Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Dentist Wants To Clone John Lennon Using DNA Extracted From Lennon's Tooth

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the with-a-little-help-from-my-molar dept.

Biotech 224

dryriver writes "People fantasizing about a Beatles comeback tour might yet see their dream come true, all thanks to Dr. Michael Zuk. This dentist is the proud owner of one of John Lennon's teeth, and hopes to use it to clone the musician. By the looks of it, Dr. Michael Zuk came in possession of the tooth in 2011. At that time, he purchased the molar at an auction organized in the United Kingdom, and paid about $30,000 (€22,424) for it. According to The Inquisitr, the dentist is now working alongside scientists in the United States, who are helping him figure out a way to extract DNA from the tooth without damaging it in the process. This DNA would serve to bring back John Lennon. Apparently, Dr. Michael Zuk hopes that his project will snowball into a scientific and pop-cultural revolution. 'To potentially say I had a small part in bringing back one of Rock's greatest stars would be mind-blowing. I am nervous and excited at the possibility that we will be able to fully sequence John Lennon's DNA, very soon I hope,' the dentist reportedly commented on the importance of his work."

cancel ×

224 comments

Imagine all the people... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640691)

... cloned from a little piece ... oOooo OOOO ooooOOooo...

Re:Imagine all the people... (3, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#44641061)

I predict this dentist is just a copyright troll who's after the music royalties.

Oblig Sheldon Cooper quote (4, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year ago | (#44641085)

"I possess the DNA of Leonard Nimoy! Do you realize what this means? All I need is a healthy ovum and I could grow my own Leonard Nimoy!"

Fantasists (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44640701)

It seems like most people don't understand what cloning is. They think that they will get John Lennon, but actually they will get a baby that looks exactly like John Lennon but doesn't have his personality or memories, or any learned talents for that matter.

Re:Fantasists (4, Interesting)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44640719)

He also won't have the same finger prints and iris patterns and some other things like spots on the skin and I don't know what.

Re:Fantasists (3, Informative)

wmac1 (2478314) | about a year ago | (#44640937)

Or perhaps even brain traits be a bit different and therefore this new person comes up with different set of capabilities. Besides different education and society will form his personality.

Eventually you will have almost similar physics but very different outcomes. Smallest differences in two systems will chain and combine during the run time and produce totally different results.

Re:Fantasists (1)

figjam88au (809986) | about a year ago | (#44640725)

i would like to upvote you, but slashdot is stingy with upvotes

Re:Fantasists (4, Informative)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44640727)

The only thing they can be sure to be cloning is the body. And even that will only develop in the same way if it's used in a similar way as the original.

So the only people that should be cloned are either athletes, models and porn actors/actresses.

Re:Fantasists (3, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | about a year ago | (#44640969)

So the only people that should be cloned are either athletes, models and porn actors/actresses.

Porn "stars" probably should not be cloned because a lot of the value in a porn star is the novelty factor. The industry eats them up and spits them out. There's enough attractive people in the world willing to suck dick on camera for it to have next to no value.

Besides, there's no need for real bodies, within 20 years mainstream porn will probably be entirely simulation, something like Hatsune Miku. User gets to direct the action, studios will make money on the upgrades like outfits, and won't have to pay the actress except a one time scanning fee. Studios will also be able to keep "actresses" exclusive and build brand name stars like comic books.

Re:Fantasists (0)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about a year ago | (#44640991)

Porn "stars" probably should not be cloned because a lot of the value in a porn star is the novelty factor.

"First dick-sucking clone ever!"

Re:Fantasists (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44641009)

Besides, there's no need for real bodies, within 20 years mainstream porn will probably be entirely simulation,

I predict humanity will first inhabit a planet outside the solar system than have no need for real porn-star bodies.

Nature v. Nurture (3, Insightful)

HJED (1304957) | about a year ago | (#44640753)

Indeed, it would be an interesting experiment in nature vs nurture. I would suspect that you would get some aspects of his personality, but not others.
However, artists draw strongly from their cultural background, that would certainly be very different so even if his musical talent is genetic his music would be very different. That's irrelevant though, it would be extremely cruel to clone an individual with such high expectations - especially one likely to be surrounded by media all his life.

Ethics of cloning (3, Interesting)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#44640821)

At first I thought cloning a human at would be extremely cruel because of what happened to Dolly the sheep [wikipedia.org] , but then I used teh Googlz and found that scientist have subsequently cloned Rhesus monkeys [ucdavis.edu] with success. So now I only think it would be totally reckless to clone a human, given how limited our understanding of its long-term consequences are.

Re:Ethics of cloning (3, Funny)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44641089)

Pretty soon, it'll only be "strongly ill-advised" and we can have that come back tour!

Re:Nature v. Nurture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640885)

He could just play the songs the original made. That way he doesn't need a cultural background, only skills to sing and play guitar.

Re:Nature v. Nurture (4, Funny)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about a year ago | (#44641075)

That'd be the most depressing job ever. A clone of someone. Pretty much a second chance to live, but with a completely clean slate. And he'd be mooching off his previous self's talent, always wondering why he couldn't ascend to the same level of recognition nor fully comprehend this figure that people expected him to be. And every song he'd ever compose would be measured against Imagine, setting him up for failure. In time, he'd grow to hate Lennon. It would start subtly, with him only agreeing to play Revolution #9 at concerts, but pretty soon he'd hatch a plan to clone Yoko Ono MY GOD SOMEONE MAKE THIS MOVIE NOW!

Re:Nature v. Nurture (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year ago | (#44641117)

> And every song he'd ever compose would be measured against Imagine.

He should make one and name it "a beowulf cluster". He'd have some niche following.

Re:Nature v. Nurture (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#44641219)

Not with John Lennon, but there was a similar story-arc in ReGenesis.

Re:Nature v. Nurture (4, Insightful)

The Evil Atheist (2484676) | about a year ago | (#44640923)

An experiment performed with every identical twin.

Re:Nature v. Nurture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641047)

Identical twins often grow up in the same surroundings, and even when they don't, they grow up in the same time period.

Re:Fantasists (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#44640761)

... doesn't have his personality or memories, or any learned talents for that matter.

Thank you, captain obvious.

Re:Fantasists (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#44640967)

... doesn't have his personality or memories, or any learned talents for that matter.

Thank you, captain obvious.

Obvious to you and I, or most on /. for that matter. But did you even read the parents first sentence?

"It seems like most people don't understand what cloning is." Now if you put that together with TFS:

People fantasizing about a Beatles comeback tour might yet see their dream come true... ...This DNA would serve to bring back John Lennon... ...'To potentially say I had a small part in bringing back one of Rock's greatest stars would be mind-blowing.

Apparently it's not very obvious to Dr. Zuk or even the author of this article.

Re:Fantasists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641251)

Don't we already have a perfectly good Julian Lennon? He seems to have the same natural talent and artistic ability.

Re:Fantasists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640981)

You're welcome, Major Asshole.

Re:Fantasists (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#44640807)

Indeed. Non-scientists routinely overvalue the influence of genetics. Identical twins can be very different in personality, for example.

Re:Fantasists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640877)

It seems like most people don't understand what cloning is. They think that they will get John Lennon, but actually they will get a baby that looks exactly like John Lennon but doesn't have his personality or memories, or any learned talents for that matter.

Don't tell that to the Bene Gesserit or Bene Tleilax gholas.

Re:Fantasists (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about a year ago | (#44640889)

We will teach him the accordion and raise him on a diet of raw chicken and oompa music.

Mwaaaa, Ha, Ha, Ha!

Re:Fantasists (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640933)

Wouldn't that make a new Weird Al Yankovich?

Re:Fantasists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640901)

Such a baby may not even look exactly like a newborn John Lennon, given that things like hormonal levels in the womb can play a big part in how one develops. Identical twins obviously have identical womb conditions, but clones won't.

Re:Fantasists (5, Interesting)

Rob Hostetter (2908585) | about a year ago | (#44640999)

You are correct. OTOH my biological father had almost no contact with me from the age of 2 until I was 15. When I first met him it was uncanny. We talked the same, thought the same way, laughed the same. It was insane. My wife and my sister both get creeped out by how similar we are. So nurture is important, but nature is too!

Re:Fantasists (1)

fiziko (97143) | about a year ago | (#44641019)

Exactly. In addition to lacking personality, memories and learned talents, he's also going to be under tremendous pressure to live up to an impossible standard. Very few musicians stay as relevant as they used to be. A clone now could make Lennon-like music almost perfectly, and wouldn't be the pop culture phenomenon Lennon was because the music industry has changed. I cannot imagine circumstances in which a clone can have a healthy upbringing with no abnormal expectations.

Re:Fantasists (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44641109)

I cannot imagine circumstances in which a clone can have a healthy upbringing with no abnormal expectations.

You'd probably have similar troubles with any human child, but those expectations tend to get more abnormal than usual when the parents think they're bring the band together again.

Re:Fantasists (1)

davide marney (231845) | about a year ago | (#44641157)

Isn't Gene Expression [wikipedia.org] equally as important as which genes you have in the first place, and isn't expression often a response to external events, so even if you were to make a perfect copy of John Lennon, the copy would be quite different? Especially as time goes on?

Or am I misunderstanding how all this works in the first place.

Re:Fantasists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641267)

I'm not so sure about appearances being the same. Our bodies are pretty malleable through the early periods of our lives. Our regular habits have a tendency of shaping our bodies in subtle ways that add up to our overall appearance. Have you noticed that people whom grab their nose when thinking tend to have longer noses. People that wear hats often: if they place their ears outside of the hat they tend to stick out farther, if they tuck their ears in they tend to subdue towards the scalp. People that wear boots tend to have more compressed calves where people that don't more elongated. I'm by no means an expert, but it's hard to deny the impact our habits have on us.

Re:Fantasists (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about a year ago | (#44641281)

Nope. He wouldn't even look exactly like John Lennon, just really close to it. Have you never met identical twins? Any that I have known I could easily tell apart after about a day of being around them.

Re:Fantasists (3, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | about a year ago | (#44641287)

I would never go to a dentist whose grasp of biology was this tenuous.

Imagine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640707)

Just imagine it! Just imagine first clone first post!

Imagine all the people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641083)

... cloned from a little piece ... oOooo OOOO ooooOOooo...

This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640711)

I presume this dentist guy wants the kid to become a rockstar like his father clone but quite honestly, just because you're a clone, it doesn't guarantee any remarkable skills. Good luck kid, because this dentist is obviously mad and you're in for a hell of a lot of expectations in your life.

Re:What's the point? (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#44641235)

So the "mad scientist" stereotype has been amended with the "mad dentist"?

And do what? (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#44640715)

Even if this were possible, why should that new life be forced to play guitar for this nutcase? Maybe clone Lennon has other ambitions. Maybe work for 3 years on the moon... Clone rights people!

Re:And do what? (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44640767)

It would be hilarious if John Lennon II grew to become the head of the largest world banking corporation.

"Imagine there's no taxes. It's easy if you try. No crash below us. Above us only sky. Imagine all the people. Living just to pay..." - John Lennon II.

Re:And do what? (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#44640873)

It would be hilarious if John Lennon II grew to become the head of the largest world banking corporation.

"Imagine there's no taxes. It's easy if you try. No crash below us. Above us only sky. Imagine all the people. Living just to pay..." - John Lennon II.

You mean Pope John Lennon II ?

Re:And do what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641029)

No need to experiment. We already have Lennon's two adult sons Sean and Julian.

I think a brand new John Lennon, with no burden of having to follow in the footsteps of his famous dad, would turn out today to be someone like Cory Doctorow.

It's a slippery slope (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640717)

First they clone Lennon. Then they clone Stallon. Soon enough, they've cloned Hittlor.

Re:It's a slippery slope (4, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44640921)

Ad so all these folks now have much younger posthumous identical twin brothers raised in a vastly different culture. So what?

Liverpudlian Park (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#44640721)

Dr. Alan Grant: [finding egg shells] Oh my God. Do you know what this is? This is a Beatle egg. The pop stars are breeding.

Tim: But Grandpa said all the Beatles were men.

Dr. Alan Grant: Lady Gaga DNA.

Lex: What's that?

Dr. Alan Grant: Well, on the tour, the film said they used Lady Gaga's DNA to fill in the gene sequence gaps. They mutated the Beatle genetic code and blended it with that of a crazy bitch who dresses like a homeless person having a fit in a garbage can, but comes up with incredibly catchy melodies. Now, Lady Gaga has been known to spontaneously change sex from male to female depending on which angle she gets photographed from. Malcolm was right. Look...
[we see a trail of baby Beatle footprints]

Dr. Alan Grant: Life found a way.

Re:Liverpudlian Park (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640973)

I read that in a Geordie accent instead.
It was much funnier.

Cloning does not work that way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640723)

'Bringing a person back' by cloning then is like 'restoring' your destroyed HDD by reinstalling the operating system on a new one. Unless someone happened to take a disk image of Lennon's brain prior to his death, then all you'll end up with is a completely different person who might look a bit like Lennon.

Re:Cloning does not work that way! (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44641069)

Well it's a *little* closer than that. A clone is essentially an identical twin sibling conceived at a later date. And if there's anything identical twin studies have shown us it's that "the blank slate" is a bunch of malarkey - the similarities between identical twins separated at birth who meet decades later can be almost creepy. They named their children the same thing? How does *that* work? Of course there's plenty of differences too, so nurture is clearly playing a role as well. I believe the generally accepted nature/nurture importance ratio is somewhere around 50/50.

Conceivably it would/could even inherit some epigenetic traits developed over the original's lifetime as well, but that's still a long way from a brain backup. Of course it would by necessity have also grown in a completely different womb environment and inherited it's cytoplasm from a different mother - that will doubtless introduce all sorts of minor differences in the initial conditions. The same blueprints followed by another factory as it were.

Okay, okay, so here we go - we clone Hitler, but use an egg from a black woman, gestated in an Asian host-mother, and fostered with a Jewish family who loves Mexican food. Hilarity ensues.

John Lennon 2.0 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640735)

John Lennon 2.0 will keep his surrogate parents up all night, then turn to alcohol to "deal" with his fame, flunk out of school and find inspiration in the works of Kid Rock, because fuck you.

Re:John Lennon 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640819)

no no! because race car.

(although I admit when i wrote that "no no" i was distinctly hearing roger daltrey in my head and picturing horation donning his sunglasses)

Live a little (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640747)

Not really going to toss my hat into the ring as to whether I believe this is good or bad, but I'm curious how we are going to wind up dealing with the legal ramifications of reviving the ancient dead (in this case we're talking about decades, but humor me).

Should people have a legal right to say they never, ever want to be revived, no matter how much time has passed?

(I can't even begin to imagine the holy wars it's going to ignite when people start suggesting that we try to revive Jesus, assuming we can ever find any DNA we presume to be his)

Re:Live a little (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#44640769)

...revive Jesus, assuming we can ever find any DNA we presume to be his)

The Turin Shroud is full of it.

Re:Live a little (2)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44640947)

The Turin Shroud is full of it.

Interesting turn of phrase.

Re:Live a little (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640829)

try Muhammad, we have probably got some of his DNA, unlike Jesus who probably did not exist at least in the way described though there may have been one preacher with that name to which other legends got attached...
Holy wars in this case are not exaggerations, what happens if he has the same symptoms as where associated with his "twin" and we can show they are epilepsy rather than just suggest from the symptoms described (as we can now).....

Re: Live a little (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#44640907)

Jesus did exist; of course he was not as described. He was just a man, and a con man at that.

Re:Live a little (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44641125)

Holy wars in this case are not exaggerations, what happens if he has the same symptoms as where associated with his "twin" and we can show they are epilepsy rather than just suggest from the symptoms described (as we can now).....

Nonbelievers continue to believe that He was just a philosopher/preacher who created a schism in the Jewish faith. Believers believe that God made him that way to better maintain his contact with the Holy Spirit while subjected to the distractions of a corporeal existence. Nothing much changes.

A far more interesting question is what happens when it's discovered that he was black? (Come on "hair like lamb's wool"? That's not an Aryan they're describing.)

Re:Live a little (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44640955)

I believe that the use of someone's DNA for any purpose in the UK requires informed consent, as with other medical procedures. For example it was recently established that if individual's gametes are used in IVF, that person's consent is needed before implantation can take place, even if they consented to the earlier stages. (The case involved a couple who underwent IVF but later divorced, and the fate of the embryos that were kept in storage after the original procedure. Really tragic for all involved.) In typical medical cases when an individual cannot give informed consent, that responsibility is transferred to their next of kin or other legally appointed representative, so at the minimum you'd need someone to give permission.

It'd be an interesting one to test. Would Ono be able to provide consent on her own, or would his sons also have to provide permission? How far up and down the blood line would permission go?

Oh, Please!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640749)

Oh, Please, may I have one with a dwarf gene implanted so I can have my very own John Lennon Mini-Me?

Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640751)

So this dentist is now has intellectual property-rights on Lennon's DNA? Is it even up to him to decide whether a human being should be cloned or not? Is it even up to any other human to decide such things?

And most importantly: with such blatant disregard for the human aspect of this entire endeavour, and such lack of medical knowledge on cloning (i.e. him expecting to 'breed' a fully adult John Lennon, complete with musical abilities) how the hell did this guy get a dentist-certification?!

Re:Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640771)

Dentists work on the other end of the human body, except in rare cases of vagina dentata.

Re:Hilarious (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44640941)

I've never met a dentist who wasn't just a third rate doctor with steady hands.

I'm not saying there aren't any - I'm saying they're very rare.

DNA Copyright? (1)

mrspoonsi (2955715) | about a year ago | (#44640765)

You would think the Lennon estate would have copyright over the DNA, or does this law need writing yet...

Re:DNA Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640835)

No, they should make cloning illegal. Period.

Re:DNA Copyright? (2)

xororand (860319) | about a year ago | (#44640867)

Why?

Re:DNA Copyright? (4, Funny)

tgd (2822) | about a year ago | (#44640891)

Why?

Just look at Slashdot. In 1998 they started a clandestine cloning program on a set of donor DNA tagged "Anonymous Coward" and fifteen years later, we still can't eradicate them.

Re:DNA Copyright? (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | about a year ago | (#44641053)

They could try the HuffPo Vaccine [slashdot.org] though on this crowd it may not be strong enough to cure...just contain.

Re:DNA Copyright? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44641199)

You would think the Lennon estate would have copyright over the DNA

How would that be possible? You get copyright for *creative* works that *you* write. There is nothing *creative* about Lennon's DNA (it's a random recombination of other genotypes), nor is Lennon the one who caused it to exist in the first place.

He won't get John Lennon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640783)

He clones Lennon, he'll get a guy that looks like him and has the same innate talents.

What he won't get is the kid who grew up where he did, the kid who grew up with another kid names Paul, the kid who went to Germany for year with his best friend Paul, and George and Ringo, and the kid that had all those experiences in post-war England, the 50s and the 60s that made John Lennon the icon he was.

Genetics express themselves based on environment, too. A John Lennon growing up in 21st century England is going to be a different person; albeit with very similar characteristics.

Re:He won't get John Lennon (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year ago | (#44640859)

The clone will not necessarily have any musical talent at all. Take a look at any pair of identical twins as they grow up. They start with extreme similarities and end up completely different. As we go through adolescence we naturally seek our own identity. John Lennon sought his in his music and became an icon of his times. A clone of him would naturally seek his own identity with the same vigour and would likely choose not to play music as that would be to follow rather than to seek an individual identity. For the experiment to succeed the clone would not only have to grow up in the same environment but also without any knowledge of John Lennon.

Re:He won't get John Lennon (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44641197)

Perhaps unsurprisingly though identical twins separated at birth often show far more similarities than those raised together. Presumably since they don't have a motivation to develop individuality in opposition to each other.

So, raised without knowledge of his ancestry little Johnny might well develop with many of the same interests and talents as Lennon. Not that he might not express them as YouTube cat videos instead. If aware of his ancestry from a young age then I see one of two things happening - either he becomes fascinated by his clone-father and strives to follow in his footprints, or he sets off in a completely different direction in order to establish his independent individuality. I'm guessing option #3 - he doesn't give a damn and becomes whatever person he was going to anyway probably wouldn't be possible if raised by the sort of people who would clone Lennon and then tell him about it at a young age.

My thoughts were: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640789)

  1. (some) Dentists make too much money (for the brains they exhibit).
  2. You'd also have to "clone" the abusive childhood, drugs, Ono,.....
  3. But perhaps he can lip-synch when he grows up.

Re:My thoughts were: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640833)

  1. You'd also have to "clone" ... Ono,.....

O(h )Nooooo....

Opinions please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640795)

> Dr. Michael Zuk.

Let's have a vote. Is this guy
A) A complete fucking moron
B) A self-publicising scam artist?

Personally, I can't see any third option.

Re:Opinions please (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640847)

> Dr. Michael Zuk.

Let's have a vote. Is this guy
A) A complete fucking moron
B) A self-publicising scam artist?

Personally, I can't see any third option.

C) All of the above.

There you go...

Re:Opinions please (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#44640851)

C) He made a joke and a journalist decided to take him seriously.

Re:Opinions please (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#44641271)

D) Someone who thinks the human gene pool would benefit from a bit more Lennon.

Honestly if cloning people ever becomes a "thing" I think I would be in favor of cloning many of the historical geniuses - artists, engineers, philosophers, etc. No, they won't be copies of the original, but will likely have many of the same innate aptitudes and talents. What they do with them would remain to be seen, but they would probably have more to contribute to humanity than most people. And who can argue against a little more genius in the gene pool?

Okay, fine, geniuses have a tendency to be less bound by social morality, often dramatically so. I'm sure there's a certain portion of Conservatives that would disapprove beyond even the "tampering in God's domain" aspect.

Joke? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640869)

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?

Just imagine... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640875)

Imagine reincarnation
It's easy if you try
Only one tooth is needed
No one ever needs to die...

My first thought ... (2)

tgd (2822) | about a year ago | (#44640887)

"Damn it, I hate Slashdot on April Fools day"...

Then I realized it was October. I think I have 4/1 PTSD.

I thought my childhood was messed up, but ........ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640903)

.........growing up as the clone of a dead celebrity?

The scope for pushy parenting could take on a very disturbing new dimension. I'd hate to be that child.

Hmmm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44640919)

Pretty sure john lennon would frown on copying people...

Re:Hmmm.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641131)

There's only one way to find out!

Einstein (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | about a year ago | (#44640985)

Fine, do beta testing on pop-stars. And when technology is proven and tested then clone Einstein.

The Boys from Liverpool? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641007)

As many have pointed out, to have even a remote chance of a John Lennon clone being anything like the original, you would have to recreate his upbringing like they did in The Boys from Brazil with (Godwin alert!) the Hitler clones. That includes finding a crazy Japanese lady to tear the cloned Beatles apart again.

I think we have the ethical aspects covered but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641013)

So we've pretty well established that this would (a) not produce another John Lennon in any meaningful way and (b) be a pretty shitty thing to do to an innocent baby but I'm not hearing much about the technical feasibility of this.

- I know we can raise cloned sheep and mice and dogs and cats and cattle to birth and maturity, an I know that cloning a small number of human cells is possible, but but where are we on actually bringing a cloned human to full term? What's the state of the art? Is anyone openly researching this stuff? Is it even legal?

- Also, cloning so far tends to be done with "ideal" donor genetic material taken directly from a fresh, living being under lab conditions. Recovering useful material from a manky old tooth that's been gathering dust for decades is surely going to present significant challenges all of its own. What is the state of the art concerning turning crappy old salvaged scrapyard-DNA into working reproductive cells?

IP Theft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641025)

Cue lawsuit from Yoko in 3,2,1

so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641037)

let it be

Dentist and writer both fucking idiots (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44641055)

People fantasizing about a Beatles comeback tour might yet see their dream come true

Only if they're morons and don't understand that cloning isn't miraculous resurrection of an individual.

there is no reason why the same technological advances could not be used to resurrect rock legends.

*facepalm*

Re:Dentist and writer both fucking idiots (1)

jeremyp (130771) | about a year ago | (#44641161)

It's not even as if John Lennon is the only dead Beatle.

George Harrison died in 2001 and Paul McCartney died (pretty badly) during the opening ceremony of of the 2012 Olympics.

Re:Dentist and writer both fucking idiots (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44641283)

Only if they're morons and don't understand that cloning isn't miraculous resurrection of an individual.

I think you seriously underestimate just how much people don't understand cloning.

You're not getting Duncan Idaho here, you're getting some poor schmuck who is forever going to be pestered and annoyed by the comparison to John Lennon. Or he'll figure out he can make money off it, and you'll see the most cynical, jaded bastard imaginable -- "fine, I'll wear the glasses and do the accent, just give me my appearance fee".

Lennon was a shit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641091)

The world does NOT need another woman beating junkie! and if you clone Yoko too, that is just some End Times right there! Yoko Ono is not a human being, she is a hybrid fire alarm/cactus doing its best to impersonate a Japanese grandmother!

Coo Coo Ca Choo (1)

gsslay (807818) | about a year ago | (#44641181)

He is the egg man.

Just gimme some tooth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641241)

All I want is the tooth.

(apologies)

if I were a dentist (1)

extraqwert (983362) | about a year ago | (#44641245)

If I were a dentist, I would clone myself from a tooth

Dentist is deluded (2)

umafuckit (2980809) | about a year ago | (#44641247)

To obtain a complete sequence suitable for cloning you would need a DNA sample that was obtained from living tissue and either processed immediately or suitably frozen in the interim. DNA starts to degrade pretty quickly. That's why nobody is going to clone Lennon or any mammoths any time soon. Regarding the mammoths: yes, they've been fozen but they're discovered as the ice thaws (by which time the damage has been done).

Did they teach science in school (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44641275)

Come on your a dentist, so we all know that you have at least some education. People aren't who they are just because of their DNA, their environment, life experiences, traumas, positive events, and education are just some of the many factors that create who we are. We are so unique as individuals it would be impossible to recreate someones life in a way that would allow a clone to be the same as the source. It is insulting for someone to believe that with a little bit of DNA they could bring someone back from the dead. I like to think that what makes us who we are is a little more magical and hard to quantify then the scientific process of cloning. Are world is mostly facts that can be studied and understood, even explained, but there is that small part that will always remain a mystery. To me this is the best of both worlds, scientific and spiritual.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...