are 8,388,608 babies that male could have, solely due to random assortment.


Well, that's 8.4m chromosomal pairings. The number of unique genetic expressions shrinks when you account for dominance and recessives  and dosage dependence. The point, of course, is that any pair of humans can produce a farkton of children,  but by selecting a mate you've shrunken a space that's so large it might as well be infinite down to a miniscule 8.4m (your contribution to genetic variation is irrelevant- they're all your genes, so it doesn't really matter which combination you contribute, on an evolutionary scale).
 
2014-06-02 08:05:17 PM  

lennavan: Last Man on Earth: Not least of which is the whole "genetic memory isn't a real thing" problem. We could create a physical duplicate, but last I heard, memories don't literally transcribe themselves on the brain.

Christ, I just saw biology literally raped in front of my very face reading this post.  Your training was a high school bio class you got a C in a decade ago, right?


Good thing you're in a civil mood, it would really suck if you were acting like a douchebag.  Forget the wording for a second, is it a correct statement that a cloned brain wouldn't include the memories or experiences of the original?
 
2014-06-02 08:08:49 PM  

Last Man on Earth: lennavan: Last Man on Earth: Not least of which is the whole "genetic memory isn't a real thing" problem. We could create a physical duplicate, but last I heard, memories don't literally transcribe themselves on the brain.

Christ, I just saw biology literally raped in front of my very face reading this post.  Your training was a high school bio class you got a C in a decade ago, right?

Good thing you're in a civil mood, it would really suck if you were acting like a douchebag.  Forget the wording for a second, is it a correct statement that a cloned brain wouldn't include the memories or experiences of the original?



Yes, that's true, but that wasn't the point of the original post.  The idea behind "cloning for brain transplant" was that you'd clone a new body to accept your existing brain, thus essentially living forever (or, I'd hope that was the point anyway, because it's the only thing that makes any degree of sense).
 
2014-06-02 08:11:24 PM  

Last Man on Earth: lennavan: Last Man on Earth: Not least of which is the whole "genetic memory isn't a real thing" problem. We could create a physical duplicate, but last I heard, memories don't literally transcribe themselves on the brain.

Christ, I just saw biology literally raped in front of my very face reading this post.  Your training was a high school bio class you got a C in a decade ago, right?

Good thing you're in a civil mood, it would really suck if you were acting like a douchebag.  Forget the wording for a second, is it a correct statement that a cloned brain wouldn't include the memories or experiences of the original?


The real question here is Beth, Sarah, Petra, Allison, Cosima, Helena, or Rachel?
 
2014-06-02 08:14:47 PM  

jshine: Last Man on Earth: lennavan: Last Man on Earth: Not least of which is the whole "genetic memory isn't a real thing" problem. We could create a physical duplicate, but last I heard, memories don't literally transcribe themselves on the brain.

Christ, I just saw biology literally raped in front of my very face reading this post.  Your training was a high school bio class you got a C in a decade ago, right?

Good thing you're in a civil mood, it would really suck if you were acting like a douchebag.  Forget the wording for a second, is it a correct statement that a cloned brain wouldn't include the memories or experiences of the original?


Yes, that's true, but that wasn't the point of the original post.  The idea behind "cloning for brain transplant" was that you'd clone a new body to accept your existing brain, thus essentially living forever (or, I'd hope that was the point anyway, because it's the only thing that makes any degree of sense).


Wouldn't that require an assumption that brains can live forever?  It seems to me you'd need a way to transport memories to the new brain, rather than transplanting the old one, otherwise the brain will wear out no matter how new your current body is.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report