Replies

What most scientists mean by the word "cloning" is the isolation of a single gene from an organism with its subsequent insertion into a piece of carrier DNA for use in research. Cloning as such has been going on since the 1970s, and is a common technique. That other kind of cloning, although newsworthy, is done very rarely in real life. NIce try, not honest since you have assumed that which you wish to obfuscate, that the salient 'cloning' is conceiving new ORGANISMS rather than sub-units of organs. The 'other kind of cloning' is what is now endangering our society because it is designed for cannibalizing embryonic (or older, as in early fetal) life conceived through somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The term 'research cloning', as used by the Advanced Cell Technologies people refers directly to somatic cell nuclear transfer into an enucleated human ovum, cloning, conceiving via nuclear transfer (taking the nuclear material--the DNA directives-- from a live donor cell and injecting that DNA into a human ovum which has had the nuclear material removed). This is distinctly not like PCR (which is what you described). While most of the people working in 'cloning' are technicians doing what you describe, the dangers ahead are associated to human reproductive cloning that some scientists are trying to re-name as research cloning simply because they have a different goal with the newly conceived embryos they create, and it doesn't involve being allowed to live until 40weeks from conception and birth, hence they name their cloning as therapeutic/research cloning thought he truth is it starts with reproductive cloning but kills the conceived individual before a birth date.

NIce try, not honest since you have assumed that which you wish to obfuscate, that the salient 'cloning' is conceiving new ORGANISMS rather than sub-units of organs. The 'other kind of cloning' is what is now endangering our society because it is designed for cannibalizing embryonic (or older, as in early fetal) life conceived through somatic cell nuclear transfer.

I am trying to clarify, not obfuscate. When scientists talk among themselves of cloning, they are speaking of one thing, the removal of a piece of DNA from its native context and inserting it into a specialized piece of carrier DNA for further experimentation. This is very common.

The other kind of "cloning" is reported a lot in the news, but in real life, it rarely happens. As far as I can tell, those hyping it are looking for publicity, not promoting valid science.

The term 'research cloning', as used by the Advanced Cell Technologies people refers directly to somatic cell nuclear transfer into an enucleated human ovum...

See above. Publicity seekers. They want investors, particularly of a certain political leaning. As I have said in previous posts, there is no scientific reason to think that such research will actually lead anywhere.

This is distinctly not like PCR (which is what you described).

No, I didn't describe PCR. Some cloning requires PCR, some doesn't. PCR has several uses, and there are different kinds of PCR.

While most of the people working in 'cloning' are technicians doing what you describe

I'm not a technician, I'm a post-doc

the dangers ahead are associated to human reproductive cloning

I really wish there were another word for that, since that process, technically speaking, is not cloning.

that some scientists are trying to re-name as research cloning simply because they have a different goal with the newly conceived embryos they create...

As I said before, this kind of "cloning" is very rare, and an objective, scientific consideration of the subject doesn't lead to the inevitable conclusion that any miracle cures will come of it. (I see a high risk of cancers developing; hardly what I'd call miracles.) "Reproductive cloning" has its own host of problems.

You seem to be rather adversarial. I try to impart knowledge because I've spent years stuffing it into my head and I am a natural born teacher, frustrated by the fact that I do not actually teach for a living. Is there something about the way I present myself that you interpret as argumentative, so you respond in kind? If I come across that way, I am truly sorry, because that is not my intent. I intend only to engage in intellectual discussion. I purposely leave out a moral component to my discussion since I firmly believe that research into "therapeutic" or "reproductive cloning" will not be stopped by people insisting that it is wrong, but by people pointing out valid scientific reasons to stop it. My purpose in trying to explain what real cloning is versus the highly hyped "therapeutic/reproductive cloning" is because the more people who know the facts, the less likely it is that I will go to work one day and find out some idiot Congressmen who didn't know the difference passed a bill making my work illegal.