I'm sure all who read this can see the point of my questions; that cloning has been widely used in a number of applications for quite some time already.  Regarding the issue of cloned beef, I don't think the real issue is the beef itself, but trusting the individuals that are doing the cloning. Can we trust them to clone an animal without altering it somehow that makes it dangerous to eat? Has cloning reached a stage of advancement where geneticists can be sure that they know what they are doing? Why are they cloning?

The difference between cloning and conventional breeding is that instead of two individuals supplying half of the genetic complement to the offspring, one individual is supplying 100% of the genetic complement.

There are a number of pedigree dog breeds that have become so inbred that it is difficult to find bloodlines that are distant enough to prevent serious genetic weaknesses from being transferred to the offspring. Would it be a smart choice to clone the most genetically fit of these species to try and prolong the pedigree?

I am no expert of cattle breeding or genetic science, but I think it is safe to wager that cattle breeders do not take the time to assure that when cattle breeding is conducted that care taken to insure that genetic lines are bred in such a manner that serious inbreeding does not occur. Perhaps I am mistaken but I believe when I go to the store to by beef or any meat for that matter I am probably buying something that is very inbred. What about chicken? Do they take the time to ensure that chickens are not extreemly inbred?

What constitutes a genetic flaw that is dangerous to the consumer of it? I don't know.

I believe that the way commercial meet production is going and the way the demand is growing perhaps genetic replication may be a safer option than conventional breeding if properly conducted. My issue is with trusting those that are conducting the process. Who can you really trust anymore? 

I think it's safe to assume we can trust the people cloning animals for meat.  They are, after all, in it for profits.  They're not going to send out bad product because they need repeat customers.  I think all the cloning is still fairly experimental.  It's not widespread and it's really expensive.  So it just doesn't concern me yet.

As to inbreeding affecting the safety of the meat, I have no idea if it has any affect.  They breed the animals to have desireable qualities i.e. good meat. 

Do you think they will start cloning humans?  This is confusing to me.  It seems like when you put a bull into a herd of cows, the babies come just the same.  Why would they try to put fake cloned cows out there when they can just reproduce like The Good Lord intended.?  After all, a cow can just carry one baby at a time, I don't know how they can force more babies into one cow.  That just doesn't seem right somehow.

I agree. From an economic standpoint it doesn't make sense to produce a quality of product that Will affect it's selling value. Yet it happens frequently. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or Mad-Cow Disease is an example of beef producers trying to save a buck by feeding cows to cows. It is often the case that good science is adversely affected by economic interests.

I think it is interesting that cloning is accepted as inevitable by the scientific community and the concept is promoted in many sci-fi features (like star wars, the 6th Day, see http://www.magicdragon.com/...). I also noticed in movies like The Matrix the process of feeding the dead to the living as nourishment was presented but it was presented as being insensitive and inhuman. That strikes an ethical note as opposed to a practical note. There are other movies that deal with the subject ethics in cloning such as The Island, with Ewin McGregor.

I personally think the subject of cloning is cool, but I find the reality kind of dismal.

Jen, a clone is produced by taking a female egg, removing the nucleus, and replacing it with the complete DNA of another subject. At a certain point in cellular growth, the egg is placed in a female so that it can grow as a normally fertilized egg. The advantage to cloning is that almost the same individual can be replicated over and over. So if the replicated indvidual is an example of the most suitable qualities of that species, then it can be reproduced without as much genetic variablilty as would occur with the natural transmission of genetic inheritance.

Problems are that even when you use the DNA from the same individual, mutations can occur as a result of natural breakdown in the DNA, effects from radiation and the environment, etc. So even with a clone the DNA changes over time.

Most of the issues that sway people one way or the other with regard to cloning are ethical and religious values.

jen:  do you understand all those big words?

Ragmop: maybe you can explain it in a simpler way, at least I tried to stay on the subject and answer the question.

Oh no, I am very embarassed about this.  I didn't know you were the snowman.  I'm , sorry dear.  It was never my intent to write you again.  By the way, just so that YOU know, I was only trying to help your poor wife.  After reading all of the letters that were written, I never knew that we would meet again.  I was only trying to help.  I get confused sometimes, and I thought that your wife was under arrest for this violation, and would have to go to court.  I was so angry about that.  Why would that kind of thing happen???  I don't understand.  I know that you called me names, and I got angry too.  I blame myself for being confused.  I truly hope that I won't get into trouble by upsetting people.  So are you saying that when people clone things, that the cloned babies don't get put into the poor mother cow?  That seems cruel to me.  Why on earth someone would put two babies into one mother is beyond me.  I really don't want to anger or offend you, but I want to just say, back in my day, if a cow couldn't have babies, she was dinner.

And, by the way, I don't need a nap

Hmmmm.   Jen's question was:   "Do you think they will start cloning humans?"   A simple question that could be answered with a 'yes - no - I don't know".   Your long explanation of the cloning process might be more than she wanted to know. 

It's like the old cliche:   "Ask the man what time it is and he'll tell you how to build a watch."  

Jen: I apologize for my rampage about our back yard.  I realize that you did not understand what the issue was, are easily confused, and I was too quick to react.

Sometimes other things that are going on in our lives can affect our patience and then some unfortunate, uninvolved person steps into the scene and gets unloaded on by a barrage of unfriendliness that they never really deserved.

I understand that this is a public forum and that I stepped beyond what is acceptable when I posted those comments to you.

From now on I plan to use this blog forum as good practice to use patience, that includes incessant jabs from others who also use this means of communication.

They really don't have the right to take serious jabs at other bloggers any more than I do but it happens a lot.

Some people have a habit of going to blog sites every day just so they can upset people. When I read your blog post about our back yard it was very critical and I thought that you were one of those people. That is why I responded the way I did.

Probably the subject of cloning has been "ran into the ground" as have many other subjects, but I find the subject interesting, generally non-political, and I thought I would like to hear what others thought about it.

There are a lot of other issues that pertain to cloning other than just eating cloned beef.

I know it is easy to confuse blog subjects, but it wasn't me who said you should take a nap.

jen's post:   Why on earth someone would put two babies into one mother is beyond me.   I just wanted to remind jen that mother nature does it all the time.  That's how we get twins, triplets, quads, etc. and litters of puppies and kittens, etc.  That of course, has nothing to do with cloning.  

May I call you Mr Snowman, just so that I know who I am talking to.?    It was very sweet and kind of you to apologize to me.  I have been worrying that I upset you and your wife with my comments, and everytime I saw your picture of the snowman or the yard, I didn't want to upset anyone further.    My children bought me this computer, my grandson found a way to get me to be able to see Tehachapi again through this computer.  This is why my name comes up as jen.  His name is Gentry, and we call him Gen, (he doesn't like that, by the way...HA HA)  Poor baby, I love him so.  Please address me as Mildred.  I don't know how to change that on my computer letter writer.  My dear husband was an avid hunter, and sometimes we would drive through your town on the way to his hunting/fishing haunts.  I couldn't tell you to this day where all we went, but I have been in Tehachapi, through Tehachapi many times.  Wasn't there a motel there that was like a red ranch house??    It was so long ago, but I've always loved this little town.  Anyhow, I was confused about this blogging thing.  I saw a picture of the yard, and I clicked on that, because I love flowers, then I completely misunderstood the whole issue.  I really thought that your  wife had gotten so upset because she had gotten arrested for a violation over this thing.  I am so embarrassed about getting confused.   I would like to hear more about this cloning.  It doesn't make any sense to me.

The only question that is controversial is the one relating to organ transplant - and that one is strictly theoretical.

Nothing from a cloned embryo of any species has been used therapeutically.  (Now, a tissue from a clone gestated to the equavalent of a 5-month human has been used - but that would require surrogates and 20wk.+ abortions.)

Furthermore, all clones have random epigenetic problems (e.g. translating the genes).

It is unlikely clones would be used in therapy.

Nor are they necessary for organ transplants.  Cord blood has already produced tissues from all germ layers, and organ/parts such as heart valves, lung & kidney tissues, and mini-livers.  Furthermore, stem cells have been found in most tissues/organs - most recently pancreatic stem cells that can be differentiated to produce insulin.

Another question to consider is how long to produce and how expensive would individualized treatments be?

Cells from you would be more quickly covered by insurance (indeed, experimental stem cell therapies for lupus & crohns is already being partly covered by insurance - this same method had 85% diabetics off insulin).  Cells from clones would require much more strict quality testing standards, as DNA isn't the problem - the reading of it is.

Furthermore, recent studies indicate it may be possible to avoid immunosuppressing drugs by giving a marrow transplant of the donor to the patient.

Finally, SCNT requires lots of eggs.  The drug-induced hyperstimulation process necessary to require eggs puts women unnecessarily at risk (they can die from it, even).  The UN has asked for a moritorium on all forms of human cloning because of the risk of exploitation of poor women around the globe for their eggs - offered as little as US$250 - then cast aside as the complications arise.  (Visit http://www.HandsOffOurOvari... for more information and watch the video there, it starts with the mother of a woman who died from the procedure.)

I don't think anyone is upset about stem cell research, or even embryonic stem cell research ... it's human embryonic stem cell (hES) research that has people's panties in a twist - and frankly, in 25+ years of studying embryonic stem cells never has a therapy been developed that is safe enough to try on people.  (Vs. hundreds for other stem cells - search http://www.ClinicalTrials.g... for more information - and btw, the US gvt. spends 20x more on hES than cord blood ... abt. $40million/yr - and spends more than almost all the other countries combined.)

Cloning cells is just making more of the same thing.  SCNT is only required in making animals and people issues.  Clones from mammals tend to be very large - so growing them to term puts the one in whom the gestation is occurring at health risk. 

SCNT for therapy doesn't work, puts women's lives at risk, and is unnecessary because there are other, safer and more readily available options available.  Induced pluripotent stem cells, for example, make the need for cloning - indeed, most embryonic stem cell research - obsolete.

Thanks! There is also a a lot of information on SCNT (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) at this website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...