Yes, it happened in California... It all seems a little bit odd to me. But, the woman had a huge smile on her face, so happy . I would not be interested in it. :aimeeyork But, I am not against it either. It just seems odd. :aimeeyork

That's the sort of thing scientists could study, was the cancer food related? Were there smokers in the home? Were pesticides used in the home? Just because we are genetically predisposed for a disease doesn't mean we will get it.

I would have wanted to clone my deceased NIKKI but since she had an unoperable congenital problem I couldn't. But if my Nina has no health issues I would clone her.

They use stem cells. And as far as inheriting the cancer, it would have to be a genetic/familial cancer. But, even so - it's like Nancy says - there is *always* nature/nurture to consider - so it still my not develop even if it was genetic. Think of twin studies.

Very interesting discussion. Stem cell research could potentially put an end to Parkinsons and other horrible diseases, which is why it's so important to discuss.

As for cloning, that brings up all sorts of things. I certainly don't want animals to suffer for it. I know it's quite a popular subject in the race horse world (read about lately). Part of me would LOVE to clone Marcel and Wylie, no doubt about it. I would need more facts about the suffering vs. the benefits. Especially in the livestock world too - I can imagine there is a world of suffering going on there....and we certainly don't need more there, geesh!

I just don't understand she wanted 5 clones. Like there aren't enough unwanted pit bulls dying in shelters now. I hope she finds good homes for the ones she doesn't keep!

I wonder if this might even be the future of breeding. I can see it being done in a humane way.

My personal opinion on cloning....
 

I do not believe that just because it can be done that it should be done. I am of the belief that man is not knowledgeable enough in these areas to be doing these things.

There is a lot of experimentation going on. The part that we (the general public) have knowledge of is just the tip of the iceberg. If you read the entire article there are many points in there that should cause concern.

First, they have been trying this for a while and have just recently become successful at the attempts. Those of you that are breeders have a modicum of knowledge about genetics and how faults are passed from grandparents, to parents to pups. (This is not a disrespectful statement, for the comparison is between breeders and scientists). All this in a 'natural' process. What sort of problems may these pups have that are not yet apparent and who is to say that these pups will not display problems in the next generation or the one after that or the one after that? The life span of a dog, compared to that of humans means that these pups could be observed by the scientists, for a time, in order to insure that things have not gone awry. This would be the responsible thing to do. However, due to the high prices they charge for the process, I believe that the 'responsible thing' becomes secondary. There it is again....that global greed disease rearing it's ugly head once again.

The article states that the woman is donating the others to work as service dogs for the handicapped or elderly. Who assumes responsibility for the suitability of these 'experimental dogs' for this purpose? Anyone? No one? If they are proven not suitable and something disastrous occurs, who then is liable?

I have much more I could say about this subject, but this is enough to get my point across, I guess. I am also one that will not eat genetically altered foods. I just simply do not have enough faith in the knowledge of humans in this area. Sometimes, what they know is not what they think they know and vice versa.

What lies beneath the tip of the iceberg?
 

Some scientists are responsible and ethical. Some are rogue and unethical. What might they be working on? If you think it is just about cloning dogs you are in for some very major surprises. Have a read here:

Don't underestimate cloning claims of rogue scientists, Brit counsels


Posted on Apr 29, 2002 | by Mike Wendling
LONDON (BP)--Claims by a rogue Italian scientist that three women are currently pregnant with cloned embryos should not be taken lightly, according to a leading British pro-life group.

Severino Antinori told an Italian television show April 24 that two of the three women were in former Soviet republics and one was in an "Islamic state," CNSNews.com reported. The fetuses, he said, are nine, seven and six weeks old.

Antinori denied that he was directly involved in any of the pregnancies. He also said that eight cloned embryos have been created in China but have not yet been implanted into women.

Antinori has often stated his intention to create the world's first human clone and earlier in April he told a reporter from the Gulf News, an English-language newspaper based in the United Arab Emirates, that a woman was pregnant with a cloned embryo.

Scientists and health authorities have remained skeptical of Antinori's claims, and the doctor has produced no proof of the pregnancies. But Peter Garrett, director of research and education for the U.K.-based Life charity, said those concerned about the use of cloning technology in humans "should not ignore his claims."

"Antinori is not claiming that these cloned pregnancies have been produced by his own team," Garrett told CNSNews.com. "What interest would he have in promoting false claims on behalf of his competitors?"

Garrett said that while Antinori actively seeks publicity, as many as 30 scientific teams may be operating under less scrutiny in an attempt to create a human clone.

"Let's not underestimate the significance of what is being perpetrated here -- human cloning is set to change what it means to be human," he said. "The public needs to be reminded that this amounts to an immoral and highly dangerous experiment, which will endanger the lives of both the babies and the surrogate mothers carrying them."

Garrett pointed out that during initial trials to create a cloned sheep at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland, only one out of 29 embryos developed correctly. Animal experiments would seem to indicate that the three alleged human pregnancies will fail, but he warned that the quest for a human clone would soon become a "numbers game."

"The low probability of an individual success will yield to the law of large numbers," Garrett said.

Harry Griffith, a spokesman for the Roslin Institute, disagreed with Garrett's assertions and said Antinori's claims could be dismissed outright.

"He has a whole list of claims that have never been substantiated," Griffith said by phone from Edinburgh. "The news media take far too much notice of his passing comments.

"Antinori has never made any of his evidence public except in front of journalists or a media circus," he said.

Cloning human embryos for reproductive, rather than research, purposes is banned in many countries, but Antinori claims that China, India, Russia and the Muslim countries are more favorable to the idea of human cloning than Western nations.

After his most recent statements, an official with the Rome Medical Association told the Reuters news agency Antinori is currently the subject of several investigations, but refused to give details.

In January, Roslin scientists said Dolly, the first cloned sheep, had developed an unusual form of arthritis. It is not known whether the disease can be attributed to the fact that she is a clone. The Roslin scientists say that about 1 percent of cloned mammal embryos actually produce live offspring and that many die in late pregnancy or soon after birth.
--30--
Wendling is the London bureau chief with CNSNews.com. Used by permission.

Wylie's Mom is right about the twin studies. Identical twins have the exact same genetic makeup from the begining of conception. Those of you who have had twins, or know a set of identical twins, know that as they might look exactly the same, their personalities could be extremely different. So in order for someone to have the EXACT same dog(which is what I think people are trying to achieve when they decide to clone), everything must be done exactly the same, all the same experiences, from birth to...well the end. And even then, who knows if it will produce the same pet they once loved. Something like that has yet to be tested.
As for cancer, there are two types one which can be inherited and one that is brought on by external sources. At least that's what I learned in genetics class.
As for someone's question as to why she wanted to have 5 puppies, I don't think she actually decided to have 5 puppies. It's like going into fertility treatments for people. More than one fertilized egg is implanted to increase the chances that one will take. This often results in the birth of multiples.
The science behind all of this is fascinating to me. Manipulating genetic material is exciting, I've even had a chance to try it in a genetics lab once! Nothing to drastic as cloning or stem cell research, as I am still a student and I have much to learn!!!

Sorry for the long post! But I guess my point is I don't think cloning is what some are hoping it might be. It is not a way to bring back a pet that passed away, or bring back any loved one. Yes, I do mean humans.... I have a feeling that one day it will come to that.

Absolutely correct, I would just add ethical enough. Science has given us many wonderful things, but nothing comes without a price, and the price is often paid by the next generation.

at this point i probably dont know the ugly underbelly of the situation with cloning (some people said there were some inhumane practices) but as far as ethically i think i am alone when i say .. people should do what they want. let us progress. I think it is, at least in my mind, like having a twin. its not like ur bringing back the same dog/person/horse or rewinding time, its just their dna... its going to be a completely different individual though. The only problems I can really see arising are that people will probably eventually have to patent their own dna so people cant go around stealing your hair and having a cloned baby of you.

:thumbup:

I got to say, after looking at that picture of Pebbles, I wouldn't mind having a clone of her. :D

Please know that to me, this is a 'debate' and none of my statements are meant to be untoward. In other words....nothing personal. Just a sharing of opposing views. I subscribe to the following:

The quality and depth of a debate improves knowledge of its participants.

__________________________________________________ __________

I think the question is "progress to where?" I can see a myriad of issues involving this. Sometimes, seeing the 'whole' picture brings one into areas that are needful of consideration. It is not merely 'making prgress' but involves many ethical dilemmas. For one, involving your statement...who do you think would care if your DNA was patented or not? Just the good guys, maybe? What about the 'other' ones?

There are so many evil men (and women) in the world. Just look at how we've progressed with nuclear knowledge. Mankind has no knowledge of how to control it once it begins reaction....it is unstoppable. This knowledge in the hands of someone that has no conscience or consideration for the welfare of other humans is a nightmare waiting to happen. Many fof us fear this very thing today because it is a very real possibility.

It would be nothing like having a twin. Twins are born at the same time and are the same age. If you are, say...twenty years old now and were cloned, your 'twin' would be twenty when you are forty.

Creation of human clones would enable evil ones to create their own armies of clones. Unthinkable? How about cloning people for the human trafficing? That would be beyond horrible wouldn't it? But the potential is there. Someone that is of the mind to do such evil would only have to wait fifteen years or so. Not even that long, really.

I will continue to pray that their efforts are thwarted. I fervently hope that cloning is not a successful venture for mankind.

Its like they have cloned cows and have meat out there that they will not put different lables on. Are you ready to take the chance on eating that meat when they don't know what is going to happen down the line. Look at all the stuff we put on the market and then have to take off the market. After supposely they have had it researched. Makes you wonder what our lives are coming to. I would think we should worry about anything that we are doing in this manner that isn't meant to be. I don't believe that we can do things like this without paying a larger price for it down the line. Besides the report told that it take $50 thousand to 250 thousand to clone so how many people are going to do that. I just don't think its natural and we don't know enough about the outcomes. Its unnatural!

How about the fact that there are millions of dogs out there with no homes? Maybe the emphasis should be towards animal adoption rather than cloning. I've decided that any other pet I get will come from a shelter or a rescue. :thumbup: