[dkstories] On Cloning and Individuality

[dkstories]

I saw this article today on the bbc website and thought it appropo to Dreams of Humanity (for some odd reason).

 

 

BBC Cloning Story

[Red_A]

A note of caution about this twin study. There are 10,000 twins on the St Thomas (London) Twin register, approx 3,000 are identical. THE STUDY only covers 17 twins out of 10,000. And it only covers standard identical twins and non identical twins. ie 100% and 50% the same. It does not cover mirror image identical twins which have in theory 100% similar genes but have mirror image similarity (eg left handed right handed), or Polar body twins which are 75% similar.

The results may not be worth the paper that they are wrten on.

 

A faternal (non-identical) twin from London

[EMoe57]

A faternal (non-identical) twin from London

Having raised fraternal twin sons who were as different as night and day (taller/shorter, black hair/white-blonde hair, rail-thin/muscular), I have some idea of what you are talking about. This 'study' has way too small a base to be of any signifigance.

 

Not to put you on the spot or anything but if you are comfortable sharing, I'd like to know your thoughts on the subject of the study.

[dkstories]

Actually 17 is a REALLy small number for a study like this...but it was about cloning while I'm writing a cloning story that uses the theme of individuality amongst genetically identical beings...so...ha ha.

[C James]

Actually 17 is a REALLy small number for a study like this...but it was about cloning while I'm writing a cloning story that uses the theme of individuality amongst genetically identical beings...so...ha ha.

 

Sadly, many medical studies are equally statistically unsound.

 

I've long been intrigued by twin studies. They IMHO offer the strongest argument for a genetic link to homosexuality (over 50% of male identical twins are homosexual if their twin is homosexual)

 

There is IMHO no doubt that environment plays some role, so what I'm waiting for is a study of identical twins who were NOT raised together (such as ones adopted by different families at an early age). However, the fact that the correlation in sexuality is higher in identical vs. fraternal twins (only 20% of fraternal twins are homosexual if their fraternal twin brother is.) For adoptive brothers, the incidence rate is only 11%.

 

Both the high incidence among identical twins and the stronger than average incidence among fraternal twins, to me, proves a genetic component to homosexuality. The correlation with adoptive sibling rates seems to leave no other conclusion than a genetic link, though some environmental factors do likely also apply.

 

Personally, I don't believe that proof of a genetic cause for homosexuality will be of much help in the fight for gay acceptance. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the most likely result will be agitation from the Religious Right for a "cure", and a tendency to describe homosexuality as a genetic disease that can be "corrected".

 

Either that, or people carrying the "gay gene", whether gay or not, may be relegated to second-class status, very much like the clones in DoH.

 

This is why I see the "Dream of Humanity" as having many tie-ins with the struggle for gay rights.

 

I think the individuality aspect plays into this very well indeed, due to the stereotyping of gays that we see today.

 

Just my read on story themes... I may well be wrong.

[Red_A]

Having raised fraternal twin sons who were as different as night and day (taller/shorter, black hair/white-blonde hair, rail-thin/muscular), I have some idea of what you are talking about. This 'study' has way too small a base to be of any signifigance.

 

Not to put you on the spot or anything but if you are comfortable sharing, I'd like to know your thoughts on the subject of the study.

 

The twins study. The study falls down in that identical twin are told by their parents that they are individuals not clones. Even identical non identical twins are told that they are valued individuals. (non identical twins which look identical but have different genes). The study is not a valid study. Would twins brought up with the parent telling them they are the same have the same responses?

 

Personally because of the existent of mirror image twins, and Siamese twins. I believe that no human is identical physically even immediately after spitting of the fertilised egg. Development in the womb and forces during upbringing, produces further differences.

 

As for fraternal twins, I believe the consensus is that 50% gene variation equates to an infinity of probabilities.

[Red_A]

Actually 17 is a REALLy small number for a study like this...but it was about cloning while I'm writing a cloning story that uses the theme of individuality amongst genetically identical beings...so...ha ha.

 

 

My apologises, no offence was intended. I just did not want people to get the wrong idea about twins. As to Cloning:-

 

Today it is accepted as the reproduction of animals by reproducing animals cells identically. And Clones is becoming a derogative term for identical non attractive human beings. It is quite feasible for the term to cover the artificial reproduction of humans.

 

I think you story is not about clones, but about genetic engineering and mass artificial reproduction of human beings.

 

This could be by taking a human cell and reproducing it. Or to me, taking an egg and a sperm artificially and reproducing them. Then mating the two together so that they combine the same way every time. Selection could then be used to ensure that the main characteristics are there. This would allow slight variation in non significant genes.

 

Another way may be by taking an artificial fertilised egg, reproducing the egg before development. Then allowing the eggs to develop. This would allow a small variation due to development.

 

Another way would be to take

Edited July 19, 2006 by Red_A

[old bob]

Hi everybody.

it is cool to read such high science discussions about a story which take place after anno 2456 !

Once more I admire the knowledge of DK and his ability to bring his readers to discuss about ethics and philosophy

 

About homosexuality and genetics, I believe that EVERYBODY is in his genes bisexual. If its come out or not depends of a lot of factors (education, socialisation, environment, aso). The old greeks believed it also.

Old Bob

[leledoct]

As a former student in Medicine & Surgery, I studied genetics, so I just thought to put here some 'random thoughts' about genetics.

1st of all, human DNA consists of about 3 billions of base pairs which form about 40.000 genes. And the genes cover less than 10% of the DNA. The remaining 90% was until not so long ago called 'junk DNA' because scientists thought it was just nonsense garbage. Not so long ago, somebody came out with this observation: if each and every man has the same 40.000 genes, why each and every man is a UNIQUE human being? The answer lays on that 90%. Now that scientists have started to study the 'junk DNA', they're discovering the Holy Grail of Genetics. Promoters, enhancers, suppressors, backup copies of the main genes spliced and scattered, even copy counters... And they've barely scratched the surface.

Now, the question whether or not homosexuality has a gene, it is, really, a false question. Because the answer would be: of course yes. Strictly speaking, everything we are is written in our DNA. We cannot be anything else if not the expression of what is written in our unique copy of double stranded helix. So yes, I'm gay because it's written somewhere in my DNA. WHERE, exactly, now that's the tricky question.

Now, this can and has raised a lot of ethical questions, such as: if we are what it's in our DNA, then there is no such thing as free will. Personally, I think that's true to some extent. As I see it, my DNA shapes the boundaries of my free will. What I will do with my life... I don't know how to express it, but it's like pruning a bush: each and every time we make a decision, consciously or not, we cut out all the other possibilities, and so decision after decision we give ourselves a shape, which contributes to shape our future decisions and so forth. Which decision we will take is determined by who we are. And who we are is nothing but a huge bunch of electrochemical connections among neuronal cells. The number, the density, the plasticity, the strongness or weakness of these connections... it's all written in our DNA. So, I may decide to live my homosexuality or to deny it, but I cannot truly fall in love with a woman however much I wish it, because it's not written into my DNA. As a matter of fact, to make another example, I quitted my study course because, even if I was strongly willed to become a surgeon, I puke everytime I see to much blood. And this weakness of mine is, again, written into my DNA.

It's in this sense that I stated before that, as I see it, our DNA draws the boundaries of our free will.

If you, hypothetically, take this aspect to an extreme level, you kind of have DK's clones: they are and they do what they are made to, nothing more and nothing else.

 

Now I'm feeling I have to put a stop to my rambling; if I don't do it, I can go on for hours and hours and hours and hours....

Edited August 8, 2006 by leledoct

[EMoe57]

When people talk about genetics, free will and life choices, I don't follow the argument that our genes control our destiny. I don't see how genes make me say yes or no to any given question or choose left or right to any decision tree. I can see that they would make me predisposed to one or the other but my cumulative experiences also contribute to the decision (assuming I'm smart enough to learn from my mistakes) so my genes may be pulling for yes but my history is screaming no.

 

Instead of a bush, I tend to view this concept as more of a road map: the starting point being our birth and the ending point being our death. Each decision is an intersection with roads going off in various directions. I was born in Tampa and now live in Jacksonville but I got here by way of North Carolina. All of the decisions that got me from Tampa to here couldn't be pre-programmed into my genes. Some of those decisions weren

[knotme]

This thread seems to have drifted toward a consensus: The subject study is not convincing, and it does not need to be. If fact, the study is unnecessary. That nature and nurture both play important roles in one's identity is well established. Clones would of course consider themselves unique.

 

The article's use of the term "individuality" is unfortunate. To not be an "individual" is to be part of a collective ("Resistance is futile."), another matter altogether.

[EMoe57]

Nice sumation, knotme, and a Borg reference to boot! Interesting, given the Borg didn't clone but assimilated individuals bent to their will.

 

We still need more beta readers! Volunteer here ... When is a "signature" like this too big?

When the signature is longer than your post. Oops! I've had one or two of those... Of course CJ has had siggies nine lines high drawing attention to all sorts of things around GA

[C James]

Good summation Knotme! That was great, and I loved the borg ref too!

 

When the signature is longer than your post. Oops! I've had one or two of those... Of course CJ has had siggies nine lines high drawing attention to all sorts of things around GA

 

<looks around sheepishly>

 

Well, Ummm, yeah, I do have kind of a big sig, but it's not as if anybody sees it very often, because I hardly ever post.

[knotme]

C James and Emoe57, thanks for the kind words! A few further thoughts on this topic: Cloners in the story have probably managed to boost the influence of birth configuration way above environment, compared to today. A large run of these clones in this story might tend to have a weaker sense of identity, but these future cloners are not satisfied by that, not by a long shot.

 

Most of us derive some of our sense of uniqueness from our appearance, especially as we become adults. (Some impractical teen fashion accessories come to mind.) Even a run of 10,000 clones could change their own appearances and mostly wipe out the image of sameness. The law in this future land expressly forbids these changes: identical appearances must be preserved! The handlers went even further: forcing clones to endure a stultifying childhood of noxious indoctrination, an admission that nurture remains important!

 

To my mind, the special loathing by many humans for Garrett Lars stems from the fact that he partially escaped the indoctrination, and that he had, against all odds, developed into a being that can go toe-to-toe with any group of humans by most common measures. As I reach this point in my argument, the stench of discrimination in my own world by race, class, and gender cannot be ignored. Pee-yeeww.

 

PS: Please take my signature question as rhetorical, to be answered privately, taking into consideration the intent.

[hh5]

Nice sumation, knotme, and a Borg reference to boot! Interesting, given the Borg didn't clone but assimilated individuals bent to their will.

 

Star Wars - The people that made the clone troops - going over the specifications of the order placed with a jedi

 

Any one else placing orders?