Ok, but seriously, doesn't this violate some sort of medical code of ethics NOT to do experimentation on humans?
Printable View
Ok, but seriously, doesn't this violate some sort of medical code of ethics NOT to do experimentation on humans?
Assuming they are semi intelligent but lack critical thinking.Im sure the government would see them as the perfect soldier.Strong and willing to shoot whatever there told too with no moral objection.
I think this is the kind of questions that would be answered by such a venture.
Our thoughts that Human is special and all animals are seperate and apart would be challenged.
but this is creating life, not destroying life.
I'd prefer creation over destruction.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource.../cloning.shtml
Quote:
high rates of death, deformity, and disability observed among animal clones
[]
What are the risks of cloning?
Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce viable offspring. More than 100 nuclear transfer procedures could be required to produce one viable clone. In addition to low success rates, cloned animals tend to have more compromised immune function and higher rates of infection, tumor growth, and other disorders. Japanese studies have shown that cloned mice live in poor health and die early. About a third of the cloned calves born alive have died young, and many of them were abnormally large. Many cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age unfortunately is not a good indicator of long-term survival. Clones have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia's first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause of death.
In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised. In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes.
Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents. A process called "imprinting" chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos.
For more details on the risks associated with cloning, see the Cloning Problems links below.
Should humans be cloned?
Physicians from the American Medical Association and scientists with the American Association for the Advancement of Science have issued formal public statements advising against human reproductive cloning. The U.S. Congress has considered the passage of legislation that could ban human cloning. See the Policy and Legislation links below.
Due to the inefficiency of animal cloning (only about 1 or 2 viable offspring for every 100 experiments) and the lack of understanding about reproductive cloning, many scientists and physicians strongly believe that it would be unethical to attempt to clone humans. Not only do most attempts to clone mammals fail, about 30% of clones born alive are affected with "large-offspring syndrome" and other debilitating conditions. Several cloned animals have died prematurely from infections and other complications. The same problems would be expected in human cloning. In addition, scientists do not know how cloning could impact mental development. While factors such as intellect and mood may not be as important for a cow or a mouse, they are crucial for the development of healthy humans. With so many unknowns concerning reproductive cloning, the attempt to clone humans at this time is considered potentially dangerous and ethically irresponsible. See the Cloning Ethics links below for more information about the human cloning debate.
Shorter, Heavier, stronger, fossils most often found in cold or mountainous areas of Europe. Anyone else notice the similarity to the Dwarves of Nordic mythology? They say all legends contain a seed of truth.
This guy isn't talking about creating a neanderthal embryo, he's talking about taking an already existing embryo and changing it into something else - denying and destroying the inherent value of the human being it would become unmolested, for the hypothetical value of an extinct species that can wait for technology to remove the necessity of using a human embryo. But the guy's ego can't wait.
I bet if he paid the individual instead of asking for a volunteer he'd have someone doing it.
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=women...r:16,s:0,i:132
A lot to ponder about all of this.
J.R.R.Tolkien's dwarves as glimpsed in the latest HOBBIT movie do act like actualized and evolved Neanderthals.
Technically, the scientist is trying to morph a modern human into manifesting some Neanderthal traits rather than
bringing back a precise cloned "twin" of one of the legendary valient Ice Age hunters. It would be easier to clone
a scientist like Sir Isaac Newton or any of the recent Kings or Queens of England if permission is given. This has
echoes of H.G. Wells's ISLAND OF DOCTOR MOREAU in that it has a level of experimentation worthy of a horror film.
There is no evidence that neanderthals were less intelligent than **** sapiens. They had language, as did **** Erectus, used fire, and created beautiful art. Really hard to say why they died out or even IF they died out. They might simply have been absorbed by **** sapiens. All humans, other than pure Africans, have some neanderthal dna.
Too much discussion. Need facts. Someone do it, report back and then we can close this thread.
I guess not everyone watches Sci-Fi Horror movies.
I heard a radio interview yesterday with the scientist. This whole story was a "what if" media creation. The reporter wanted to talk about recreating a neanderthal. The scientist has no desire or plan to do it.
He is working on modifying the genetics of living people as part of medical procedures. For example, some people can not catch the HIV virus as they do not have the receptor that HIV needs. They are looking at modifying the DNA of people with HIV/AIDS to have that same trait (absence of that receptor).
This is a book by the scientist:
http://www.amazon.com/Regenesis-Synt.../dp/0465021751
If we Mundanes are currently hearing about this as a "what if", it means they've already done it, somewhere. No, I don't think I know it all, but I do recognize patterns. They are always decades ahead of us. Sometimes it seems like the only hope we've got is the theory of chaos.
Quote from Dr. Ian Malcolm character from "Jurassic Park"Quote from same character modifiedQuote:
"Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
Quote:
Dr. Ian Malcolm: God creates neanderthal. God destroys neanderthal. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates neanderthal.
Consider...
First,
that if you take a baby monkey from its mother and keep it in your house, regardless of whether or not you give it the proper food and drink and exercize, that monkey stands a strong change of growing up a basket case. It will likely bear little behavioral resemblance to an adult monkey of its same species. This is fairly well documented.
Second,
that if you take a baby Chinese human being from its mother and keep her in a cradle for the first two years of its life, regardless of whether or not you give her the proper food and drink and exercize, by the time an American family adopts her, she's very likely to have a laundry list of psychological and developmental issues. In short, she will also bear little behavioral resemblance to a young human being. This is not only well documented, there's actually an industry that gets paid to try to fix these children.
Third,
regardless of whether evolution is real, that a Neanderthal must fall somewhere in the interval between monkey and human, including endpoints.
Fourth,
that no human being in the last 11,000 years has had the slightest clue what goes into rearing a Neanderthal child.
Therefore, the chance that this Neanderthal will develop into a balanced individual is pretty damned low.