Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mouse Cloned From Drop of Blood

timothy posted about a year ago | from the vampire-mouse dept.

Biotech 111

Ogi_UnixNut writes "Scientists in Japan have succeeded in cloning a mouse from a drop of blood. From the BBC: 'Circulating blood cells collected from the tail of a donor mouse were used to produce the clone, a team at the Riken BioResource Center reports in the journal Biology of Reproduction.' The female mouse managed to live a normal lifespan and could reproduce, according to the researchers."

cancel ×

111 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Rancid underholes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143971)

I want to shove my fetid cock into many rancid bayer aspirin holes, fellow Slashdotters! All of you can help me grant my wish; I know every single one of your has a repugnant bayer aspirin hole just waiting to suck out my tadpoles! What say you?

Re:Rancid underholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144091)

Why don't you just come out of the fucking closet get a real life and stop bothering us with your inane rantings? You can even get married now!

Re:Rancid underholes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144119)

Ah, I see your bare bayer aspirin hole is a bit rancid, and I also see that it's a tadpole sucker... Shall we begin the feces fiesta!? What say you?

Re:Rancid underholes (1)

master_kaos (1027308) | about a year ago | (#44144211)

im pretty sure this is that same jeremiah guy who was spamming that hosts shit a coiuple months back

Re:Rancid underholes (1)

Sardaukar86 (850333) | about a year ago | (#44145243)

im pretty sure this is that same jeremiah guy who was spamming that hosts shit a coiuple months back

Oh? It seemed to me that Jeremiah's hosts file stuff was an exasperated response to get that fuckwit APK to tone down his host file silver-bullet bullshit. Perhaps it worked, because I've seen little by way of APK idiocy since that time.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, just curious.

Points at cloned mouse (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143977)

Hideki!

Re:Points at cloned mouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144115)

Crap, not her again.

Yeah, well (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#44143979)

try to explain that in your pedigree.

Re:Yeah, well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143995)

try to explain that in your pedigree.

That's simple, all you do is add another branch.

Re:Yeah, well (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#44144323)

A clone is the genetic equivalent of a twin, maybe add an asterisk, though, for the mechanics.

Re: Yeah, well (3, Informative)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#44144953)

Minus the fact genetic mutations and corruption takes place over time from the original zygote. That, and the telomeres are shorter. Unless they solved that problem via resetting the length however. I doubt it though.

Re: Yeah, well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145037)

If the mouse were famous enough, I'd think enough people would be working at the problem and eventually crack the DRM.

Re: Yeah, well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145149)

Micky won't like that.

Re: Yeah, well (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44145509)

"That, and the telomeres are shorter. Unless they solved that problem via resetting the length however. I doubt it though."

Besides, "could reproduce" is nothing but speculation. It may be an educated guess, but it's still a guess.

"Did reproduce" is unequivocal.

I see .... (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#44144061)

... thousands of nerds chasing Natalie Portman with needles.

Re:I see .... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144081)

What's with nerds and the Natalie Portman obsession anyway? Can anyone explain that?

Re:I see .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144171)

What's with nerds and the Natalie Portman obsession anyway? Can anyone explain that?

Beats me as well, I never saw her as anything special.

Re:I see .... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44144585)

She's a stand in for "Anybabe". Just go with it, don't try to analyze it.

Re:I see .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144195)

Because Carrie Fisher is old now?

Re:I see .... (2)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#44144607)

As a clone would be an infant with normal growth & aging, it would still be a very long time before she's legal. (Exact time depends on local laws. I believe the US is 18 years of age, so with the 9 months gestation, close to 19 years, assuming you weren't already caught and thrown in jail.)
Why do so many people think clones are a copy of a person, that's instantly adult and has all their memories? I vote for stupidity.

Re:I see .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144789)

As a clone would be an infant with normal growth & aging, it would still be a very long time before she's legal.

two words: suspended animation

Re:I see .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144841)

As a clone would be an infant with normal growth & aging, it would still be a very long time before she's legal.

Ya, but by then your very own clone would be so much hotter than the real thing!

Re:I see .... (1)

VanGarrett (1269030) | about a year ago | (#44145741)

Age of Consent in the US is established at the State level. It ranges from 16 to 18, but I believe that 18 is the most common.

Re:I see .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144403)

I only know it has something to do with hot grits.

Re:I see .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144785)

I hear Natalie Portman is simply petrified at the thought of hot grits.

Re:I see .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144843)

Starting Score: 0 points
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait

It's flamebait to ask for an explanation?

Re:I see .... (1)

tloh (451585) | about a year ago | (#44144177)

Leaking the pre-credit flash-back scene for episode 7...... I get it - Clone War II.... is that you, J J Abrams?

Re:I see .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144229)

If she spits at you or slaps you, is there enough genetic material in that to clone her?

Re:I see .... (1)

MacDork (560499) | about a year ago | (#44144347)

... thousands of nerds chasing Natalie Portman with needles.

Or a thousand New York police officers doing the same with cheek swabs.

Re:I see .... (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year ago | (#44144671)

Wouldn't work. The mouse in which she was implanted would explode, Alien-style, before she got 4 months old.

Mmm. Any movie execs reading this?

Star cloning controversy (3, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#44144095)

Rich people cloning pets will be a mild controversy but mostly due to the money wasted. Some ego maniac cloning themselves will make the news. Then some people will clone lost loved ones causing a certain creepy factor news bite. But the cloning that will really make the news is when some company will claim (initially fraudulently) that they have the DNA of a variety of stars so you too can not only have Brad Pitt's baby but that the baby will be Brad Pitt. That is when the creepy factor will completely cross into the public discussion with all the legal, ethical, moral water cooler philosophizing that the news-people and their pundits can then do.

Basically this will bring a 1,000 sci-fi books to life (but in a sad and pathetic kind of way).

I'll start by asking: what do you with the kid if Hitler is cloned? Does Mr. Pitt owe child support to any of his clones? Or does Brad Pitt's father owe child support to the clones?

Re:Star cloning controversy (5, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44144133)

What do you with the kid if Hitler is cloned?

Nothing. Apart from looking like the original, he'll be raised differently by different people in a different environment and so he won't be the same person. A clone is just a biological copy, not a psychological one.

Does Mr. Pitt owe child support to any of his clones? Or does Brad Pitt's father owe child support to the clones?

No and no.

It's not even valid questions, you'd need incredibly twisted logic and totally ass-backward laws to support these ideas.

Re:Star cloning controversy (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#44144173)

I wonder how this hasn't happened already. Woman obtains DNA of famous person. Has their kid (not a clone) by combining their DNA an that of the famous person and using invitro fertilization. Sues them for child support. The famous person could claim they never slept with the person, but if she had his child, it would be pretty hard to refuse otherwise.

Re:Star cloning controversy (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44144215)

nonsense, too many witnesses in the near term at exclusive facilities, in the far term this type of scenario would be first suspicion.

Re:Star cloning controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144343)

Would there have to be some kind of regulation or oversight? Will these clones be second-class citizens because of a mark in their personal identification cards?

There must be some books on this.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44144687)

Would there have to be some kind of regulation or oversight? Will these clones be second-class citizens because of a mark in their personal identification cards?

There must be some books on this.

Oh, I'm sure there are all sorts of SiFi books on it, but that ship has sailed.

In the US, there is precious little about how you came to be that affects your rights as a person, other than if you happened to be born to a down-trodden class you get certain additional rights.

Now what happens to a Cloned American Indian child? Are they part of the tribe, as they are even if adopted by non-tribe members? Do they get BIA support and have a share of the Reservation?

Re:Star cloning controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144243)

I'd say: finally!

Let this happen. Have it be proved that the defendant didn't have intercourse, because of a secret marker sequence a particular cloning company put in the code, that would come to light.

No more one-sided child support and alimony rulings. Irrefutable proof on the record that yes, women do get pregnant for the sake of free housing, a meal ticket, and 22 years of payments. Actual welfare of the child be damned.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144689)

Child support has very little to do with genetic parentage as it is. Child support is about sticking someone (anyone) with the bill. There have been plenty of documented cases where a man was sued, proved the kid wasn't his and the judge made him pay anyway. Hell where I live (Louisiana) it's the law that if your name is on the birth certificate and you don't dispute parentage within one year of being informed of the birth of the child then you owe child support whether the child is your genetic match or not.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

yndrd1984 (730475) | about a year ago | (#44144723)

Irrefutable proof on the record that yes, women do...

Some women.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

cstacy (534252) | about a year ago | (#44145863)

Try Abdul ben Hassan. He make this snake.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#44144631)

Depending on where this has occurred, they may very well be nailed for child support. It has happened with one time that I've heard of, though they weren't famous and it wasn't a clone, just a normal IVF. If I remember right, there was some controversy over the sperm and it not being intended for fertilization purposes.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year ago | (#44145365)

Any scientist you hire will want to publish their results. Plus, this kind of research is not cheap, this business plan of yours is far too capital-intensive.

You should just stick to the tried-and-true giving free blow jobs to celebrities [thefrisky.com] in parked cars.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144461)

There is no doubt that two genetically identical people which are raised in different environments will ultimately come out different people, but they will also be canonically similar. Many habits and behaviors are indeed genetically inherited. This is scientifically proven with selective breeding in dogs and foxes. An embryo taken from a hostile fox and implanted into the womb of an F9 domesticated fox will still grow up to be hostile toward humans.

Re:Star cloning controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144703)

That's BS, domesticated animals are selected for their desireable traits which usually include low violence and lower intelect. How much humans from each other in that, I don't know but certainly our mind is above our animal nature so it's really a non-issue.

Re:Star cloning controversy (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44144747)

Many habits and behaviors are indeed genetically inherited. This is scientifically proven with selective breeding in dogs and foxes.

People aren't Foxes, (aside from the above mentioned Natalie Portman).

Most habits and behaviors in humans are learned.

I don't believe there is much if any evidence of non-physically induced behavior being inherited.
Twin studies (twins raised separately) tend to show that behavior is not inherited unless it can not be traced to physical sources (parting the hair on a certain side due to the pattern of hair growth, etc).

Children who are orphaned, fostered, or adopted may have certain behavior or inheritable traits activated by certain environmental factors or adopted parents, but only within the limitations of their genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study [wikipedia.org]

Re:Star cloning controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144519)

"Does Mr. Pitt owe child support to any of his clones? Or does Brad Pitt's father owe child support to the clones?"

In the USA... yes. Already established in court. A sperm donor was successfully sued for child support. The court ruled "for the children".

Think of the children!

Re:Star cloning controversy (3, Insightful)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about a year ago | (#44144545)

you'd need incredibly twisted logic and totally ass-backward laws to support these ideas.

Now you got me worried...

Re:Star cloning controversy (3, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year ago | (#44144577)

Actually this could get weird. Here is a story of a guy who donated sperm to a lesbian couple with contracts protecting him. Then the couple went on welfare so the state is now going after him for child support.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/sperm-donor-sued-child-support-article-1.1232394 [nydailynews.com]

As for the Hitler kid. It is not so much that the kid would be a genocidal monster but would have the crushing weight of history on him. I suspect that regardless of his predisposition that there would be groups calling for his blood (bad pun).

The key here is that cloning is going to result in some screwed up situations.

Let's say a serial killer has 5 clones made before he is caught. Then the first 4 (all raised differently) go on a killing spree themselves. What do you do with the 5th?

Then what about the billionaire who has 300,000 clones made of himself by paying 300,000 women $10,000 each to be impregnated with his clone. (For the low price of $3 billion.)

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

chriscappuccio (80696) | about a year ago | (#44145159)

as far as the 5th clone, what would you do? short of arresting or killing the person pre-crime, you monitor them. but in reality nobody is going to do anything pre-crime, i doubt anyone would even realize that there is a 5th clone waiting to kill after his 4 clone brothers have already done so.

billionaire cloning himself 300,000 times? that would be bad ass.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

Ambvai (1106941) | about a year ago | (#44145415)

"You are no longer merely human. You have become your own, weird DEMOGRAPHIC." -Schlock Mercenary (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2002-07-14)

Re:Star cloning controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144633)

Actually that twisted logic is already working these days. There was a case a while ago in which someone was forced to pay child support after his ex-wife, without his consent, used sperm he donated earlier to a sperm bank to get a pregnancy. Really not all that different from owing child support to your clone really.

Never underestimate what unreasonable things can be done to adults when the well-being of a child is at stake.

Re:Star cloning controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44146097)

Lesson: If you are prone to make ejecta, make sure you dispose of your ejecta in such a manner it cannot be re-used!

You may find yourself in a paternity suit, and the DNA will match you perfectly.

Leaving your ejecta in a wad of paper may be like leaving signed blank cheques laying around.

Re:Star cloning controversy (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#44144917)

If it gets out that he's a cloned Hitler (or Boston Strangler, or Jeffrey Dahmer, or whatever) the kid could never have a normal life - he'd be in the fishbowl forever, because of a choice somebody else made. That right there makes it unethical.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

ikaruga (2725453) | about a year ago | (#44145963)

Someone please mod this guy up. For some reason I never have points when I want them.

Unless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145181)

There were some genetic abnormalities that predisposed a certain behavior... Thus you just cloned that too..

Re:Star cloning controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145491)

Have you even heard of the United States of Corporations??

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#44145515)

It's not even valid questions, you'd need incredibly twisted logic and totally ass-backward laws to support these ideas.

This sounds like a job for Congress!

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

danlip (737336) | about a year ago | (#44145517)

you'd need incredibly twisted logic and totally ass-backward laws to support these ideas.

yeah, cause it's not like we have any twisted logic or totally ass-backward laws is today's legal system

Re:Star cloning controversy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144189)

I want to stick my fetid cock into your rancid bayer aspirin hole. WHAT say YOU?

Re:Star cloning controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144441)

It gets more creepy, when a company clones someone and then claims it as their property.
Or "The Island" (movie).

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44144759)

It gets more creepy, when a company clones someone and then claims it as their property.
Or "The Island" (movie).

Please keep up with current events.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/scotus-genes [cnn.com]

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

DFurno2003 (739807) | about a year ago | (#44144491)

Can we get a Brad Pitt without downs syndrome?

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a year ago | (#44144617)

There has been a pet cloning service for about a decade now. It's super expensive, and I have no idea if anyone has ever used it.

Re:Star cloning controversy (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#44144649)

Some ego maniac cloning themselves will make the news.

Wouldn't that alone have covered the Brad Pitt angle?

Thing is, the clones would still be individuals, with separate legal identities and rights. And like many children, would probably rebel against their "parents" due to all/some of the same reasons kids rebel, with a great deal of identity theft indignation thrown in as well.

People aren't cats. And human rights accrue at birth in most civilized countries. (Except where gender may render someone to the status of property.)

Back to your question: Brad Mark I had better look out that Brad Mark II doesn't simply claim everything Brad Mark I owns by virtue of being one and the same entity.

Re:Star cloning controversy (2)

ancientt (569920) | about a year ago | (#44145421)

True story: I was gifted with a genetically pretty good body. A couple things during gestation, prenatal development and delivery went just slightly wrong. (I was born breach, with I suspect near hypoxia and to a second-hand smoker, see: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4310. [skeptoid.com] ) Nothing huge, but I do suspect some of my struggles wouldn't have been necessary in ideal circumstances. Despite this, I excelled at academic pursuits in my early years and had a pretty high athletic prowess as well. I had a good home, social and educational environment, but of course none were exactly ideal. I've done well enough, but if my history were ideal, I might have contributed much more to society than I've managed thus far. With only very slightly improved early circumstances, I can imagine my life and choices might have been dramatically different. (I won't say better because I recognize the hubris in guessing how someone who developed differently and in a different would have reacted.)

Now, I'm not unhappy to be where I am and accept that my choices are primarily the reasons for my failings and successes. Normally that would be the end of the discussion and I'm comfortable with that. Now it isn't then end of the discussion anymore. If I were tremendously wealthy and had different drives and morals and the same analysis of my past, with this news comes the idea that I could possibly raise or direct the raising of an idealized version of what I could have been given an "improved" history.

Maybe there is a billionaire right now planning to give to the world a version of himself that he thinks would be an ideal version of himself. I don't have the desire myself, but can easily imagine someone like myself having that desire.

The more likely questions to ask are: What if that cloned "ideal self" happens and is successful. What if we're talking about a secret clone who wins multiple Nobel prizes and olympic medals but is found out later? That would surely raise the temptation for later imitators of the process and potentially raise a huge backlash against people who happen to be clones and through no fault, are suddenly feared, hated or detested by society. And then, what if it becomes cheap, accepted and common in a hundred years, wouldn't that mean a shrinking gene pool and at the same time a "superior" race? What does mankind face with a society that is comfortable with a "superior" race? What does mankind face with a society backlash where every high achiever is viewed with suspicion of being "unnatural"?

Re:Star cloning controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44146143)

That was an interesting read.

I feel one of me is already one too many in this world, and I have little incentive to make any more.

Does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144123)

...we can clone Hitler now?

Re:Does this mean... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44144225)

you'd wind up with "hitler's brother" who'd grow up with different experiences and beliefs.

identical twins are not even identical biologically, for example they have different fingerprints.

Re:Does this mean... (5, Funny)

RussR42 (779993) | about a year ago | (#44144465)

Hitler clone [smbc-comics.com]

Re:Does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144499)

You are using twins, which are not genetically identical, as a basis for your assumptions of clones, which are genetically identical.

Re:Does this mean... (1)

yndrd1984 (730475) | about a year ago | (#44144713)

identical twins

You are using twins, which are not genetically identical...

Identical twins are genetically identical.

Re:Does this mean... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44145211)

identical twins ARE natural clones

Three's on the line (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144265)

We destroyed the government
We're destroying time
No more problems on the way

I'm through doctor
We don't need your kind
The other ones
Ugly ones
Stupid boys
Wrong ones

I'm all alone, so are we all
We're all clones
All are one and one are all
All are one and one are all

well now geeks can reproduce themselves (1)

ozduo (2043408) | about a year ago | (#44144355)

because we have Buckley's chance of doing it the traditional way.

Sign me up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144413)

I want my clone started NOW. That would be just amazingly awesome to have. Of course, we would keep this clone from ever awakening. We'd need some nice form of stimulating muscle, heart, and lung exercise, etc. But when I develop heart disease or need a kidney or liver - there is my clone, just waiting to give me that perfect match. Heck with those immunosuppresant drugs used to prevent rejection. I won't need them because I will have my clone's tissue. If I lose a leg in an accident - hey clone? I need a leg here. I am accident prone and eat a lot of red meat. Better start two clones for me...

Completely unremarkable science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144493)

What could be less remarkable than the idea that DNA can be made self-replicating outside the original body. There is an applied engineering breakthrough here, but NO scientific one. It is, after all, exactly what the DNA is designed to do in the first place.

The applied engineering problem is simply understood, even if it proves to be difficult to achieve. Take your 'Garden of Eden' cell, pull out its current DNA and replace with your new DNA. Everything else is nature.

Now, as for the consequences of widespread animal cloning, of course that is a different issue. Israel is already the centre of all of Earth's illegal Human organ harvesting, with zionists claiming a "god given right" to "find better use" for the body parts of people they describe as 'sub-Human'. Israeli organ traffickers have been identified operating in Africa, the Middle-East, South America, Turkey, and Middle/East-Europe. They were responsible for over-seeing the Albanian gangs that mass kidnapped Serbs in Kosovo, in order that they could have their organs harvested- an irony because Israel had been Serbia's no.1 ally when the Serbs were carrying out genocide in Bosnia.

My point is that the depraved racist state of Israel has many powerful friends (watch how quickly the zionist shills here moderate this comment down to -1). Israel won't hesitate to exploit the science of Human cloning. Israel follows the one major Earth religion to lack any form of morality at its core (which is why this religion was the basis and justification for the greatest atrocity ever inflicted on Humanity, black African Human slavery as first practised by the Jews and Muslims of North Africa and the Middle East, and then joined centuries later by the Modern Christians and Jews from Europe and the New World- all followers of The Torah). Friends of Israel will work to ensure growing Human clones for spare parts is an 'acceptable' practice wherever they have influence.

Once again, unremarkable science, but applied engineering with terrifying implications.

A Last Time For Everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144511)

Aeon has heard about Trevor's new method for creating human duplicates.

so it's like the days before optical then? (1)

Cloud K (125581) | about a year ago | (#44144555)

When you would constantly curse... BLOODY MOUSE!

I don't want to be a Epsilon (3, Insightful)

billybob_jcv (967047) | about a year ago | (#44144565)

Cloning smart people or beautiful people or athletic people is NOT the problem. The problem is when they decide to clone stupid people as servants & laborers. when the creation of slave classes of low-intelligence clones becomes economically viable, it will become a commercial, not social activity.

Re:I don't want to be a Epsilon (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about a year ago | (#44144845)

Cloning smart people or beautiful people or athletic people is NOT the problem. The problem is when they decide to clone stupid people as servants & laborers. when the creation of slave classes of low-intelligence clones becomes economically viable, it will become a commercial, not social activity.

Why bother? Machines make better servants and smart people can build them.

Re:I don't want to be a Epsilon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145573)

Yes, but machines aren't all that fun to abuse. How many rapists switched to a sex doll/robot?

Re:I don't want to be a Epsilon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44146191)

Plus why pay to "clone" the retard caste when they're already producing them for free all over the world?

Re:I don't want to be a Epsilon (1)

glwtta (532858) | about a year ago | (#44145453)

Cloning is a difficult procedure to create an organism that's (mostly) genetically identical to a different organism. It will no doubt become easier in the future, but will always require more effort than the regular means of procreation.

Why do you think this lends itself to the creation of "slave classes"? There is currently no shortage of stupid people. In fact, the lower your requirements, the wider the selection.

If you're talking about "below-normal" intelligence - if we ever find ourselves in a society where it's legal to create slaves of purposefully sub-human intelligence, then we'll have much bigger problems to worry about.

Great! (2)

houbou (1097327) | about a year ago | (#44144749)

Now, let's figure out how to take our full memories, experiences and ego and let's start making mind transfers! :)

Re:Great! (2)

ancientt (569920) | about a year ago | (#44145579)

I saw a recent comment on the abortion issues in Texas which argued that killing a fetus was okay since it didn't have the same perception of existence as an adult. Laying aside more logical arguments on both sides of the debate (an undeveloped human brain doesn't make a person or alternately neither does a two year old,) this made it clear to me that some people are absolutely convinced that it is ethical to treat potential people as tissue for use or discarding as is most convenient. In that light, your suggestion implies that if cloning is a non-invasive and affordable procedure, many people will be absolutely comfortable with the idea of using clones as parts.

I think there is a logical progression this discussion must follow, but first a digression. (Yes, it is relevant.) On the abortion issue, I'm convinced that most people are in agreement but arguing about the wrong thing. I've talked to strong supporters of abortion and almost every one agrees that killing a two day old baby is wrong and three days before that is just as wrong, and even twenty days before that is wrong. So even strong abortion supporters believe that killing a baby is wrong if it is actually a baby. I've talked to strong opponents of abortion and almost every one agrees that killing a wart or cutting out a cancerous tumor, or getting an appendectomy doesn't constitute murder, not even cosmetic surgery which kills healthy human cells is murder. So even strong opponents of abortion agree that killing cells or even organs isn't murder. The obvious conclusion from this? We all agree that killing people is wrong, regardless of age, but we can't agree on what makes a person a person. That's the real argument and the most passionate people on the subject don't even realize they are arguing past each other.

At some point, we need to have a national, possibly global, discussion where we define what makes a person a person and not just tissue. When we decide that we'll be ready for the discussion on using clones as parts. If we decide it is about the potential to become human then cloning will have to be about cloning tissues. If we decide it is about brain activity, then we'll have rich people with clones who are healthy aside from having their brain development blocked as embryos. If we decide it is a heartbeat, then we'll have clones who are on heavy life support and grown essentially in a vat.

Whatever we decide, I'm weary of hearing sound bites and bickering and ready to get on to the real discussion. I'm also very curious how our collective decisions on the subject will affect the average health options for clone parts.

Sniff... (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44144751)

You think they can bring back my old dog, Smokey? I've still got one of his paws in my sock drawer.

He was the best. And I learned about how babies were made from watching Smokey with my family members' shins.

Normal-looking offspring were obtained from all... (3, Informative)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year ago | (#44144815)

"Normal-looking offspring were obtained from all four strains tested."
Link from article http://www.biolreprod.org/content/early/2013/06/25/biolreprod.113.110098.abstract [biolreprod.org] )

One scary a$$ line, indicates a 100% success rate.

The ramifications of what's implied are numerous and cover every aspect of our future.

Re:Normal-looking offspring were obtained from all (1)

glwtta (532858) | about a year ago | (#44145459)

The ramifications of what's implied are numerous and cover every aspect of our future.

Only if your understanding of cloning is based entirely on sci-fi movies and TV shows.

Re:Normal-looking offspring were obtained from all (1)

Y.A.A.P. (1252040) | about a year ago | (#44145623)

"Normal-looking offspring were obtained from all four strains tested."
Link from article http://www.biolreprod.org/content/early/2013/06/25/biolreprod.113.110098.abstract [biolreprod.org] )

One scary a$$ line, indicates a 100% success rate.

You should re-read the abstract to see what it is really saying.

The end result is that they were able to get normal-looking offspring from all four strains tested. However, there was an excessive number of failures in the process in order to get that process. The important line over-looked indicating what it took to get those end results: "cloned offspring were born at a 2.8% birth rate". If you check table 1 of the full article it shows there were a total of 651 embryos cultured in order to get their end results.

This is very far from a 100% success rate.

The aim of the experiment was to see if a clone could be produced from more commonly available cell types. This was a desirable aim due to the fact that it would be less harmful (and/or painful) to the donor than other methods of harvesting material for cloning (which may result in permanent damage or death to the donor).

The viability rate for this method of cloning is still no greater than any other method of cloning in use. It's simply a more humane/ethical method of cloning, nothing greater.

Re:Normal-looking offspring were obtained from all (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about a year ago | (#44145799)

"Normal-looking offspring were obtained from all four strains tested."
Link from article http://www.biolreprod.org/content/early/2013/06/25/biolreprod.113.110098.abstract [biolreprod.org] )

One scary a$$ line, indicates a 100% success rate.

The ramifications of what's implied are numerous and cover every aspect of our future.

Really? Who, other than a slashdotter, would be excited to be set up with a "normal-looking" date?

Now it's time to clone humans. (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year ago | (#44144833)

Governments can now take a drop of the blood of any high IQ genius and clone them. Expect it.

Re:Now it's time to clone humans. (1)

ancientt (569920) | about a year ago | (#44145483)

Okay. I'll accept the premise for the purpose of discussion.

Lets think long term and unethically, which I suspect defines a fairly large number of politicians. We'll say a couple dozen high level deep thinkers push the US government (why not?) into creating a "super thinkers" pool. They black budget a project where they select two hundred geniuses and sneakily develop clones that are then implanted (secretly) into 2000 unknowing mothers. Those mothers then get secret guardian angel bureaucrats making sure that they get all the breaks necessary to improve the odds that the children will get both an ideally suited environment (hey, babe I got an offer from Minnesota University to triple my salary as a mechanic to maintain their fleet of cars so we're moving out of Chicago!) and later sterling educations (Sally got a full ride scholarship to Rice and George got a full ride to MIT, our kids are doing awesome!). Finally, the super-kids get cushy government jobs in think tanks. They don't even know they had anything shady about their own pasts.

So now the plan comes to fruition, you have several hundred of your best and brightest custom tailored to change the policies, strategies and plans of the government. The US now has better planning, reactions to opportunities, dangers and better reactions to catastrophes than any government that hasn't embarked on the same scheme. I expect gene sequencing will be much easier, cheaper and faster so it's likely that some of the super-kids will find out they're clones and before the knowledge becomes common. As a natural self preservation strategy, they'll start steering their political goals toward making society happy to have their guidance. Cloning will become acceptable and not uncommon due to their machinations. The world will start down a path of self improvement. In 10 generations, there will be a tendency toward raising only the best and brightest of humans.

I see all this as likely given your premise and no unexpected unraveling of plots. The question in my mind, is "If that happens, and emphasis on the 'if', then what does it mean for the future of humanity?"

Re:Now it's time to clone humans. (1)

danlip (737336) | about a year ago | (#44145541)

Lets think long term and unethically, which I suspect defines a fairly large number of politicians.

I think short term and unethical describes the thinking of many more.

Blood cells contain no DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145071)

This is a very interesting development since blood cells themselves contain no DNA (the are anucleate when mature). It must be another cell which contains DNA that was used other than a eurythocyte.

Re:Blood cells (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145213)

Red blood cells do not. White blood cells do.

Okay. (2)

BorisSkratchunkov (642046) | about a year ago | (#44145495)

Now we just need to clone a keyboard too.

Blue fin tuna (1)

ikaruga (2725453) | about a year ago | (#44145955)

Hopefully these guys are the next target. I LOVE their sashimi. Easily my favorite food ever. Eat at least once every week. Too bad according to some projections, they are supposed to go extinct in the next 10 years. Hopefully this tech also helps with the whaling problem as well. I don't like whale meat(and even living in Japan I'm yet to meet a single person who eats whale other than public school lunch) but for some reason Japan loves to kill them.

Re:Blue fin tuna (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44146339)

How about resisting the temptation to eat the stuff, rather than fuelling demand and increasing the rate of their decline?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>