Quoting:
I imagine it was an experiment looking at viability in regards to sheep-breeding. Australia has a LOT of sheep agriculture, but I don't know. I DO know that I'm glad this was a sheep they were mucking around with, and not a person.
End Quote

You said it dude.  Human cloning is baaaaaaaaaad news.

No pun intended.

Quoting:
I imagine it was an experiment looking at viability in regards to sheep-breeding. Australia has a LOT of sheep agriculture, but I don't know. I DO know that I'm glad this was a sheep they were mucking around with, and not a person.
End Quote

We stress our agriculture too much as it is.  

Quoting:
Good!

That should set them psycho-scientists back some good chunk of time, hopefully.
End Quote

I hope you're not implying that scientists are mad there, HS.

Quoting:
Although I am saddened by the sheep clone's tragic end, maybe it's a sign that doctors and scientists should not play God. Isn't that right, Hairspray? ;)
End Quote

I have to disagee IG. If doctors and scientists didn't "play God" as you put it, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages. The death of Matilda doesn't mean they're going to stop cloning animals to see what the effects of the technology are. It's just a setback. They're going to stop cloning because of this about as much as they're going to stop flying into space because of Columbia. My point was that we don't know enough about the side effects of the technology yet to start trying to clone people, like some have claimed to do.

Quoting:
nothing good?

human organs for transplant so liver, heart, and kidneys are sufficient

meat/milk for starving nations/children

live tissue for experimentation and research - instead of only having access to organ donors or experimenting on animals.


there are MANY good reasons for cloning, but all the press and discussion always centers on cloning pets, or relatives who die in a car accident, or a superior human being - if that's where the worries lie, then it needs merely to be controlled, not stopped or ignored entirely.

This is not a sci-fi movie set in the 23rd century with rogue leaders cloning armies.  It's just advancement in medical technology.End Quote

I agree with you here.  I think, if you follow the right path and the thousand points of light *snicker* this could be a viable and valuable technology.  Then you would not have to deal with host/donor type matching.  But...

Quoting:

If hypothetically, cloning finally becomes a valid option in, say, 2010, but the only reason it was delayed 5 years was because of protests and sci-fi fantasy stories, then all these protesters are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths that might have been saved - and it could be YOUR mother, father, sibling, husband, child, etc....

End Quote

Unless we step it up a notch, cloning won't be fully viable by then.  The reason?  Embryology, molecular biology and biochemistry still haven't figured out all the nitty gritty that makes a human "human".  Lots more work to be done dude.  And not to mention all the moral and ethical dilemmas that will arise from the use of "your headless clone" for body parts...

Quoting:
When you farm an organ from a dead body, it's deemed okay because theres not a breathing, feeling person there.  The brain is dead.  There is no thought.  In other words, a non-sentient being.  I see no difference in farming an organ from a headless clone who never WAS a human and never HAD feelings or thoughts.

End Quote

I agree with just about everything you said, Mr. Ayhab.  However, the thought of a headless clone...it just seems kinda grody to me :-X

I still think it should be pursued, but proceed with caution.  

Quoting:
If you could grow it in a petri dish, would it be that great of a leap to regrow/repair the organ in the body?
End Quote

No. I don't think it would.

Quoting:
In view of the obvious irreparable damage, maybe someone could grow Michael Jackson a new nose? ;D
End Quote

I'm afraid he's gonna have to get more than that...methinks some work should be done to switch his melanin-producing gene back to the "on" position  8)

Quoting:

There wouldn't even be a need to grow a headless body. With an advancement on the kind of technology they were using with this sheep, once you were diagnosed as needing some kind of transplant, you could have your own organs cloned, grown to the size required in a few weeks in an incubator and then implanted with next to no chance of organ rejection, because that new organ would be an exact copy of the old one.

{...}

End Quote

Reading this thread, I am put in mind of a science-fiction story that dealt with all the moral objections put forth so far.

It was in the Superman mythology.  Scientists on Krypton would create a clone of every citizen, and do something to switch off it's ability to become "alive".  It did have a head, becuase of the potential need for eyes, teeth ect.  In the story, a devastating civil war arose over "clone's rights" and "we shouldn't be playing god".

The end result was just what Goreripper has suggested.  The scientists found a way to clone only the damaged organ, and only on an as-needed basis.  No further need to destroy an unused clone when the original person died a naturaly death.

The only problem I forsee is this:  What happens if the organ damage is due to a genetic defect?  It will certainly be much more difficult for doctors/scientists to clone an organ that will not only be a tissue match, but will have corrected the defect.

I believe this is possible, but not anytime soon.  Possibly in my lifetime, definitely in my daughter's.  But not, say, next year.

Quoting:
Well, ABC News tonight revealed that what I thought was the subject of this thread, Dolly, was put to sleep at the age of 6.  She aged very rapidly and suffered from lung problems, so she had to be put down.
End Quote

Yes Dolly was destroyed. The original story for this thread came from a news report about the death of another cloned sheep called Matilda, that died for no obvious reason when she was still less than a year old.