​Seniors Matter(s): Eve!

Dec. 27, 2002, Brigitte Boisselier held a press conference in Florida, announcing the birth of the first human clone, called Eve.

Since I first learned about Eve and Dolly (first cloned sheep), I have been fascinated about the possibilities of rejuvenation.

Gene cloning is when a copy of DNA is inserted into a vector which is then able to be copied by the host; therapeutic cloning is when stem cells are cloned to treat disease and for research; and reproductive cloning is the creation of an animal identical to the donor and the one most referred to when talking about cloning which will be the focus.

Reproductive cloning is done by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) and the steps are as follows:
 

1. DNA is extracted from an adult animal cell (the donor)
2. DNA is inserted into an egg cell which had its nucleus removed
3. The embryo is activated or “zapped with electricity” until mitosis occurs
4. The embryo is then implanted into a surrogate mother

The process will be repeated until successful. The success rate in cloning animals is very low as only 95 per cent of the embryos survive.

When talking about cloning, the first issue raised is that humans are trying to play God and that this, combined with genetic modification, could have devastating consequences. Some scientists believe that only talented and gifted individuals would be cloned, and that society would split into two.

Another possibility is that clones would be considered sub-human (The President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002). In this case, where would they fit into society? They are at risk of being considered ‘products’ rather than human beings due to their origin.

Their identities would also pose a problem because they are identical to their donors and, as a result, they would be constantly compared to the “the original” and having to deal with expectations.

As many organisms in the planet approach endangerment and extinction, cloning appears to be a possible solution to restore populations. By utilizing the genetic material of already dead organisms, cloning can even expand gene pool diversity.

Aside from that, the cloning of extinct animals and their successful revival would also allow scientists to fully study the species as living organisms, instead of just studying their remains.

Although considered an artificial reproduction mode, cloning is widespread in a natural setting. The oldest form of cloning, asexual reproduction, is exhibited by various organisms, such as insects, and micro-organisms.

In September of 2017, an act called the “Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002” was created, banning all types of human cloning in Australia, much like many other countries. However the United Kingdom, China and Sweden allow for the creation of clonal embryos for research.

Currently, the cons are outweighing the pros, as cloning is still considered unethical and dangerous, as mentioned above, and for these reasons, human cloning is illegal in most countries, including Australia and the United States (U.S.), not allowing for this technology to be created.

Cloning has clear positives, it could possibly save lives, cure diseases, and replace organs and tissues. It also brings the possibility of getting back a loved one who has passed away.

A major advantage of cloning is that it can serve as a means to increase agricultural production, particularly livestock and fresh produce. By manipulating their biological processes, existing traits of interest are ensured with the absence of the genetic “lottery” and random arrangements in the genes during meiosis.

During cloning, the gene of interest, as well as the organism bearing that gene of interest, is replicated faster than those undergoing the natural process.

Because of this, the number of organisms produced at a given time also increases.

Cloning could completely change the way society functions and it might not be for the best. As Lee M. Silver highlighted: the possibility of humans born by natural means being overlooked is one of the scariest things. However, considering the other argument that clones might not be considered humans and seen as “products” also seems extremely unfair.

We are unsure of where clones would fit into society. They are still humans just not original ones so where does that place them? Nature versus nurture also plays a role. Would the clone act or think the same as the donor and be able to live up to expectations or would their similarities only go as far as their genetic make-up?

In my opinion whether its human or other animals being cloned, its unethical both to the original and to the clone. It takes away the right to individually and freedom, and places both at risk. In the case of an animal going extinct, I believe that careful consideration should be taken and only animals that have gone extinct due to human intervention should be cloned; however, it should be used as a last resort, due to the health risks.

Although cloning promises considerable advantages for research and industries, the end-point is only sometimes certain because of the high risks of losses and morbidity of organisms during their development. Aside from that, the mere process of cloning remains to be elucidated. The following are some of its most common cons.

Despite being genetically identical with each other, clones will not be the same regarding behavioural attributes. Aside from that, their similarities regarding physical appearance are not guaranteed. It is important to note that genetic material is not the sole determinant of these characteristics.

Chances that a pair of clones will be subjected to different habitats and have varying nutritional loads are very high; thus, imprinting different changes and contributions to each one. Dolly the sheep had abnormalities in her DNA (i.e., shortened telomeres), suggesting that some of her own cells bear the “age” of the source organisms.

To date, many scientists will agree that the process of cloning is not yet fully developed to be used to promote the conservation of species. Some researchers need to acknowledge cloning as it fails to recognize the main drivers of extinction in the first place: the destruction of habitats and hunting.

Critics also argue that even if cloning could help in desperate times, present techniques to execute these goals are deemed ineffective in making a difference. As compared with cloning domestic organisms (e.g., cattle), the process of cloning endangered species is more difficult and would likely take years (and even decades) to complete.

While there are many reasons why countless attempts to revive endangered and extinct species have failed, they all exhibited one major trouble: they were not exact copies of their supposed-to-be counterparts.

Overall, scientific research developments go faster than the actual and real needs of humans, who are the ultimate recipients of such progress. Because of that, there is a pressing need to determine whether such practical applications are timely or are, indeed, necessary for human survival.

To date, many people still believe that the process of cloning, itself, is not ethical. Many countries have prohibited all research and actual cloning processes. Nevertheless, the process of cloning is still up for further studies.

Nov. 16, 2022, UPSIDE Foods became the first company to receive acceptance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its lab-grown meat product. After rigorous testing and evaluation, the FDA has agreed with the company’s conclusion that the “cultivated” chicken is safe to eat.

This marks a major milestone in developing “cultured” or “cultivated” meat products. Although there currently needs to be lab-grown, cultivated meats for sale on the market, this is an important step that would eventually lead to such products becoming available in the near future.

Cultivated meat, also called lab-grown meat, is an innovative food product created from animal cells in a laboratory setting. This involves taking cells from an animal source and then growing them in a nutrient-rich environment so that they form the same type of meat that most people are used to eating — without the need for raising live animals.

It is not entirely clear yet if cultured meat products will be a healthy alternative to normal meats — some of which are closely linked to negative health effects, such as obesity, heart disease, and cancer.

Although the FDA has approved UPSIDE Foods’ cultivated chicken, it will still take some time before consumers can actually try and purchase the product.

Many other companies are also working on their own cultivated meat products, and it will be exciting to see what the future holds for this emerging industry. While I hope that science will enable me to replace a broken organ, I shudder at the plethora of possibilities for misuse.

‘Till next time!