Now on ScienceBlogs: Book Review: The Tangled Bank

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Search

Profile

profilepic9-09a.jpg

My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism), with additional interests in comparative physiology, animal behavior and evolution. I am not an MD so I cannot diagnose and treat your sleep problems. As well as writing this blog, I am also the Online Discussion Expert for PLoS. This is a personal blog and opinions within it in no way reflect the policies of PLoS. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com


Buy the 2008 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Find me on...


Homepage

FriendFeed

Twitter

Facebook

Nature Network

YouTube

Flickr

Dopplr

Stumbleupon

LinkedIn

Make Me Happy

Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!

Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!

Make Me Solvent

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

A Blog Around The Clock swag store

I Support

Carrboro Coworking

Project Exploration

Project Exploration

Bloggie Stuff

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

« Talking Right | Main | Do you homeschool? »

Cloning - what's the big deal?

Category: Basic Biology
Posted on: July 6, 2006 4:59 PM, by Coturnix

First, there were The Boys From Brazil
cloned%20Hitler%20boysfromBrazil.jpg
not to mention a lof of other science fiction:
cloned%20babies.jpg
like, for example, the cloned dinosaurs of the Jurassic Park:
cloned%20dinoasurs%20-%20jurassic%20park.jpg
Then came Dolly, the cloned sheep:
clone_dolly.jpg
Then came the AskThe ScienceBlogger weekly question: On July 5, 1996, Dolly the sheep became the first successfully cloned mammal. Ten years on, has cloning developed the way you expected it to?...

What followed were (not in chronological order) a bunch of other cloned animals, including:

some cute mice:
cloned%20mice.jpg
piglets: Millie, Christa, Alexis, Carrel and Dotcom:
cloned_piglets.jpg
a rhesus monkey, a male named Andy (a female named Tetra came shortly afterwards):
Cloned%20monkey%20Andy.jpg
the infamous (because of his creator) Snuppy, the Afghan Hound:
cloned%20snuppy%20dog.jpg
two calves, named Pora and Potira
cloned_calves_Pora%20and%20Potira.jpg
and Annie:
Cloned%20Cow%20Annie.jpg
and Fufu:
cloned%20cow%20Fufu.jpg
Prometea was the first cloned horse:
cloned%20horse%20Prometea.jpg
Pieraz the first cloned racing champion:
cloned_horse_Pieraz.jpg
Here's a cat named Nicky:
cloned%20cat%20nicky.jpg
And the more famous (for being first) cloned cat CC (here pictured with genetic mother Rainbow and surrogate mother Allie):
cloned%20cat%20Rainbow_%26_cc_%26_Allie2.jpg
Finally, the most famous of them all, the cloned mule, Idaho Gem:
cloned%20mule%20Idaho%20Gem.jpg

What has all this mammalian cloning accomplished? Hopefully, a more widespread understanding of what non-mammalian cloners were saying all along - you do not get an identical copy by cloning. It's not the DNA that matters, it's what cellular machinery is reading that DNA.

CC does not look anything like its genetic mother. The cows do not have markings like their genetic parents. I doubt Pieraz will be a great champion. The piglets received quite different scores on a battery of behavioral tests. Idaho Gem actually did much better in a mule race then his twin brother, a cloned mule named Idaho Sam - they did not end the race in a dead heat and neither one had a champion-style finish that their genetic father used to exhibit.

I hope that all these examples will decrease the irrational fear that some people have of cloning. It is not making little Hitlers. It is babies. With their own looks, abilities, quirks and personalities. If you are looking for an identical copy of your pet, sorry, you'll be dissappointed. If you are looking for a fertility treatment, perhaps some of the stuff learned over the last ten years can be useful to you and your physician. If you are looking for an organ-donor for yourself, think again - it is not a copy of you, it is a different human being with its own feelings and its own human rights.

So, for some it will be a disappointment, for others it will offer hope, but most importantly, the stigma of the word "cloning" is going to go away and, in the process, hopefully people will understand that DNA is not a blueprint - it is just a catalogue of parts which the cell uses to make more cells.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/15462

Comments

1
If you are looking for an organ-donor for yourself, think again - it is not a copy of you, it is a different human being with its own feelings and its own human rights.

I've never understood why this wasn't obvious to people. I remember seeing this the first time I thought about the mechanics of cloning. It is a time shifted identicle twin, to a first approximation[*]. There is absolutely nothing less-than-fully-human[**] about the resulting organism.

[*] This intentionally ignores some of the complications arising from differences in the ovum system into which the donor genetic material is inserted as well as from broader developmental differences.

[**] Or whatever species the original donor of the genetic material and ovum was.

Posted by: Craig Pennington | July 6, 2006 5:56 PM

2

Very cool. If you've never read "Imperial Earth" by Arthur C Clark, I rec it highly. Amongst the plotlines is the doctor who created the first in a line of clones, refusing to clone the 3rd one because he (the doctor) has developed a "moral" issue with the idea of cloning.

Clark is excellent as always.

Thanks for the updates on all these unique individuals.

Posted by: Michael Bains | July 6, 2006 9:24 PM

3

The organ donor thing. Morals and societal norms aside, an exact clone would make a perfect organ donor. I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

To put your examples more in the concrete, the reason CC looks different from her genetic mother is probably due to X-inactivation. She is heterozygous for an X-linked gene that determines coat color. Which homologue gets silenced in which progenetor cell determines the pattern of her coat. This is only partially determined by her genetic code (there are aspects of X-inactivation that are sequence dependent), but mostly due to random chance. Note that she is still much more similar to her genetic mother than to her surrogate.

Posted by: RPM | July 7, 2006 9:05 AM

4

Organ donors - it goes without saying - I was focusing on social aspect.

X-inactivation is developmental. Explain the pigs.

Posted by: coturnix | July 7, 2006 9:07 AM

5

You can of course get gift certificates now for this sort of stuff. (http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/2006/07/dolly_is_10_years_old_actually.php)

Posted by: Dave | July 7, 2006 11:56 AM

6

I would only quibble with one sentence. I think you should have written (additions underlined):

"It's not just the DNA that matters, it's also what cellular machinery is reading that DNA, and how environmental variables affect the process.

(Note: underline tags didn't seem to work on preview. I hope they show up in the final post.)

Posted by: qetzal | July 19, 2006 5:55 PM

7

Honestly, who cares, just let it be, they are not going to hear your opinions and suddenly change there minds. I mean, comon, who are you kidding. You are just wasting your time, might i add that you have too much of!

Posted by: yah mom | February 6, 2007 7:42 PM

8

Clones are not exact replicas of its donor but are in fact only similar reproductions. The simple approach totally supports clones; however, in the hands of ill conceived experimentations the results may leave humanity at its worst. I think certain things in science are best left to nature. Those who feel that clones are "parts replacement banks" are the ill conceived minds I fear. They do not understand clones and in their minds clones of themselves are at their total disposal -- wrong. Ill conceived ideas have given the world evil minded leaders who have caused devistation to the human race. Let's not provide an avenue for more future evil. Instead let nature takes its course. It has done well in and of itself, why mess it up? At what cost do we learn to leave well enough alone? Why can't science double up on their efforts to cure existing ills rather than generating new potentialities for more ills?

Posted by: Chuy Anaya | November 16, 2007 11:36 AM

9

I believe that Cloning animals is wrong. before we all know it our world will turn into a huge embryo farm! and all of us will be clones or cloned.
Cloning will cause our world to turn to violence. if humans are cloned then what? we all end up as a communistic country and we make war on our neigbors and friends and family because we all want to be better. if cloned humans exsist, whos to say that the scientists will not make them more genetically superior like and genetically perfect? if they do this then they have created a whole superior race and our world goes into mass chaos.

Posted by: Caitlyn | May 23, 2009 12:13 PM

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM