Quoting:
but it seems kind of a waste considering we're not having problems keeping the human race from extinction right now.


End Quote

In Europe they are, not yet but soon.  Look at the population projections.

Quoting:


... you're absolutely right...

But who wants to play: "Guess how many people the planet can hold before we all run out of its essential resources?"

http://www.nidi.nl/research/prj70201.html
End Quote

 The planet can hold a lot more people than we have right now. The "we are running out of resources" is just a scam ran enviromental groups because it supports their cause.  besides I think population growth is healthy.  Here is an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/worldpop.html

Quoting:


 The planet can hold a lot more people than we have right now. The "we are running out of resources" is just a scam ran enviromental groups because it supports their cause.  besides I think population growth is healthy.  Here is an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/worldpop.html
End Quote

In that case, methinks they could do a much better job of allocating these plentiful resources...don't you?  ;)

Quoting:


 The planet can hold a lot more people than we have right now. The "we are running out of resources" is just a scam ran enviromental groups because it supports their cause.  besides I think population growth is healthy.  Here is an interesting article on the subject:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/worldpop.html
End Quote

Former US Senator Paul Simon wrote a book where he claims one of the BIGGEST problems we will face in our generation will be the need for water in places like the middle east. You think they hate each other now, wait til they can not get anything to drink.

And a question. Why do you think population growth is good? I have been to big cities, and to little ones. Personally, I do not like the idea of being crammed in a small apartment for 2k a month (the going rate in downtown SF). For that money you could get a mortgage on a 2000 square foot house in the burbs.

Quoting:
Personally, I do not like the idea of being crammed in a small apartment for 2k a month (the going rate in downtown SF). For that money you could get a mortgage on a 2000 square foot house in the burbs.
End Quote

Or a sweet house in North Carolina...which I had during grad school :)  I didn't know you were in SF, John.

Quoting:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/hsn/20021127/hl_hsn/health_highlights__nov__nbsp_26__nbsp_2002

I knew it would happen some day. I just didn't think it would happen now.  Thoughts?
End Quote

I think it is too early to do this. I remembered watching something on TLC or Discovery where doctors and scientists agreed that any human cloned now will probably have a very short life expectancy. If that is the case, I think it is sick to clone a life that will ultimatly die very young.

As for the technology, I think we should have it. Anything that will help fight against diseases and aging is good. But we should do it in an ethical manner. Not just do it to be the first one.

BTW, what do you think they will name the baby?

Quoting:

The scariest thing is the 1st cloned human is going to be Italian! :o ;)
End Quote

Let's name him Guido then

Quoting:


Let's name him Guido then
End Quote

Quoting:
Saw it in the paper.  Disgusting, isn't it?
End Quote

I agree.  

Quoting:

I knew it would happen some day. I just didn't think it would happen now.  Thoughts?
End Quote

Well, I am a Scientist (before I got certified in Computer Networks, I earned a degree in Physical Sciences) and as a scientist, I have to say I am against this.

Whether we like it or not, the human species is still evolving.  Our environment is in a continual state of flux and we are subject to those changes.  When the environment changes, we must have a pre-existing quality within our genetic make-up which will allow for an adaptation.  The problem with cloning is that evolution and the ability to adapt are at least slowed down and at worst, stopped.

Imagine this: You invent a time machine and go back 1000 years and bring someone back to the present day.  How long would that person survive?  Chances are not very long.  Our atmosphere is not that same nor are the prevalent diseases that we face.

Today, we are mostly descended from people who survived the Black Plague and other epedemics like the Italian Flu during World War I.  Thus, our ancestors passed along to us  immune systems that are much more robust and hardened than 1000 years ago.  Diseases that we might consider to be no more than common colds could very well have been lethal to someone from 1002.  But, because of random dispersion of genes through normal reproduction and because of Natural Selection, the human species evolves ever so slightly over each generation.

Cloning would bring such an evolution to a halt.  Who is to say that a genetic make-up of today will be viable 50 years from now?  No one can.

I can't say whether or not cloning should be banned.  But, from an objective scientific point of view, I can safely say that we have not even begun to contemplate the various problems and issues that cloning will bring with it.

MCSEGuy

Quoting:

Isn't anyone else a little bothered by "scientific inevitability"?  We have the technology so let's use it?  
End Quote

I think it's good to know how to get out of a worst-case scenario if you're ever in one, but for everyday purposes, let's leave this technology in the warehouse with the Ark of the Covenant.

Quoting:

Dr. Irving L. Weissman, an expert on stem cells at Stanford University, said that making mice with human cells could be "an enormously important experiment," but if conducted carelessly could lead to outcomes that are "too horrible to contemplate." He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells.


Brave new world, indeed.
End Quote

I actually knew Irv and worked down the hall from one of his understudies at Duke.  I believe the research is feasible, but unnecessary.  But if anyone knows how to properly apply a technology, Irv is the man.

For the record, I don't subscribe to the NY Times, so I can't access the link...moneygrubbing &#^$

Quoting:
I'm ambivalent about my feelings. I think it's both exciting and frightening at the same time!!!  ???
End Quote

I agree. Look at nuclear technology. Great energy source. Just depends on who is using it and for what end. I think it is the same for cloning and stem cell research. The potential for good is HUGE, such as curing certain diseases like cancer. But get some politician involved, and look out, who knows what the knowledge will be used for.

Quoting:


I actually knew Irv and worked down the hall from one of his understudies at Duke.  I believe the research is feasible, but unnecessary.  But if anyone knows how to properly apply a technology, Irv is the man.

For the record, I don't subscribe to the NY Times, so I can't access the link...moneygrubbing &#^$
End Quote

It's didn't cost me nothing to become an on-line user, Earl.  They just want you to tell them some things about yourself.http://www.clicksmilie.de/sammlung/alles_moegliche/allesmoegliche009.gif


Guess for the sake of science and progress we should all be thankful the Stanford's scientist's name is Weissman and not Moreau.

Quoting:

Guess for the sake of science and progress we should all be thankful the Stanford's scientist's name is Weissman and not Moreau.
End Quote

He's a very smart and compassionate scientist, Steve.  He knows what he's doing, unlike some of the yahoos out there.  That's one of the reasons he is so respected, he doesn't just shoot his mouth off without something to back it up.

Quoting:
It would be interesting..if not scary to see what will happen racially between clones and people of natual birth. We've been fighting and killing eachother for years because of race, imagine what would happen if there was a new race among us. Especially if everyone is against the process from the beginning.
End Quote

You've been watching the Sci-Fi channel too much.  ;D

Quoting:


He's a very smart and compassionate scientist, Steve.  He knows what he's doing, unlike some of the yahoos out there.  That's one of the reasons he is so respected, he doesn't just shoot his mouth off without something to back it up.
End Quote

I'll take your word for it, Earl.  Unfortunately the yahoos tend to outnumber their rivals.  In my smartass way, I was just trying to say how much this resembles HG Wells' The Island of Dr. Moreau.  

Quoting:


Today, we are mostly descended from people who survived the Black Plague and other epedemics like the Italian Flu during World War I.  Thus, our ancestors passed along to us  immune systems that are much more robust and hardened than 1000 years ago.  Diseases that we might consider to be no more than common colds could very well have been lethal to someone from 1002.  But, because of random dispersion of genes through normal reproduction and because of Natural Selection, the human species evolves ever so slightly over each generation.

Cloning would bring such an evolution to a halt.  Who is to say that a genetic make-up of today will be viable 50 years from now?  No one can.

I can't say whether or not cloning should be banned.  But, from an objective scientific point of view, I can safely say that we have not even begun to contemplate the various problems and issues that cloning will bring with it.

MCSEGuy
End Quote

Is disease resistance encoded in DNA?  I don't know enough about DNA, I guess.  And would limited cloning really affect gene dispersion and natural selection?  
I knew a woman who died this year.  She was thirty years old.  Four years ago she was in a terrible automobile accident.  She died because of kidney failure. Because of the damage done from the accident she was not a candidate for kidney transplant.  If cloning technology would lead to our ability to create healthy tissue to graft onto damaged tissue, without having to worry about and safeguard against rejection, I'm for it.  

Quoting:


Is disease resistance encoded in DNA?  I don't know enough about DNA, I guess.  And would limited cloning really affect gene dispersion and natural selection?  
I knew a woman who died this year.  She was thirty years old.  Four years ago she was in a terrible automobile accident.  She died because of kidney failure. Because of the damage done from the accident she was not a candidate for kidney transplant.  If cloning technology would lead to our ability to create healthy tissue to graft onto damaged tissue, without having to worry about and safeguard against rejection, I'm for it.  
End Quote

Resistance to may diseases is encoded in DNA. It is DNA which determines how much of certain enzymes are produced. It is enzymes which control chemical reactions in the body (they speed them up or slow them down). For example, if someone has an immune system which makes a special kind of anti-body, and they survive something like a plauge, and that person mates with another who also survived, then they will pass on those genes to their childern which will be resistant to that disease. The problem with this scenerio is that bacteria evolves quicker than we do. Perhaps someone who is long and dead has certain immunities to diseases yet to come. For that reason, I do not believe anyone can look into the crystal ball and decide if cloning on that basis is good.

What is good is the techniques which will be learned. DNA engineering is a method of altering human DNA with sequences of DNA which contain benifits we want to place in somebody. Imaging if you have a tough cancer, but it is discovered that certain people with gene X are resistant to that cancer. DNA engineering would allow researchers to that that strand of DNA X and inject it in your DNA, which may help you fight your cancer. Lots of research is needed in this discipline for breakthroughs to be made. The potential for good is huge.

Quoting:
About a year ago I read a book which I think was called The Coming Plague.  I carried away the impression that "bugs" are, collectively, a hell of a lot smarter than us.  Even with a plague-resistant DNA strand, wouldn't we be in just as much danger from any number of other opportunistic micro-organisms?  
We may evolve and adapt, but apparently not quite quick enough.  Into the breach come antibiotics.  They're effective for a while, but the bugs are tireless adapters.  They mutate to negate the antibiotic barriers.  So we create yet more antibiotics, and the process repeats itself.  Ultimately, there are no more antibiotics to create, and then we're in deep shi...
End Quote

Natural selection at work, Steve.  Maybe nature is trying to tell us something...?  Maybe the bacteria are helping to choose the most suitable humans to survive?  I guess I'll never know...but I choose not to underestimate human ingenuity, spirit, and the beautiful machine that is the human body.

Now, if only they'd use this for good...instead of evil.

Quoting:


Natural selection at work, Steve.  Maybe nature is trying to tell us something...?  Maybe the bacteria are helping to choose the most suitable humans to survive?  I guess I'll never know...but I choose not to underestimate human ingenuity, spirit, and the beautiful machine that is the human body.

Now, if only they'd use this for good...instead of evil.
End Quote

Tell us what, Earl?  Your time is up?  You guys had a good run, but now it's your time to climb up on that shelf between the trilobites and the dinosaurs?
Talking about bugs is very depressing, especially for someone with as limited practical knowledge as I have.  Guess it's some comfort that you guys who know more about it are more optimistic than I am.

Quoting:
Guess it's some comfort that you guys who know more about it are more optimistic than I am.
End Quote

Gotta have faith, Steve.  It's perfectly natural to be skeptical of new inventions and technologies, and the change that comes about because of them.  Unfortunately, it's the fear of change and stuff that you don't understand that leads to wars and people doing dumb sh*t.

Quoting:


Gotta have faith, Steve.  It's perfectly natural to be skeptical of new inventions and technologies, and the change that comes about because of them.  Unfortunately, it's the fear of change and stuff that you don't understand that leads to wars and people doing dumb sh*t.
End Quote

Thank ye for the kind words, Earl, but now I'm bummed about the bugs.  Cloning and genetic manipulation is one thing, but them bugs are in a whole different category.  

Quoting:


Thank ye for the kind words, Earl, but now I'm bummed about the bugs.  Cloning and genetic manipulation is one thing, but them bugs are in a whole different category.  
End Quote

The bugs are under control.  Considering that the CDC and the FDA are so anal retentive, and medical technology is getting better every day...I see very little to worry about.  The media blows this stuff way out of proportion, and some of the scientists do too.  I guess it's because of all the post-apocalyptic sci-fi they grew up with.  They should've been watching the Star Trekkie sci-fi instead...at least that's more positive and full of hope.

Quoting:
About a year ago I read a book which I think was called The Coming Plague.  I carried away the impression that "bugs" are, collectively, a hell of a lot smarter than us.  Even with a plague-resistant DNA strand, wouldn't we be in just as much danger from any number of other opportunistic micro-organisms?  
We may evolve and adapt, but apparently not quite quick enough.  Into the breach come antibiotics.  They're effective for a while, but the bugs are tireless adapters.  They mutate to negate the antibiotic barriers.  So we create yet more antibiotics, and the process repeats itself.  Ultimately, there are no more antibiotics to create, and then we're in deep shi...
End Quote

I saw a TV report about a related topic. It was about doctors who prescribe antibiotics way too much. If you get a cold, and your doctor prescribes an antibiotic, your body may kill 99.9% of the bacteria in your body, but that 0.1% that lives is most likely resistant to penicilin. So that 0.1% is fruitful and multiplies, and the next time you get a cold, and get penicilin, it kills 98% of the bacteria. The bacteria keeps getting more and more resistant. Then you break out in a rash and get Amoxicilin (another type of anti-biotic). Soon, after 100's of generations of more and more resistant bacteria, you get a suber resistant bacteria which is immune to antibiotics. That could be worse than a plauge.

Quoting:


I saw a TV report about a related topic. It was about doctors who prescribe antibiotics way too much. If you get a cold, and your doctor prescribes an antibiotic, your body may kill 99.9% of the bacteria in your body, but that 0.1% that lives is most likely resistant to penicilin. So that 0.1% is fruitful and multiplies, and the next time you get a cold, and get penicilin, it kills 98% of the bacteria. The bacteria keeps getting more and more resistant. Then you break out in a rash and get Amoxicilin (another type of anti-biotic). Soon, after 100's of generations of more and more resistant bacteria, you get a suber resistant bacteria which is immune to antibiotics. That could be worse than a plauge.
End Quote

I think the point is to weaken the 99.9% of bacteria so your immune system can focus on the 0.1%.  Doctors really can't do much, it's mostly up to you and your body ;)

Quoting:


I think the point is to weaken the 99.9% of bacteria so your immune system can focus on the 0.1%.  Doctors really can't do much, it's mostly up to you and your body ;)
End Quote

All that antibiotics do is tell your body there is an unwanted foriegn substance in your body. Every cellular object in your body (including bacteria) has a membrane, and sticking through that membrane are protiens which identify that specific cell. Antibiotics help the body recognize that specific protien structure, and as a result, the Killer-T cells can gobble them up and remove them from the blood stream. So your body does 100% of the work. The antibiotics do not kill the bacteria directly.

Quoting:

All that antibiotics do is tell your body there is an unwanted foriegn substance in your body. Every cellular object in your body (including bacteria) has a membrane, and sticking through that membrane are protiens which identify that specific cell. Antibiotics help the body recognize that specific protien structure, and as a result, the Killer-T cells can gobble them up and remove them from the blood stream. So your body does 100% of the work. The antibiotics do not kill the bacteria directly.
End Quote

That's not entirely true.  Antibiotics are special molecules that specifically break down bacterial cell walls but not eukaryotic (that is, mammalian) cell membranes.  That's why they only attack bacteria and the host is fine.  But once the bacteria are popped open, their foreign chemicals are released into the blood and that's when the immune system steps in.

Quoting:


That's not entirely true.  Antibiotics are special molecules that specifically break down bacterial cell walls but not eukaryotic (that is, mammalian) cell membranes.  That's why they only attack bacteria and the host is fine.  But once the bacteria are popped open, their foreign chemicals are released into the blood and that's when the immune system steps in.
End Quote

I thought antibiotics were dead or near dead bacteria. I am pretty sure penicillin is the growth on rotting oranges skin. I did not know there were antibiotics which were chemicals that attacked bacteria's. Where did you get that info?

Quoting:


I thought antibiotics were dead or near dead bacteria. I am pretty sure penicillin is the growth on rotting oranges skin. I did not know there were antibiotics which were chemicals that attacked bacteria's. Where did you get that info?
End Quote

I think you got some bad info.  

What you are thinking of is a vaccine.  Vaccines are made up of weakened or dead viruses or bacteria, as you stated.  These are designed to elicit a primary immune response, but won't harm the host at all since the pathogens are weak.

What are know as "antibiotics" are usually chemicals from fungal species that are designed to attack only prokaryotic cell walls, but not fungal cell walls.  It's a specificity thing, but antibiotics are nowhere as sophisticated as the antibodies produced by your immune system.

You could do a google search for this if you desire.

Quoting:
What are know as "antibiotics" are usually chemicals from fungal species that are designed to attack only prokaryotic cell walls, but not fungal cell walls.  It's a specificity thing, but antibiotics are nowhere as sophisticated as the antibodies produced by your immune system.
End Quote

I learned something new today. Thanks.

So what you are saying is that antibiotics are chemical compunds which attack prokeryotic cell walls. So they are like a lysomes specifically designed to tear down a cell wall?

Quoting:


I learned something new today. Thanks.

So what you are saying is that antibiotics are chemical compunds which attack prokeryotic cell walls. So they are like a lysomes specifically designed to tear down a cell wall?
End Quote

They're actually pretty simple compounds, relatively speaking.  Whereas an antibody can comprise up to about 350 amino acids, a generic antibiotic only weighs about as much as two or three amino acids.  

Lysozyme is an enzyme that most animals make to tear down most bacterial cell walls without much specificity except for repeating motifs in the bacterial cell walls, whereas antibiotics have a more stringent specificity.  That's why once bacteria mutate, an antibiotic might not work anymore.

Antibiotics are mostly of fungal origin...that's why people in the old days ate moldy bread when they were sick ;)

PS - glad I could help, John :D

Quoting:
By the way, John, your points are valid.  Penicillin is no longer widely used because they overused it soon after it was discovered and bacteria no longer respond to it.  That's why they switched to Amoxicillin and Streptomycin.  
End Quote

So, Earl, where do we turn when the bugs figure out Amoxicillin and Streptomycin?

Quoting:
So, Earl, where do we turn when the bugs figure out Amoxicillin and Stretomycin?
End Quote

I believe this may already be an area of concern.

Quoting:


I believe this may already be an area of concern.
End Quote

Well, I guess we start freaking out then, eh?  :P

You raise an interesting concern, that drug design won't keep up with the degree of bacterial and viral mutation.  That's cool.  That's where genetics and immunological techniques come into play.  I'm still in a chicken-induced coma so you'll pardon me if I wake up before I say anything more... *UGH*

Quoting:


So, Earl, where do we turn when the bugs figure out Amoxicillin and Streptomycin?
End Quote

I believe the next steps may be genetic engineering. If they can take an empty virus cell and fill it with dna which we choose, program it to look for a specific receving cell, and empty out dna into that cell, then we will have control of the micro-organism world. Not to mention this is how they will fight many hereditary diseases.

Quoting:

I believe the next steps may be genetic engineering. If they can take an empty virus cell and fill it with dna which we choose, program it to look for a specific receving cell, and empty out dna into that cell, then we will have control of the micro-organism world. Not to mention this is how they will fight many hereditary diseases.
End Quote

They're working on that ;)  I think it'll be practical but they'd better know the genomes inside and out or some bad sh*t's gonna happen.

Quoting:
Control the micro-organism world?  Sounds like a Holy Grail kind of thing....  

I don't know, guys.  Controlling anything in the natural world seems beyond our abilities (has anyone seen photos of the Italian coast lately?)
End Quote

Is that where the oil spill is?  That must suck...apparently some rare bird got screwed up in that spill.

Quoting:
Yep.  And if we can't corral a couple gallons of 30-weight oil I don't know how we expect to ride herd on world teeming with vicious and intractable virii...
End Quote

Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you a hypochondriac, Steve?  Your body is more than capable of taking care of 99.9% of ANYTHING that nature can throw at you, so you really don't have much to worry about :)

The few cases of anthrax or ebola or West Nile are isolated cases...nowhere close to epidemics (save in Africa and Southeast Asia).  You should feel confident that you're more than safe from these "vicious" bugs :)

As for the oil tankers...the EU is the most "green" governing body ever, they're going to throw down on these oil spills and tighten regulations.  The world won't go to hell on one oil spill...even if it is hard to clean up.

Quoting:
I haven't been sick in 7 years, Earl.  Healthy as an ox...

Thanks to that thin defensive layer of amoxicin and steptomycin... (and my anti-bacterial hand soap, of course  ;))
End Quote

In that case they'd have no reason to prescribe antibiotics to you...your body certainly doesn't produce it, unless you haven't showered in those 7 years ;)

Funny thing...some wackjobs a few weeks ago published a study about how they thought anti-bacterial soap actually helped breed super-bacteria resistant to those soaps.  There might be some fact to that, but mostly I dismiss these "extreme findings" as idle speculation.

Quoting:
No reason to prescribe them now.  Now that they're still effective.  But what about in the future, when I'm laid low by a marauding horde of bactilli, and amoxicin and streptomicin are no longer effective?  
End Quote

Considering the advancements in pharmaceutical and pharmacological technologies I'd say you had nothing to worry about.  You probably already know how to avoid nasties like Salmonella (just don't eat bad cake) and botulism (icky cans).  Avoiding bad bacteria is sorta the same thing.  

Plus you already live with about 200 million bacteria (or more) inside you at any one time or another.  Those bugs just might outcompete any baddies that could come get you.  And if they don't help, well, like I said, put some faith in your body :)