Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Human Cloning Web Sites

  1. Dec 18, 2003 #1
    The Internet is loaded with distorted information about human reproductive cloning. There are four invaluable resources for those who want to hear the viewpoints of those favoring cloning.
    Check out all of them.

    www.reproductivecloning.net (probably the very best)
    www.clonerights.com (the most activist)
    www.stemcellsclub.com (new but very well done)
    www.humancloning.org (the oldest site)

    Whenever you check out any site, the links there can also lead to interesting places.

    The news sections of these sites are also great resources for the latest news. A couple have regular newsletters you can sign up for.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 19, 2003 #2

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Hey, I'm lazy, so I'll just ask.

    In your opinion, what is the point of human cloning? I mean, individual stem cells, perhaps. Organs, maybe. But cloning entire humans seems in my eyes to be a waste of time and resources.
     
  4. Dec 20, 2003 #3
    You can clone rare geniuses whose genetic pattern rarely comes into existence. We can have thousands of Isaac Newtons, Wolfgang Mozarts, etc. So, why do I want this? Well, more geniuses means more technological/scientific/cultural advancement, and that brings me pleasure, so it is in my enlightened self-interest to promote cloning.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
  5. Dec 20, 2003 #4

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The problem is that these things aren't genetic per se. How many Newton geniuses are there? Or didn't he reproduce?

    The fact is that we are sculted by our environment, and the 21th century is very very different from the time these people grew up.
     
  6. Dec 20, 2003 #5
    If Newton reproduced, the offspring would not be identical to him. Only cloning creates identical genotypes.

    From my reading, genius is the result of both IQ and the personality trait of creativity. IQ is 80% genetic, and if we were to use the heritability of the big-5 personality traits as a guide, then Creativity would be 50% heritable. The rest is environment.
     
  7. Dec 20, 2003 #6

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, the definition of a genetic influence is that its aggregates in families. No, his offspring is not 100% identical, but they ARE 50% identical.

    So how do you come to the conclusion that IQ is 80% genetic and creativity 50%? I think those are bold statements..
     
  8. Dec 20, 2003 #7
    This is a debate that I can never understand. There are robably a lot of things that you wouldn't like to happen, and human cloning seems to be one of them Monique.

    If a society really wanted to eliminate the unecessary application of resources, we would go out on a Hitler-style eugenics project. even if numbers are exaggerated, you imply that genetics has an unfathoamably small amount to do with the subjects of intelligence and creativity.

    Society at large contradicts itself in this manner;if they or their family isn't being mugged, raped, or murdered they don't give it a second thought, so why should you have a problem with another person doing something that HAS A CHANCE OF BEING BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY?

    If the technology is developed, it isn't like you'll be using it , right? It will probably be much like in vitro fertilization is today, with screenings and interpretations of people's lives being considered before some sort of commity decides that somebody can be artificially impregnated.

    Children born of this method seem to show no real threat to society, but rather benefits to the world. I brought this up to limit the use of that lame "increases crime, degrades society" crap. I don't really assume that it will be taken to much higher levels than assisting in reproduction.

    Thanks for your time.
     
  9. Dec 20, 2003 #8

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    HOW is cloning beneficial to society?? a. there are lots of orphans waiting to be adopted, b. the world is already over-populated, c. this would increase genetic homogeneity, d. there are psychological problems associated with expectations of such a child, e. the technique is very high-risk for the cloned organism.

    again, you should reconsider. I don't see any merit for cloning as a reproductive technique, rather I DO see a bright future for biomedical applications for generating therapeutics.

    They said the same about nuclear power, and an atomic bomb was build..
     
  10. Dec 20, 2003 #9
    Sources:

    Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, by Professor Rushton: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books

    Professor Kevin MacDonald: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/

    Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_2/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books

    Eugenics: A Reassessment: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_3/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books

    The g Factor: General Intelligence and its Implications (1996) by Professor Christopher Brand: http://www.douance.org/qi/brandtgf.htm

    The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability, by Berkeley Professor Arthur Jensen: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books

    The Pioneer Fund: http://www.pioneerfund.org/ and http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/pioneer.htm

    Behavioral Genetics in the Post Genomic Era: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/bgpe.htm

    The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
    by Steven Pinker: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-1336317-9181613?v=glance&s=books

    etc.
     
  11. Dec 20, 2003 #10

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Again, I don't think amazon.com is really a good source.. so in which of those links is the claim that inheritance accounts 80% for being genious and 50% for creativity? Or is it in any of them at all?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2003
  12. Dec 20, 2003 #11

    adrenaline

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Most all the "geniuses" also seem to have had some psychiatric problems. There are probably psycological reasons why Newton never married attributed to some personality disorders. Mozart was probably an alcoholic or manic depressive, Nietzche, Van Ghoh etc. etc. If we clone such humans, who is to say our environment ( with easy access to drugs and mood enhancers that were not available back then ) and more dysfunctional support systems would produce a viable functioning human being? Remember, a large percentage of of psychiatric patients self medicate and become drug addicts. We might just be cloning a whole bunch of bipolar, paranoid schizophrenic, drug addicted geniuses.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2003
  13. Dec 20, 2003 #12
    You seem to be confused regarding source and who publishes the source. For example, let's say some well known university professor writes an article. Now, let's say I post that article on my personal site. Well, the article still is the work of the professor. Just because it was posted on my site does not supernaturally convert that article to one I wrote instead of the original author.

    Well, same rule applies for Amazon. A variety of university professors wrote books, but Amazon decided to publish them for the author, so I linked to the Amazon links that are publishing the original books.
     
  14. Dec 20, 2003 #13

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    OK: new spin: how identical are identical twins. For those who didn't get the newsflash, these are clones too.. I have known monozygotic twins, they lived in the same house in the same room, in the same bed (bunkbed) and they had very different personalities.

    Just think about that.. these people grew up in the same environment at the same era. How would clones turn out if they grew up in different eras?
     
  15. Dec 20, 2003 #14

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Would Van Gogh's brother have cut of his ear too? Would he have developed the same style of painting? If he grew up in a different family, would he have taken up painting in the first place?
     
  16. Dec 20, 2003 #15
    All of those books. And not creativity, but they say the big 5 personality traits are 50% heritable. My original statement was that if we were to assume Creativity had the same heritability as the big 5 personality traits, then it would be 50%. Check out the conversations in the "social sciences" section of this forum.
     
  17. Dec 20, 2003 #16
    I gave you a link of twin studies showing that identical twins raised apart are more similar than non-twin siblings living in the same house.

    But yes, since personality is only 50% heritable, then yes, environment differences would account for the other 50% of variation. But, IQ is 80% heritable, so enviroment plays a very little part. So, if I were to clone a genius, the clone the probability of him also being a genius would be higher than if the genius simply breeded with a female without the use of cloning technology. The most ideal situation would be to duplicate both environment and genes. So, we clone the genius, and also provide the clone with the same environment as original.
     
  18. Dec 20, 2003 #17

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    OK, it might be heritable.. but please understand that it doesn't mean it is genetic.

    With heritable is meant that a child from an aggresive family will grow up to be aggressive, just by being exposed to such an environment (not because of a gene).
     
  19. Dec 20, 2003 #18
    I agree with you, environment also plays a part. But, without the genetic potential, a similar environment would do nothing.
     
  20. Dec 20, 2003 #19

    adrenaline

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


    You are right. From a pure eugenics point of view, my brother should be cloned. Iq of 195 (genius), valedictorian at Princeton in theoretical physics, threw over 100 miles per hour as a pitcher and was recruited by the Kansas City Royals.(So he has physcial as well as mental prowess) What is he doing now? He had a bipolar meltdown at the age of 33 and has not reallly recovered until now (after I finally got him to take his medicines). He has not accomplished much or contributed to society due to spending a year in a state intstitution in Los Angles County. Society and the environment has a funny way of throwing a wrench in "genetic" creativity and genius. Who's to say cloning Van Ghoh would not have just produced a great interior decorator!
     
  21. Dec 20, 2003 #20
    But, the point is that at least the clone would have the genetic potential to do something great if provided with the right circumstances/environment. That is why i support cloning, to increase human potential. But i do understand that just because one has potential, he may not necessarily do anything with it.

    Monique mentioned that cloning is technically unsafe right now. I only support cloning once it becomes as safe as invitro-fertilization, otherwise, I believe it should be avoided until then.

    Carlos Hernandez
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Human Cloning Web Sites
  1. Educational Web Sites (Replies: 1)

Loading...