[Nuclear1]

Just clone the old one.

So, how long before they start trying/can do this on humans?

[Mefustae]

That's really brilliant. I can totally see this taking off in a big way.

Honestly, I would have thought this would have been developed in the West, first. It seems like such a western thing to do.

[redsniper]

Well, the animal will only have the same DNA as the old one; won't be an exact copy, but I think (hope) most everyone here already knew that.

[Mefustae]

Well, the animal will only have the same DNA as the old one; won't be an exact copy, but I think (hope) most everyone here already knew that.

But obviously, a majority of people who would waste their money on this either believe or are simply deluded enough to believe that it will be the exact same pet. A grieving pet-owner isn't going to let a little thing like scientific truth get in the way of getting their beloved Mr. Fluffers back.

[Kosh]

Well, the animal will only have the same DNA as the old one; won't be an exact copy, but I think (hope) most everyone here already knew that.

But obviously, a majority of people who would waste their money on this either believe or are simply deluded enough to believe that it will be the exact same pet. A grieving pet-owner isn't going to let a little thing like scientific truth get in the way of getting their beloved Mr. Fluffers back.

Ever see "the Sixth Day"?


Anyway, I do think that cloning might be the only way to bring endangered species like salmon from the edge of extinction and bring dinosaurs back to life.

[Nuclear1]

and bring dinosaurs back to life.

ZOMG RL LIEF JURASIC PARC LOL AWESOMEZ

[Cobra]

and bring dinosaurs back to life.

ZOMG RL LIEF JURASIC PARC LOL AWESOMEZ

I NO RITE?! THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY AWESOME LOL

No seriously, that would be awesome, but without the dinosaurs becoming enraged and crashing through the electric fences.

I really don't see a point in cloning other than for Jurassic Park-esque escapades.

[Ford Prefect]

[MP-Ryan]

Well, the animal will only have the same DNA as the old one; won't be an exact copy, but I think (hope) most everyone here already knew that.

But obviously, a majority of people who would waste their money on this either believe or are simply deluded enough to believe that it will be the exact same pet. A grieving pet-owner isn't going to let a little thing like scientific truth get in the way of getting their beloved Mr. Fluffers back.

Ever see "the Sixth Day"?


Anyway, I do think that cloning might be the only way to bring endangered species like salmon from the edge of extinction and bring dinosaurs back to life.

Cloning is not a viable way of restoring an endangered or extinct species, nor should modern cloning ever be used on humans.  Here's why.

The cloning process does not use embryonic DNA.  It uses adult DNA.  Adult DNA in all organisms exhibits modified gene expression from that of the embryo.  We can fool it into acting like an mebryonic cell, but the expression pattern never totally reverses - some genes are totally modified in adulthood and they cannot be restored to their original form from an embryo.

The result is the major health problems which we see in most cloned animals; notably, behavioural discrepancies, weight gain and obseity, and early organ failure.  This is why cloning is NOT used to maintain labratory strains of specific genotypes in a species under study.

As for "bringing the dinosaurs back,"  the DNA half-life is incredibly short; the only DNA from Neanderthal remains that is usable in any kind of study is from mitochondria.  Cellular DNA is pretty much degraded beyond repair.  Considering that dinosaurs roamed the Earth some 300 million years ago, it's not going to be recovered, even encased in amber =)

Frankly, I think it is totally irresponsible for anyone to be cloning anything if they are not a licensed researcher affiliated with a private lab or university with full ethical grounds in place.

At any rate, cloning is a science that is extremely misunderstood, largely thanks to mass media that doesn't have an effing clue.

[castor]

Animal cruelty, plain and simple. It should be punished, not paid for 

[Scuddie]

I'm rather concerned about this idea.  It's beyond impractical to spend $150,000 US to replace a $2.00 goldfish.

[S-99]

Cloning is not a viable way of restoring an endangered or extinct species, nor should modern cloning ever be used on humans.  Here's why.

The cloning process does not use embryonic DNA.  It uses adult DNA.  Adult DNA in all organisms exhibits modified gene expression from that of the embryo.  We can fool it into acting like an mebryonic cell, but the expression pattern never totally reverses - some genes are totally modified in adulthood and they cannot be restored to their original form from an embryo.

The result is the major health problems which we see in most cloned animals; notably, behavioural discrepancies, weight gain and obseity, and early organ failure.  This is why cloning is NOT used to maintain labratory strains of specific genotypes in a species under study.

As for "bringing the dinosaurs back,"  the DNA half-life is incredibly short; the only DNA from Neanderthal remains that is usable in any kind of study is from mitochondria.  Cellular DNA is pretty much degraded beyond repair.  Considering that dinosaurs roamed the Earth some 300 million years ago, it's not going to be recovered, even encased in amber =)

Frankly, I think it is totally irresponsible for anyone to be cloning anything if they are not a licensed researcher affiliated with a private lab or university with full ethical grounds in place.

At any rate, cloning is a science that is extremely misunderstood, largely thanks to mass media that doesn't have an effing clue.

So, if we kept a tissue sample of someone when they were born and they grow up and wanted to make a clone of themselves. Would that solve the adult dna problem. Or rather would scientists need to get a tissue sample of a fertilized egg to put in cold storage to fix the adult dna problem?

[TrashMan]

Let's also not forget that all cloned animals so far suffered from various ilnesses, lived rather short..oh, and that you usually get one normal clone out of 80 tries.
Which means in general you kill 79 to clone 1.
Do it on humans? No friggin way.

[Grizzly]

I'm rather concerned about this idea.  It's beyond impractical to spend $150,000 US to replace a $2.00 goldfish.

And after all, why resurrect an goldfish, only to let it swim in a bowl all the time?

[MP-Ryan]

So, if we kept a tissue sample of someone when they were born and they grow up and wanted to make a clone of themselves. Would that solve the adult dna problem. Or rather would scientists need to get a tissue sample of a fertilized egg to put in cold storage to fix the adult dna problem?

You'd need DNA from an embryo prior to the 8-cell stage... which would be incredibly expensive to obtain without killing the embryo.

[Nuclear1]

I'm rather concerned about this idea.  It's beyond impractical to spend $150,000 US to replace a $2.00 goldfish.

And after all, why resurrect an goldfish, only to let it swim in a bowl all the time?

Because it was a clever idea for a title related to the story.

[Flaser]

I think synthetic DNA will solve the problem of "obtaining" a pure enough sample.
You will take the mapped sequence from the person - with a wide enough and pure enough sample range - and artificially synthesize the "proper" DNA, that the embryonic cell would hold.

Granted, this tech is still just taking its babysteps, but so far it seems to be a viable alternative.

[MP-Ryan]

I think synthetic DNA will solve the problem of "obtaining" a pure enough sample.
You will take the mapped sequence from the person - with a wide enough and pure enough sample range - and artificially synthesize the "proper" DNA, that the embryonic cell would hold.

Granted, this tech is still just taking its babysteps, but so far it seems to be a viable alternative.

Uh... what?

I don't think you understand the problem at hand.  "Synthetic DNA" (I'm actually curious as to what you think this is and what process you think is producing it, because it's unknown to this geneticist) isn't even a science, unless you're referring to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) which assembles free nucleotides into DNA helices... which is alo extremely error prone and isn't good for copying an entire genome.  Not to mention, PCR doesn't reset chromatin remodelling, histone acetylation, or cytosine methylation which are the primary mechanisms by which reversible modification is done.  The irreversible changes actually involve the excision of DNA sequences and realignment of the remaining exons and introns, and they are unique to the person so unless you have some mysterious and hitherto unknown supply of embryonic cells in that adult, you aren't getting those sequences back.

So... yeah, this "tech" doesn't even exist.  I'm inclined to think you've misread something.

And what exactly does this:

wide enough and pure enough sample range

mean?  Your sample is a single organism you wish to clone.  A DNA sample doesn't get much purer than that.  If anything, you want a narrow sample range.

That said, you still aren't going to be finding embryonic sequences from totipotent cells lying around anywhere.

No biological BS in your reply either now; I will call you on it.