Those poor Raelians, biased media

[gmol]

I'm still holding out for our good friends, The Raelians. It initially appeared like a hoax, but after it was determined that the court order was real, I think I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have cloned a baby (for now at least). After all, if I did clone a baby that I really wanted, I wouldn't let anyone know where I was either.

The law seems to be very heavy handed and media seem to be terribly biased against them too..

<QUOTE> Kaenzig said he had Boisselier's word "the child is being taken care of." Frusciante, a full-time family court judge, said parents of starved and abused children tell him that every day.</QUOTE>

Cloning a baby, and starving one are two very very different things.

Wouldn't the sensible path for the law to follow would be to.

1. Find out wether or not the the baby was truly cloned and assess it's health. Issuing a court order before the volunatry independent testing was completed kinda "scared the rabbit back into the hole". The lawyers on the the side of the government are already taking about the "special healthcare treatment" a cloned baby would need. I am pretty sure that if the baby was delivered by a doctor ,and given no symptoms of ill health, anyone's best guess would be that the baby is fine. I don't know that anybody would know what "special treatment" a cloned baby needs. Such a claim is insiduous and is seems to be hiding secondary intent.

2. Non hostily monitor the health of the baby under the parents care. This could be seen as the government condoning cloning, but I think it would be in the best interests of everyone for this to happen.

Why are people confusing "being a bad parent" with the bioethical issue of cloning?

[FP1]

Until these people actually produce one of these babies for testing, I believe that the consensus will be that this is a hoax. I can understand why they might not want to take Eve to Florida, but why not have her tested in France (or anywhere else not in the court's jurisdiction?)

I can't believe it until I see some proof. Until then the Raelians are no more than con artists in my opinion.

[dsm]

More to the point, until the Raelians actually identify one of the cloned babies (either on their own or by court order), how can the courts (or anyone) know anything factual about the babies? :confused:

Editted to add: Maybe the clones don't even exist...

[rwald]

gmol , you are kidding, right? The media biased against the Raelians? I think they've been more than fair, giving them lots of coverage when they first announced the clone, and then failing to mention one month later when the "independent testing" (which originally was supposed to take 7-10 days) has yet to appear.

I wouldn't accuse the Raelians of being bad parents; I would accuse them of being outright liars.

[CurtC]

But what if we give them the benefit of the doubt? In the extremely unlikely scenario that they actually *did* produce a cloned baby, then they are being negligent if they're not subjecting this kid to all kinds of tests to find out if he's healthy.

Cloning experiments involving other mammals have been fraught with problems. A huge number of the clones die, and many others have severe health problems.

So either the Raelians are liars, or they are bad parents, or maybe both.

[gmol]

Originally posted by CurtC
But what if we give them the benefit of the doubt? In the extremely unlikely scenario that they actually *did* produce a cloned baby, then they are being negligent if they're not subjecting this kid to all kinds of tests to find out if he's healthy.


That's the thing, it isn't *that* unlikely, cloning isn't all that hard (or costly), on the relative scale of science now. If they, or anyone else, said that they have cloned a baby, I'll believe them for the first few weeks. In this case, they have a legitimate excuse for not providing the evidence yet.


Cloning experiments involving other mammals have been fraught with problems. A huge number of the clones die, and many others have severe health problems.

So either the Raelians are liars, or they are bad parents, or maybe both.

That's not a very fair set of choices. They certainly could be liars but why couldn't they be honest and abrelatively good set of parents (assuming of course that the parents are Raelians) for what is (in my mind) an IVF baby?

Cloning may not be as easy as making pancakes, but given that we can clone mammals, it's not that hard to imagine that it was done with humans.
Possibly at the expense of a number of fetuses, possibly not. I can't comment until we know more.

[gmol]

But as I have stated in other posts, right now, they do have a legitimate excuse for not providing the evidence (i.e. child being taken away from the mother).

IMHO the court should've delayed it's action until the independant testing had finished. It could've then launched it's own testing.

Originally posted by rwald
gmol , you are kidding, right? The media biased against the Raelians? I think they've been more than fair, giving them lots of coverage when they first announced the clone, and then failing to mention one month later when the "independent testing" (which originally was supposed to take 7-10 days) has yet to appear.

I wouldn't accuse the Raelians of being bad parents; I would accuse them of being outright liars.

[rwald]

Cloning a human baby is easy (relatively).

Cloning a healthy human baby is nearly impossible.

The Raelians certainly know this (if they don't, they clearly aren't responsible enough to mess with cloning). If they really did clone the baby, they should run a gamut of tests to check if the baby is really healthy. Just saying, "Oh, the baby looks healthy," does NOT cut it. If they have not done tests, they are being negligent. It's that simple.

If they fear prosecution, why not they go to a different country? They could fly in whatever specialists they need, and sit safe from any legal issues. As a skeptic, when I hear people make a bold claim without any evidence (even a claim which is somewhat possible), I doubt it. When they promise evidence (whatever happened to that "independent" media guy they brought in?), and then ignore their promise, I get very suspicious.

[dsm]

Originally posted by gmol
But as I have stated in other posts, right now, they do have a legitimate excuse for not providing the evidence (i.e. child being taken away from the mother).


But is that really a legitimate cause? Couldn't they have provided a few vials of blood from the baby and the donor for testing? There probably would've been enough differences to say that it didn't come from the same person, but enough similarities to show that it was "cloned" blood.


IMHO the court should've delayed it's action until the independant testing had finished. It could've then launched it's own testing.


What independent testing? :confused:

[gmol]

Originally posted by dsm


But is that really a legitimate cause? Couldn't they have provided a few vials of blood from the baby and the donor for testing? There probably would've been enough differences to say that it didn't come from the same person, but enough similarities to show that it was "cloned" blood.



What independent testing? :confused:

No, those differences would not show up, or if some did, no one would know how to really interpet them (there haven't been many cloned humans to test!).

Besides, no would (or should) trust them to give a sample; such a test would be useless. That wierd woman did explictly say that the independant team would collect the samples for themselves.

[Hazelip]

gmol, there is never a legitimate reason for making a very public claim in the media of a scientific achievement and not producing proof. None. There is no benefit of the doubt for a claim of scientific breakthrough. There is proof, or there is fraud.

On one hand, you claim that it shouldn't really be that difficult to clone a human since other mammals (easily and casually disregarding the well-known problems involved in such endeavors) have been cloned. On the other, you claim that testing such a claim would be terribly difficult. :confused:

If it is easy to create an effect, it is easy to test the results of said effect.

Cold Fusion, anyone?

[gmol]

Originally posted by rwald
Cloning a human baby is easy (relatively).

Cloning a healthy human baby is nearly impossible.


I've never done research on clones so I can't say how hard it is (I'm not sure how many people can). Maybe the Raelians figured out the right trick to make it work, and they most certainly took advantage in the knowledge gained from cloning other mammals. The fact is that no scientist is saying that what they did is impossible from the mere difficulty of the problem; as, it may not be that difficult.


The Raelians certainly know this (if they don't, they clearly aren't responsible enough to mess with cloning). If they really did clone the baby, they should run a gamut of tests to check if the baby is really healthy. Just saying, "Oh, the baby looks healthy," does NOT cut it. If they have not done tests, they are being negligent. It's that simple.


I know people who aren't responsible enough to be parents, presidents, drivers, doctors and gun-owners. That doesn't stop them, does it? If you are smart enough and have enough money (the Raelians could very well satisfy both criteria), you can do a lot of things in the society in which we live.

And we have to give the presumed doctor who delivered the baby enough credit that he checked if the baby was healthy; I can't imagine what sort of detailed tests are to be done on a newborn if it does not exhibit any sympotms of illness. It would be great, assuming that the baby is real, for the baby to be a subject on the long term effects of cloning. That of course raises issues of the government condoning the practice.


If they fear prosecution, why not they go to a different country? They could fly in whatever specialists they need, and sit safe from any legal issues. As a skeptic, when I hear people make a bold claim without any evidence (even a claim which is somewhat possible), I doubt it. When they promise evidence (whatever happened to that "independent" media guy they brought in?), and then ignore their promise, I get very suspicious.

I agree that one should be skeptical, but IMHO, the claim is not so bold.

They stopped those tests for fear of a judge taking the baby away from the mother. Given the statements I have heard from the other side (quoted in my first post, although I forgot to use the tags correctly), it was fair of them to do so. The judge is already talking about assigning a gaurdian, without any knowledge of who the parents are. As I said, to me, it seems like people are confusing a bioethical issue with bad parenting; the two are simply not the same thing.

[gmol]

Originally posted by Hazelip
gmol, there is never a legitimate reason for making a very public claim in the media of a scientific achievement and not producing proof. None. There is no benefit of the doubt for a claim of scientific breakthrough. There is proof, or there is fraud.

On one hand, you claim that it shouldn't really be that difficult to clone a human since other mammals (easily and casually disregarding the well-known problems involved in such endeavors) have been cloned. On the other, you claim that testing such a claim would be terribly difficult. :confused:

If it is easy to create an effect, it is easy to test the results of said effect.

Cold Fusion, anyone?

I mean easy, in the sense that it can be done given enough effort (to most scientists "easy" just means wether or not it has been done before), and I've said; they have a fair point (for now) in not letting anyone know where the baby is so that it isn't taken away from the mother.

I never said that it would be diffifcult to test the claim (PCR based methods of genetic finger printing would work), but the samples would have to be collected by the same set of independant observers who were doing the testing. The Raelians providing a sample would have absolutey no meaning as they could've very easily given two samples from the donor!

[Hazelip]

gmol, you are rationalizing and equivocating.

[gmol]

Oh come on, where am I equivocating?

[rwald]

I agree, it would be relatively easy to create a cloned human baby. But all of the clones generated so far have had severe health problems (correct me if I'm wrong). Two major reasons for this are telomeres and gene inactivation. Sure, it's possible that ClonAid was able to surmount both these hurdles and clone a healthy human baby, but it is by no means easy to do so.

And yes, I agree that if the Raelians were irresponsible, it wouldn't be the first time that irresponsible people had children. But this kind of gross negligence, in my opinion, clearly shows that the courts would be right in taking the baby away from them. Unless they showed how they had specifically prevented the above-mentioned health problems, the mere act of trying to clone a child shows that they should have the baby taken away from them.

Did they run a gamut of tests? We have no evidence that they did. I hope that they did, but they would need to show this to the court.

They couldn't get the tests done in another country, free from the court's grasp? Seriously, there's no excuse for them not having conducted the tests. Yes, I agree that dms's suggestion wouldn't work, but that doesn't mean that not testing is acceptable. If they want anyone to believe them, they should run actual tests, not rely on us to believe their good will.

In conclusion: Anyone who actually clones a child with current technologies is automatically a bad parent. If you feel no qualms about purposely creating a perpetually sick child, then you should not be allowed to care for any child.

[gmol]

Originally posted by rwald
I agree, it would be relatively easy to create a cloned human baby. But all of the clones generated so far have had severe health problems (correct me if I'm wrong). Two major reasons for this are telomeres and gene inactivation. Sure, it's possible that ClonAid was able to surmount both these hurdles and clone a healthy human baby, but it is by no means easy to do so.


I think you are wrong; for clones that birthed and survive first few weeks or so, no one (as far as I know) has shown defects in the animals that were a direct result of cloning. The recently reported cat and Dolly are my examples, please provide some counters. Yes there are reports that Dolly developed arthiritis early, but it is not clear if that was due to the cloning. I think Dolly had to get incinerated due to foot and mouth disease, no? Dolly also normally birthed a daughter as far as I know....there are unfortunately not many tests which can be done at birth to tell you what sorts of defects you will develop as you age; otherwise we could apply those tests to normal babies just as easy as clone-babies.


And yes, I agree that if the Raelians were irresponsible, it wouldn't be the first time that irresponsible people had children. But this kind of gross negligence, in my opinion, clearly shows that the courts would be right in taking the baby away from them. Unless they showed how they had specifically prevented the above-mentioned health problems, the mere act of trying to clone a child shows that they should have the baby taken away from them.

Did they run a gamut of tests? We have no evidence that they did. I hope that they did, but they would need to show this to the court.


Just what tests would you run if the baby appeared normal (breathing, responding to stimulous, crying, feeding etc.)? I'm really interested in your answer to this one.

Let's get it straight, Cloniad (a private company associated with the Raelians ) did the cloning and a couple paid them to do it (the parents, I do not know wether or not they are Raelians). The couple now has a child, why (before any assesment has been done) should there be thumping that it should be taken away from the (quite natural) parents?

I agree that since the court has made an order they are required to do what the court says, but I do feel the courts decisions were not motivated properly. If there was a licensed doctor delivering the baby, it's a fair assumption that the appropriate health tests were run, just like for any other baby. There is no magical set of tests for cloned babies as opposed to normal ones given that they display the same symptoms.


They couldn't get the tests done in another country, free from the court's grasp? Seriously, there's no excuse for them not having conducted the tests. Yes, I agree that dms's suggestion wouldn't work, but that doesn't mean that not testing is acceptable. If they want anyone to believe them, they should run actual tests, not rely on us to believe their good will.

In conclusion: Anyone who actually clones a child with current technologies is automatically a bad parent. If you feel no qualms about purposely creating a perpetually sick child, then you should not be allowed to care for any child.

Let me say it again, I do not have ANY evidence that normally birthed clones will be 'perpertually sick', do you?

[rwald]

OK. First of all, how do you know that Dolly's arthritis wasn't caused by her being a clone? If you have a source, please cite it. In theory, a clone should be "perpetually sick," for the reasons I specified. Yes, the theory may not match the reality, but I'd like to read an article stating that.

What type of tests would I like to see? Well, a karyotype, first of all. Perhaps a test to look at telomeres and inactivated genes? Basically, take what we currently know could go wrong with a cloned individual, and test whether that has actually happened. It shouldn't be too hard. That explains why the tests would be different from normal children.

OK. Let's ignore the Raelians for a moment, and focus on ClonAid. Perhaps the parents were deceived into thinking that their child would be perfectly healthy. If so, then I guess the children should not be taken away from them. But ClonAid would certainly know about this, and therefore they should be prosecuted.

Oh, and the court's rationale for wanting the child to have "special health-care" would be to check if any of the above-mentioned maladies would befall the child. Sure, it's possible that the baby wouldn't actually have any health problems. But it would still be irresponsible to not check frequently for same.

Basically, the debate keeps coming back to whether or not clones are actually more likely to experience health problems. I think we should both check our sources before proceeding.

[rwald]

Ah, here's a source:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=58049&storyID=3051429

But problems remained. While sheep and cows had been cloned, primates were elusive because there was something biologically different about their eggs.

And probably a majority of all cloned animals so far had at least minor abnormalities, with 20 to 30 per cent having "very serious" deformities. Dolly herself, born in 1996, has developed arthritis.And another:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=676&ncid=716&e=19&u=/usatoday/20030117/ts_usatoday/4788719

Lost in the hype surrounding claims of human cloning are hard scientific facts that show cloning animals is fraught with perils both before and after birth. Scientists are able to clone sheep, cattle, pigs, goats and mice, but not without significant errors that commonly result in oversized fetuses, placental defects, lung, kidney and cardiovascular problems, brain abnormalities, immune dysfunction and severe postnatal weight gain.

Efforts to clone primates have proven even more difficult and might be impossible with current methods, scientists say. Of particular concern are embryos that appear normal and healthy but at the genetic level are a ''gallery of horrors,'' says Tanja Dominko, who conducted primate cloning research at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center in Beaverton.

Advanced Cell Technology of Worcester, Mass., is the only scientific group that has acknowledged making cloned human embryos for research purposes. ACT medical director Robert Lanza says he hopes one day to create cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's based on cells harvested from cloned embryos. But his team has found that cloning human embryos is no simple task. Only one has reached the six-cell stage, and it had significant genetic abnormalities.

Lanza says techniques are improving for purposes of medical research but not enough for reliably creating healthy babies.

...

If cloned babies start showing up in hospital nurseries, scientists predict that they will be hooked up to respirators because their hearts and lungs will have been deformed. Feeding tubes also might be necessary for infants who have brain damage and cannot suckle. Others might have extensive physical abnormalities. Even those born with a normal appearance probably would experience epilepsy, autism or behavioral abnormalities.

''All of the data on animal cloning demonstrates exceptionally high rates of fetal loss, abortion (and) neonatal deaths, and many cloned animals have devastating birth defects,'' says Gerald Schatten, vice chairman of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

''When people are working with farm animals or laboratory mice and there is a newborn that is suffering, veterinarians can euthanize the animal. Are people who are attempting to clone humans going to euthanize suffering children?''

...

[T]hey must insert the DNA from adult cells into dozens or even hundreds of eggs, give a little jolt of electricity to stimulate the cell to divide and keep their fingers crossed. Most scientists agree that only about 1% to 2% of these attempts in animals lead to a live birth. Of live births, only about 20% appear to be normal.The last part of the second source was referring to ClonAid's claims to have gotten 5 successful clones out of 10(!) tries. Either they have developed a completely new method of cloning (for which they could easily win the Nobel prize, if they would publish their proof...), or they're lying on at least one count.

Originally posted by rwald
In conclusion: Anyone who actually clones a child with current technologies is automatically a bad parent. If you feel no qualms about purposely creating a perpetually sick child, then you should not be allowed to care for any child.

Exactly.

[gmol]

Originally posted by rwald
Ah, here's a source:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=58049&storyID=3051429

And another:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=676&ncid=716&e=19&u=/usatoday/20030117/ts_usatoday/4788719

The last part of the second source was referring to ClonAid's claims to have gotten 5 successful clones out of 10(!) tries. Either they have developed a completely new method of cloning (for which they could easily win the Nobel prize, if they would publish their proof...), or they're lying on at least one count.

Both those stories seem rather biased, the first quote prefaces the percentages with "probably". I have no idea what that means. Both articles cloud the distinction between pre-birth dysfunction such as as embryonic attrition and abortion (which do occour with markedly higher rates in cloned animals) with the defects suffered by birthed animals.

I refer you to a real academic paper (albiet a little old):

Nature Biotechnology (good journal)
January 2002 Volume 20 Number 1 pp 13 - 14
The health profile of cloned animals
The authors are from advanced cell tech....


where the authors have reviewed the literature and have stated that:

We have reviewed the published literature in this area (see Table 1), and in contrast to these horrific scenarios, one is struck by the fact that the majority of cloned animals were seemingly healthy at the time of publication; this is particularly noteworthy in those studies with convincing numbers of animals.


note also


Characterizing the health of cloned animals, of course, can be problematic. Nevertheless, there is considerable anecdotal evidence that "seemingly healthy" young animals produced by cloning become normal adults that produce healthy offspring. Systematic studies with sufficient numbers of animals in species other than mice will take some years to complete; however, murine data report normality, both of adults derived from cloning and of subsequent generations39. Although most offspring resulting from cloning by use of somatic cells appear healthy and normal (bearing in mind species and procedural differences), there is a high incidence of congenital abnormalities relative to normal reproduction, and placentas are often abnormal, resulting in additional problems, even if fetuses are "normal".


there do seem to be some issues with cloning, it's not all obvious as to what those problems are exactly (especially in the long term), and how serious they are compared to normal births or those by IVF. The fact is that *no one knows yet*; and right now there are many cloned animals which appear healthy. Your general opinion that most cloned animals birthed suffer severe problems does not jive with what is known so far.

What was that Penn and Teller show agiain? Oh yes, ********. Um look it up would you?

[gmol]

Originally posted by rwald
OK. First of all, how do you know that Dolly's arthritis wasn't caused by her being a clone? If you have a source, please cite it. In theory, a clone should be "perpetually sick," for the reasons I specified. Yes, the theory may not match the reality, but I'd like to read an article stating that.


I never said it wasn't. The fact is that we don't know, and it's only a very shaky hypothesis that Dolly developed arthiritis because of the cloning. No biologist would hazard to make decisions based on the assumption that it was; given that there is not much data (yet) to support that hypothesis.


What type of tests would I like to see? Well, a karyotype, first of all. Perhaps a test to look at telomeres and inactivated genes? Basically, take what we currently know could go wrong with a cloned individual, and test whether that has actually happened. It shouldn't be too hard. That explains why the tests would be different from normal children.


A karyotype would only be (immediately) warranted if the child displayed symptoms some disease that was associated with something you could see from the karyotype. No reason it can't wait a few weeks before it is done if the child appears to be healthy. I presume a karyotype would've been done as a part of the test to determine if the baby was really a clone. There is no general medical procedure right now for easily finding 'inactiavted genes' (genechips do hold promise though). Suppose that the telomeres were shorter (I don't think there is any easy way to determine that without growing a lot of cells in culture)? Would you take the baby away from the parents because of it? Telomere length (while it would be interesting/important to know as a part of a study), does not lead to any sort of medical diagnosis for the health of a baby.

This goes back to my point is that there is no valid reason why the baby should be taken away from the parents right now. The fact that there are very powerful people in the legal system sounding their war-crys against cloning and threatening to take the baby away, instills doubt in their motives. And if they really did want to take the baby away, a smart judge would've simply waited the extra few days to see the results of the voluntary independent testing before issuing any orders.


OK. Let's ignore the Raelians for a moment, and focus on ClonAid. Perhaps the parents were deceived into thinking that their child would be perfectly healthy. If so, then I guess the children should not be taken away from them. But ClonAid would certainly know about this, and therefore they should be prosecuted.


I seriously doubt that ClonAid garaunteed a perfect and healthy child to the parents. Any medical procedure (despite being done by kooks) would be laden with waivers of liabillity and an explanation of the potential outcomes. We are assuming becuase the company is associated with kooks, that they don't practice standard clinical methods. Not a fair assumption IMHO, given that there are real PhD's and MD's employed by ClonAid.




Oh, and the court's rationale for wanting the child to have "special health-care" would be to check if any of the above-mentioned maladies would befall the child. Sure, it's possible that the baby wouldn't actually have any health problems. But it would still be irresponsible to not check frequently for same.

Basically, the debate keeps coming back to whether or not clones are actually more likely to experience health problems. I think we should both check our sources before proceeding. [/B]

As I said, there aren't any more special ways of predicting the future health of a cloned baby over a normal one. Right now *we don't know* what sort of long term health defects cloned mammals suffer over "normal" ones. It will be a few years before we do. Right now though, it looks as if that the majority of normally birthed cloned mammals are, well, normal (see my other post for the reference in Nature Biotechnology).

[gmol]

Originally posted by Denise
What was that Penn and Teller show agiain? Oh yes, ********. Um look it up would you?

I don't really understand what message bleongs to what thread, but looking at the time of your post, I am assuming you are responding to the post where I provided a very real reference.

A crude retort is hardly convincing counter-evidence.

[Kimpatsu]

These poor Raelians
They're just illegal Raelians
They're a cloning hoax in New York.

They don't take humans, they take aliens, my dear,
They take their clones mixed on one side.
You can hear it in their propaganda when they talk
They're Raelians, rather than the stork.

(With apologies to Sting.)

[rwald]

For everyone's reference, I'll put a link to the specific article here:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nbt/journal/v20/n1/full/nbt0102-13.html&filetype=pdf

One issue this article completely fails to mention is the diffuculty of primate cloning. Yes, it does show that in about 50% of studies, the offspring were not found to have any obvious defects, but the greatest numbers of succeses were in pigs, which is not necessarily indicitive of primate results. Do you have any sources explaining away the derth of primate cloning?

[gmol]

We are getting way off topic now from my orignal assertions, but you didn't understand the thesis of the study when you fault the study for not citing difficulties in cloning monkeys.

Hear me loud and clear:

You are confusing the aspect of the difficulty in cloning animals with health of the resulting cloned animals.

Cloning monkeys is harder than sheep (but certainly, just as it is for humans, forseeable). The study makes no assertion as to how hard it is to clone animals, that's why it doesn't mention the difficultues which you are talking about. It only is there to describe the apparent health of the ones which have been birthed.

So far It looks as if most of the attempts have failed to produce monkey embryos that are viable (i.e. birthed normally and alive). I.e. as far as I know, no one has truly cloned a monkey, because the embryos get aborted. I presume most of the time they are naturally aborted, I have not seen anything implying otherwise.
Monkeys could not have been included in the study since there have been no viable births.

Agreed?

[neutrino_cannon]

Mother do you think they've clone a man?
Mother do you think they've packed and ran?
Mother do you think that they would try to... lie?
OO-AA
Mother do you ask why?

Mother are there any aliens?
Mother should I trust the Raelians?
Mother will it blow over soon?
OO_AA media typhoon


Apologies to the members of Pink Floyd

My reply wasn't specifically to you gmol, it was about the whole thing. They make an extraordinary claim, and give absolutely no proof to back it up. None. Unless they are willing to give some evidence then they should get no attention at all. I could hold a news conference on my front lawn saying I cloned a child too and the media would probably jump on it like hungry dogs on pig guts.

The people who claim to have taken part in this, if it's found to be true should be jailed. Why? Because they are putting a child at risk for absolutely no reason. No one knows the risks of cloning, there is no reason to clone a child. It's akin to Russian roulette at this point. These people are supposedly creating a child on purpose that may suffer from genetic problems for absolutely no reason. None.

It is hard enough for invitro to succeed. Getting enough eggs to develop for simple fertilization. It's hard to imagine a woman going through all the shots etc over and over and over again to have success at cloning which from what I've read takes far more attempts to get a "successful" outcome than petri dish fertilization.

That these people have gotten any attention at all, without any proof is a travesty in and of itself.

[gmol]

My whole point since the begining is that they *were* willing to provide proof; but before the existance of the baby was established, people were already talking about taking the baby away and making up stuff about "special treatment". They now have a legitimate excuse for not providing proof, and possibly perpetuating a hoax. The matter was handled very very poorly by the lawmakers involved. The biases from the law are apparent in the comments given to the news. There is no other evidence they can offer other than allowing independent testers to come in and collect biological samples.

We don't know what studies this company has performed; we cannot establish wether or not the risk was justified at this point. The only forseeable risk that I can say would be the death of an embryo. I think abortion isn't a terribly nice thing, but it happens all the time and is completely legal. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, if the baby appears healthy and has been born, there should be no talk (at this point) of taking it away, because there is no justifiable reason. The bioethical/clinical/scientific conduct of Clonaid is a separate issue, which I am sure will eventually be investigated.

Even after 20 years of studies on animal cloning there will be considerable risk to the first human clone. There is a first time for everything (IVF, man on the moon etc.). Someone is going to do it eventually, and there will *never* be a point where everybody will collectivley stand up and say "Yup, we're sure we know everything there is to know now, we are confident we will not waste a potential human life in our first cloning experiment.".

Was it it a sound risk to take at this point with the knowledge Clonaid might have? There is only a handful of people that really know; and if Brigette is telling the whole truth, I'd say the risk was sound. History will hopefully let the rest of us know soon enough.

I think this thread is wraping up end and I would like to summarize the points I have hopefully made clear about cloning:

1. Human cloning is entirely forseeable. Comparing it , like one poster did, to cold fusion is non-sequitur.

2. There is no magical way of determining the viability of clone that appears normal at birth other than by waiting and watching and practicing pretty much standard medicine.

3. Testing to see if a clone is truly a clone is relativley simple. But extreme care and caution has to be taken in obtaining samples (as Randi had pointed out in a published quote) for the obivous reason that DNA-based methods will not differentiate between the DNA of the donor and the clone.

4. Succesfully birthed animals which have been cloned appear *not* to show higher rates of birth defects or be 'perpetually sick' and are capable of normal reproduction. It will be a few years before we have any ideas of the long term effects of cloning on an animal life vs. normaly concieved ones vs. IVF. No one sees any glaring problems right now (Jan 2003).

5. Pre-birth dysfunction of cloned embryos occurs at a higher rate than normal embryos. Many of these embryos are naturally or artifically aborted before delivery. At least one probable cause is the epigenetic factors invovled in the conception process. This is a separate issue than the viability of succesfully birthed clones.

6. Most molecular biology that is known about clones (teleomere length etc.) has no meaning to clincally practiced medicine.

7. The health consequences to a human clone are not at all obvious or known right now. The data suggest that a successfully birthed human clone would not be more likely to suffer from birth defects than a succesfully birthed normally concieved human.

[rwald]

The study you cited shows that 50% of born clones had health problems. That's a ratio which could be accepted in animal research, but not in human research.

[gmol]

Huh? Where did you get that figure from?

Look at at table 1,
I haven't calculated the the mean defect rate across specie/study but the majority showed a normalcy rate of greater than 80% (lots of 100s). Only some of the defects were lethal.

They total the number of animals across each specie and determine the total normalcy rate (not a terribly great measure across studies and species) to be 77%. I don't know what the "normal" normalcy rate is, but I'd bet it's right around there.

[Hazelip]

gmol, why are you working so hard at being a Raelian spin doctor or apologist? What's your interest here?

You're being bludgeoned with facts and yet you persist in defending a group of people who have made three claims of scientific importance but have as of yet to provide a single bit of proof. How can you be so consistently and willfully ignorant?

[pupdog]

A Letter from G. Schatten, R. Prather, & I. Wilmut in 17 January 2003 SCIENCE magazine makes a very good case why the Raelians' claim for birth of a clone should be viewed as "science fiction, not science."

Same issue had a few paragraphs on the lovely :eek: Brigitte Boisselier, holder of 2 PhDs (chemistry)-- apparently she was repectable before joining the cult. So here's another case of a scientist, who should know better, hopping onto the carousel of looneyness. She claims "there are plenty of embryos" of her. Yow!

[kittynh]

I think the Raelians are full of it...
but I do think very soon we will have a real cloned baby. There are enough places in this world that are more than willing to allow it. I remember the excitement when the pet kitty was cloned. I have friends that are saving up to have their pets cloned when they die. If people are this crazy about pets, imagine how they would feel about a baby. One mom said she plans of saving hair from her kids so they can be cloned if they die in an accident...I know enough to figure it might take more than a hair sample, but the sad part is this woman doesn't care about defects! Where there are large sums of money, there will be a clone.

[gmol]

If you read my posts you'll see that I am certainly no apologist.
MOst of the thre thread was talking about the cloning in general irresspective of the raelians...
I think that even rwald would agree that I disproved many of his initial assertions.

Originally posted by Hazelip
gmol, why are you working so hard at being a Raelian spin doctor or apologist? What's your interest here?

You're being bludgeoned with facts and yet you persist in defending a group of people who have made three claims of scientific importance but have as of yet to provide a single bit of proof. How can you be so consistently and willfully ignorant?

[gmol]

Well I looked at their website yesterday, and if that were the only source of information then I would not even think twice about it being a hoax.

But the fact is that they have made a satement on public record. Yes, this could be one of the best trolls in history, but just as the law took their claim seriously; I think it's fair that the rest of us do until it has been shown otherwise.

Originally posted by pupdog
A Letter from G. Schatten, R. Prather, & I. Wilmut in 17 January 2003 SCIENCE magazine makes a very good case why the Raelians' claim for birth of a clone should be viewed as "science fiction, not science."

Same issue had a few paragraphs on the lovely :eek: Brigitte Boisselier, holder of 2 PhDs (chemistry)-- apparently she was repectable before joining the cult. So here's another case of a scientist, who should know better, hopping onto the carousel of looneyness. She claims "there are plenty of embryos" of her. Yow!

[smittypap]

IT'S A CULT, YOU BOOB! Their sole purpose of existence is to create incredible stories and try to get gullible and vulnerable people to believe them.

Sheesh! Does no one consider the source anymore?

[gmol]

If you know a little history about them, you'll know that they have had (and have now, as far as I know) a real research facillity; where they have microscopes, ordering cell culture media etc.
You don't need a hell of a lot more to do research. As such, it is fair to take their claim seriously until we have proof otherwise.

[tcwolf]

I hate the media and how it will put any old psycho up in the face of the world.

I have no doubt in the world's technology to create a working human clone baby, but to think that a group like the Raelian's could concieve and work to create one - that's ludicras.

Aren't they suppose to be dead yet? Weren't they planning some mass suicide or something some short time ago towards the end of the year?

So let me make sure I got this right - The Raelians (a group of people who's beliefs are based on a journalist's interview with an extraterrestiral in a field for six days) has claimed that they made a human clone?

Uh huh...

[gmol]

Geeze you guys are making me sound like a Raelian defender, but the the comments thus far have been rife with unsound reasoning and bias.

This Brigette woman holds two PhDs, and it (I have no idea what her previous work was, but I've read biochemistry) is is entirely plausible that she could setup a research facility with a just a few mil (which I think the Raelians do have), hire some additional scientists and technicians and competently direct research. I see what kind of biotech companies people invest in these days, I have no doubt what so ever they could collect more than enough venture capital to start.

Originally posted by tcwolf
I hate the media and how it will put any old psycho up in the face of the world.

I have no doubt in the world's technology to create a working human clone baby, but to think that a group like the Raelian's could concieve and work to create one - that's ludicras.

Aren't they suppose to be dead yet? Weren't they planning some mass suicide or something some short time ago towards the end of the year?

So let me make sure I got this right - The Raelians (a group of people who's beliefs are based on a journalist's interview with an extraterrestiral in a field for six days) has claimed that they made a human clone?

Uh huh...

[smittypap]

And let's not forget that their goal is to accelerate the cloning process so that they can clone themselves as fully grown 18-year-olds (as their alien friends do) and download their memories into their own clones' minds to achieve eternal life. I'm sure that sometime soon their gloriuos leader will reveal that he himself is not an original but a third orfourth generation clone with transferred memories. Shall we then discuss the merits of giving him the benefit of the doubt?

[gmol]

That's certainly very good reason to be suspicious.
But given that they have had the courage to stand up and make a public statment (and of course subject themselves to the legal mess that I am sure they knew would ensue), and that they have the potential (=money and maybe brains); why do you think the law is taking their claim seriously? Because it might be true.

Remember it's not clear who was doing the research and where the money came from, only that Clonaid was founded by the movement. The researchers involved in this were not nessecarily Raelians, and it's easy to think that they could have obtained lots and lots of money through standard methods other startups do.


Originally posted by smittypap
And let's not forget that their goal is to accelerate the cloning process so that they can clone themselves as fully grown 18-year-olds (as their alien friends do) and download their memories into their own clones' minds to achieve eternal life. I'm sure that sometime soon their gloriuos leader will reveal that he himself is not an original but a third orfourth generation clone with transferred memories. Shall we then discuss the merits of giving him the benefit of the doubt?

[smittypap]

Originally posted by gmol
Remember it's not clear who was doing the research and where the money came from, only that Clonaid was founded by the movement. The researchers involved in this were not nessecarily Raelians, and it's easy to think that they could have obtained lots and lots of money through standard methods other startups do.


It's "easy to think" lots of things, isn't it?

[gmol]

Well I know a lot of people in biotech, and there are companies who are getting money for far less grand things than what Clonaid is promising. A few millions of dollars would be easy for a cult to obtain given what they are 'selling' to investors. Doesn't that TM guy have about a billion? Research isn't as expensive as you might think.

Originally posted by smittypap


It's "easy to think" lots of things, isn't it?

[Torlack]

I don't care if these people hold 123590 PhDs and all have 15 heads each. Until they provide proof of their claim, there is no reason to cut them any slack.

If a group of "accepted" scientist came out and tried this stunt, they would be given a fair amount of slack. But that would be quickly taken away once they refused to submit their findings for review and verification.

Remember "Cold Fusion" in the mid 90s?

[gmol]

Ack! I've said this a billion times in this thread:

They cannot provide proof until an unaffiliated somone sees and collects samples form the clone. The fact that a US judge is already threating to take a baby away which (by their own claim) was not concieved or born on US soil gives them a legitmate excuse to not let anyone know where the baby is, which makes it very difficult to test. You cannot reasonably fault clonaid for not providing proof and the parents for being evil, at the same time!


On the assumption that the baby is real (forgetting about wether or not it is a clone), if it was my baby, I would not let anyone know where it was either; given people are going to try to take it away. It may be an IVF baby, but the parents may think it is a clone. Put yourself in those parents shoes, all they know for sure is that they have a baby; they are taking a fair course of action.

We would've had a better idea wether or not this was a hoax if they were allowed to complete their own voluntary independant testing within the one week time frame clonaid had initially specified without hollering and misleading the public about the 'special needs' of a cloned baby and comparisons to abusive parents.

There is that stupid cold fusion comparison again. Those scientists *did* publish their findings (I think their paper got fasttracked right?) and people quickly found out that they were lying when they tried to repeat their experiments; which they had outlined in their paper. How in anyway is cold fusion comparable to what is happening with clonaid?

Originally posted by Torlack
I don't care if these people hold 123590 PhDs and all have 15 heads each. Until they provide proof of their claim, there is no reason to cut them any slack.

If a group of "accepted" scientist came out and tried this stunt, they would be given a fair amount of slack. But that would be quickly taken away once they refused to submit their findings for review and verification.

Remember "Cold Fusion" in the mid 90s?

[rwald]

WHY CAN'T THEY TAKE IT TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND HAVE IT TESTED THERE?

[Andonyx]

Forgive my intrusion....

But as far as the Raelian claims are concerned....well, really.....WHO CARES?!?!?

Normally I find that, "who cares," approach a cop-out. But in this case I really find it the only logical course of..errr....non-action.

The Raelians made an extraordinary claim. And regardless of the actual viablility of cloning a human being healthy or otherwise. Anytime you announce a scientific achievment that involves moving theory into practice before anyone else in the scientific community makes the claim, it is by nature an extraordinary claim.

The claim was made, and like any claim must be treated with an appropriate level of skepticism...

And it can't be unless the appropriate tests are done.

If they can't be done...end of claim.

And that's the way the news should have handled it. Clone-aid in association with a religious group makes claim of cloning a human being. We'll update you further as the situation warrants.

And so far the situation does NOT warrant it.

And that's really all the thought I need to devote to the matter.

edited for some typos

[gmol]

YOU DON'T HAVE TO YELL.
BTW Thanks for politely conceding the errors you have made in the discussion thus far.

Which country do you suggest?
France?
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/20/france.cloning/
England? http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/11/05/cloning/
Germany?
(not allowed to do research on human embroys)
Japan?
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v404/n6776/full/404321a0_fs.html

Last I knew, most other countries (i.e. Canada) have laws which are in the process of being passed. I wouldn't feel safe doing my testing in any of those countires lest I be arrested.

I believe there are a few countries where the claim could be tested, but alas, there isn't much point in doing unless it is in the "first world"...

Originally posted by rwald
WHY CAN'T THEY TAKE IT TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND HAVE IT TESTED THERE?

[gmol]

I agree with you. The problem is that people here do not seem to realize that the claim cannot fairly be tested at this point for legitimate reasons, and the calls for taking the baby away are unwarranted. This thread brought up some serious misconceptions about cloning so far, which I hope have been fairly debunked; as such it was worth discussing.

Originally posted by Andonyx
Forgive my intrusion....

But as far as the Raelian claims are concerned....well, really.....WHO CARES?!?!?

Normally I find that, "who cares," approach a cop-out. But in this case I really find it the only logical course of..errr....non-action.

The Raelians made an extraordinary claim. And regardless of the actual viablility of cloning a human being healthy or otherwise. Anytime you announce a scientific achievment that involves moving theory into practice before anyone else in the scientific community makes the claim, it is by nature an extraordinary claim.

The claim was made, and like any claim must be treated with an appropriate level of skepticism...

And it can't be unless the appropriate tests are done.

If they can't be done...end of claim.

And that's the way the news should have handled it. Clone-aid in association with a religious group makes claim of cloning a human being. We'll update you further as the situation warrants.

And so far the situation does NOT warrant it.

And that's really all the thought I need to devote to the matter.

edited for some typos

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by gmol
I agree with you. The problem is that people here do not seem to realize that the claim cannot fairly be tested at this point for legitimate reasons, and the calls for taking the baby away are unwarranted.


I don't think anyone can say the reasons for not testing are indeed legitimate.

We don't even know that a baby exists, let alone that it is a clone. If we did, we could then properly weigh the evidence for testing and against testing. But if they will not in anyway choose to substantiate their claims, you cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever, for or against their reasoning.

Edited to add:

Because at this point the idea that they are not testing because of concern for the child is no stronger than the evidence that they are not testing because they simply lied.

Both motivations have equal evidence in regards to this specific case.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by gmol
There is that stupid cold fusion comparison again. Those scientists *did* publish their findings (I think their paper got fasttracked right?) and people quickly found out that they were lying when they tried to repeat their experiments; which they had outlined in their paper. How in anyway is cold fusion comparable to what is happening with clonaid?



Wrong. Go read the book Voodoo Science. Now.

They did not publish a paper until long after people began attempting to reproduce their "results". There was such a lack of information that other physicists were using the width of the wrist of one of the University of Utah physicists as a measuring reference to reconstruct their apparatus. They didn't even publish that...

You are astoundingly adept at self-delusion...

Here's how this works, and it's the last time I'm going to tell you.

Someone makes a claim of a scientific achievement never before seen.
Someone then promises proof.
People wait until the two or three weeks pass for said proof.
No proof appears.
No proof = no scientific achievement. End of discussion.

This whole sideshow bit you've got about the Florida attorney is just stupid. The suit wasn't even brought until after the Clonaid people missed their self-imposed deadline to present proof.

But, since you're so forgiving, I'll give you a lesson. Since they have PHDs and lab coats and money...

I have feet and I can walk. I've recently discovered how to walk on water. I'm afraid of tripping, so there will never be any demonstrations of this ability, but trust me. I can do it. I have feet and I know how to walk...

[gmol]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hazelip


Wrong. Go read the book Voodoo Science. Now.

They did not publish a paper until long after people began attempting to reproduce their "results". There was such a lack of information that other physicists were using the width of the wrist of one of the University of Utah physicists as a measuring reference to reconstruct their apparatus. They didn't even publish that...

You are astoundingly adept at self-delusion...


Ah you are correct, I must've had it mixed up with some other fast tracked publication that was eventually debunked. And mind toning down the insults?


Here's how this works, and it's the last time I'm going to tell you.

Someone makes a claim of a scientific achievement never before seen.
Someone then promises proof.
People wait until the two or three weeks pass for said proof.
No proof appears.
No proof = no scientific achievement. End of discussion.

Thank you for educating me on the scientific process, I am familliar with it. I have to keep repeating this, it is not my claim that they have cloned a baby. It is my claim that they have not prooved it yet, and so far, and they have a fair excuse in not allowing anyone to see the baby; lest it get taken away from its' parents.
Presuming this isn't just a simple fib, there is a baby, and even if the claim is fraudulent, there should be no talk about taking it away from the parents at this point.



This whole sideshow bit you've got about the Florida attorney is just stupid. The suit wasn't even brought until after the Clonaid people missed their self-imposed deadline to present proof.

...

Here's where you are wrong:

As you know the annoucment was made on the morning of the 28th, (I don't believe the independant testing was to start on the day of the annoucment but on the day after).

Rael's retraction for testing was made on Jan 3
(presumably he knew at the latest on Jan 2, given when the story was posted) when "Bernard Siegel, who wants a legal guardian appointed for the baby girl" has a hearing date set for Jan 22.
I don't know when the suit was filed and
I do not know who this attorney represents, anyone?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/01/03/clone.claims/


=29th,30th,31st,1st,2nd
= 5 days

= less time than they had asked for.
(originally it was 8-9)http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/12/27/human.cloning/

[Hazelip]

Their using the lawsuit as an excuse is a smokescreen!

Look, countries around the globe have been banning one form of human genetic testing after another for years preceding their announcement. They had to know that there were going to be some kind of legal repercussions. The fact that what they had to surely know was going to happen, has happened is no excuse.

They need to pony up the proof. There has not been any reason at all to provide any benefit of doubt here. There is, however, plenty of reason to doubt.

Are you a Raelian, by any chance?

[Morchella]

GMOL what a dupe you are. There never was a baby and never will be from those crackpots. They just want to bilk money from people like you who give credence to their claim. The money you send doesn't go to research but to buy Rael 99 new Rolls Royces. I knew from the get go that those seven to ten days were only a delay tactic to keep the media frenzy going. Will you will never get it GMOL? Rael loves all the attention so he can show off his nifty space outfit and cute hairdoo.

[gmol]

It seems like you people obviously don't read what people are writing. I am not a Raelian, and I am not sure that there is a baby; read the comments. I don't think Rael is getting off on the attention garnered by a thread on a message board.

My only point is to discuss how the matter was handled by other people; on the asssumption that this story is not a complete fib (which I have said all along, it may very well be). There isn't a terrible amount of discussion to be had on the assumption it is a complete fib. The mere discussing of this story from an objective viewpoint leads posters to call me a Raelian....give me a break.

And I can't believe how rwald and Hazelip don't even fairly acknowledge their own factual errors in discussion; bad form IMHO.

[gmol]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Their using the lawsuit as an excuse is a smokescreen!

Look, countries around the globe have been banning one form of human genetic testing after another for years preceding their announcement.


Nobody is banning "human genetic testing", it's done all the time. People are banning reproductive cloning. Doing a genetic test in a country where cloning was banned represents a risk to the parents, I can see why they wouldn't want to do it.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by gmol
[B]My only point is to discuss how the matter was handled by other people; on the asssumption that this story is not a complete fib (which I have said all along, it may very well be).

The mere discussing of this story from an objective viewpoint leads posters to call me a Raelian....give me a break.

Not to take sides, but this is the problem here. These two statements are mutually exclusive.

By assuming the child was cloned, you are no longer taking an objective viewpoint.

[gmol]

Originally posted by Huntsman




Not to take sides, but this is the problem here. These two statements are mutually exclusive.

By assuming the child was cloned, you are no longer taking an objective viewpoint.

You're statement doesn't evaluate with me, how in the bloody world are those two statements mutually exclusive?

As a counter example to your claim, here is an objective viewpoint based on the assumption that the child was cloned:

On the assumption that the child was cloned, long term health studies should be conducted to further understand the effects of cloning on aging.



Besides, the assumption I stated is that the story is "not a complete fib", intending was that it is reasonable (and probably lawful) to assume that there was a child birthed based on the public statement. I have never made the assumption that the child was cloned. Between dispelling some patently wrong misconceptions about animal cloning and trying to prove I am not a Raeian, my orignal thesis was that the media and law have not handled the matter productively; in the interest of a presumed child.

[xouper]

bump