Posted on 12/26/2002 6:02:33 PM PST by HAL9000
Birth of a small girl obtained by cloning, according to the sect of the raéliens
Friday December 27, 2002 - 1h49 GMT
MIAMI (the United States), 26 déc (AFP) - the scientist Frenchwoman and member of the sect of the raéliens Brigitte Boisselier affirmed Thursday evening with the AFP to have put at the world a baby obtained by the technique of the cloning.
The baby, a small girl, came in the world "today" (Thursday) by Caesarean. "Ca they passed very well", was restricted to affirm Mrs. Boisselier, president of the company of human cloning Clonaid, joined by telephone in Miami (Florida, south-east of the United States).
The effort of the raéliens to put at the world the first cloné baby having been realized in the greatest secrecy, it was not possible, in the absence of a scientific publication in the code of practice, to obtain for the moment an unspecified independent scientific confirmation that the baby was well a clone.
Questioned on the circumstances of this birth, it scientific Frenchwoman refused to give further information immediately more, in particular the birthplace.
"I prefer not in saying more for the moment", has it says, by adding that it would make a public presentation Friday in Florida.
It did not specify either if it would introduce the baby at this occasion.
November 27, Mrs. Boisselier had indicated to the AFP that this birth was awaited by an American couple.
If this birth were confirmed of independent scientific source, it would be about the first baby obtained by the discussed technique of the human cloning and whose birth will have been publicly announced.
Yes.
Or how about "Send in the clones...don't bother, they're here."
But only in ways that it can, given what it is. Suppose you and I are clones. I get exposed to some strain of TB, and you don't. I develop antibodies to fight that strain, and you don't. So far, you're correct: I now have a different immune system than you do. Here's my point: if we now expose you to the same strain of TB, you will develop the exact same antibodies. They are what our immune system is coded to do in response to that strain of TB.
Here's the problem: suppose I can't develop antibodies that are effective against this particular strain of TB... suppose it's just exactly the wrong thing for me, and I contract TB and die. If you, in the course of being around me, get exposed to that strain, you will have exactly the same problem. If we are clones, that which is able to evade my immune system will evade yours as well (treatments being equal, etc.)
You don't want that effect happening across generations, because it allows the right disease organism to use its years of adapting to a parent's immune system in order to affect the offspring.
Antibodies are acquired in any of several ways:
Some cross the placental barrier, giving us immunity to some things mom was exposed to.
Others are developed as a response to a challenge from some antigen.
Some more are genetically coded - 'species' immunity that is the result of xxxx years or human exposure to bugs.
The vast majority are made in anticipation of a future challenge. Our systems make antibodies to a bazillion possible antigens - before ever seeing them.
Genetic (or species) immunity is where a particular bug simply doesn't have a way to cause illness in a host. Lactobacillus in our guts is a good example. It simply has not evolved a mechanism to cause illness - and probably won't because it gains nothing by doing so. Bugs are NOT constantly evolving in an effort to make us sick.
The ability to create a particular antibody isn't genetic & thus recombination doesn't affect that ability. Think about it - the number of different antibodies our system creates far exceeds the number of genes in our genome - we couldn't possibly have a gene that codes for each of those antibodies. For those few antibodies that are passed genetically, a person who is lacking them will make them in response to exposure.
What it boils down to is this: Genetic immunity to a particular bug can be passed on. But if it's not passed on, the child can still develop its own immunity. A clone gets all of the benefits of the parent's robust immune system - with no drawbacks. A clone will actually be less prone to disease because it will be immediately immune to whatever it's parent is immune to.
The mechanisms by which bugs are able to infect humans are so general that the bugs are pathogenic to virtually all humans - because the capabilities of all of our immune systems are almost identical. If a bug mutated in a way that made it suddenly pathogenic, it's not because it happened in any particular human - just that it was in a human, period. It gains no advantage by being in the same human (or a clone) for any period of time.
Now all that said, a genetic problem that affected the immune system would be passed to a clone. BUT, such a problem wouldn't affect the ability to produce one particular antibody (remember, individual antibodies aren't genetically coded). It would be a much bigger systemic problem (like kids born with a completely ineffective immune system). Of course in this case cloning would be a bad idea.
That's it. I just figured it out. The significance of "it" being born the day after Christmas means that "it" is statistically more likely to receive the "combination Christmas and birthday" variety of gifts throughout "its" lifetime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.