
Human reproductive cloning: The curious incident of the dog in the night-time - bookofjoe
https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/21/human-reproductive-cloning-curious-incident-of-the-dog-in-the-night-time/
======
whalesalad
I’m convinced that a human _has definitely been cloned_. I’m convinced a lot
of things have happened that are taboo or socially not-yet-accepted.

Somewhere in the world there is a lab (or many) doing this kind of thing. The
technology exists. We have more people on the planet than ever before. Someone
has surely thought, “yeah it’s illegal/immoral/unethical/uncharted territory
but someone has gotta try this and it’s gonna be me”

I could be wrong of course, it’s just a theory. But I think that statistically
it makes more sense to assume it’s already happened than to assume otherwise.

~~~
chance_state
But it requires way more collaboration and effort than just one guy in a lab,
right? How would a group keep a secret that powerful?

~~~
hombre_fatal
Kennedy told only 6 people that he accepted Khrushchev's deal to remove
missiles from Cuba and Turkey which was one of the most powerful secrets in
the world to disarm WW3, possibly one of the many decisions that saved the
human race from nuclear annihilation. His vice president didn't even know. And
the thought that Kennedy just stared down Khrushchev until Khrushchev gave in
remained a core part of US international negotiation ever since. The deal was
only declassified 20 years ago.

So I don't really buy this common internet "if it happened, we'd know about
it" meme that secrets are so hard to keep.

~~~
gnulinux
Facts are easy to keep as secret. Organization is hard to keep as a secret
since it involves an entire supply chain. If the secret you mentioned really
required 6 people knowing it, then it can be easy to keep. Hypothetically,
cloning a human requires a lot of materials that needs to be provided, so it
may be harder to keep as a secret.

~~~
duncan-donuts
But what if only a portion of the information is a secret? Couldn't you run a
lab and be pretty open that you're doing research cloning animals and just
conveniently leave out that the animals are human? That's not meant to
trivialize your point at all, but it also seems like the entire supply chain
doesn't actually need to know what's going on.

------
petschge
Having a clone does not give you an identical copy of an adult person. All you
get is an identical twin that is years younger and likely has additional
medical problems. Why would you invest a lot of time and effort into that?

Btw: The article does discuss why you still might want to do it. It's worth a
read, but it turned out none of the reasons was good enough.

~~~
cogman10
I mean, could be interesting in resolving some nature vs nurture questions.

Pick a famous scientist (Einstein? Hawkings?) clone them, and watch.

Does this person rise to the top of their field? Are they even interested in
physics? How much of intelligence ends up being your genes vs your
environment?

Probably not a good enough reason to clone though :)

~~~
petschge
You can do that with twin studies.

~~~
cogman10
A little bit. There's just a much smaller sample size to draw from. The ideal
candidates for these sort of studies would be monozygotic twins (3 in 1000
births) who are adopted by different parents.

You can draw a few conclusions from that, but it's a pretty small sample pool.

The other somewhat unique thing you'd get here is how much prenatal nutrition
matters.

~~~
saghm
One type of study I heard about is comparing a large group of pairs of
identical twins to a large group of fraternal twins (with each pair being
raised together in the same household). The idea is that all the pairs from
both groups experienced the same nurture (same parents, location, schooling,
etc. at the same time), but one group has nearly identical genes with their
twins, while the other merely has varying degrees of similar. If some measured
effect is more commonly shared by the identical twins than the fraternal, it's
likely due to the genetics rather than environmental factors.

I never took any biology-related courses beyond high school, so I don't have
any sort of knowledge to tell if this would actually work in practice, but the
idea seems interesting to me.

------
DrScientist
I'm not sure we know whether anybody has or not.

Technically speaking if you can do sheep (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_\(sheep\))
) , then it's probably just a matter of time before a human attempt would
'succeed'. Though bear in mind the clone is likely to have genetic problems
due to the process.

In a lot of countries it's deemed unacceptable to attempt/illegal to attempt
it. So if you had succeeded you are unlikely to be trumpeting the fact.

Also practically - why? What is the point? Perhaps a deluded billionaire
thinks the world would be better off with an army of themselves? Dunno.

Perhaps the most logical use would be as a walking spare parts bank for said
billionaire - again you wouldn't advertise you are doing that....

Remember natural clones - identical twins and up, are not actually that rare -
1 in 65 births in the UK is a multiple one, with a 1/3 of those being
identical.

[https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/what-
causes...](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/what-causes-
twins/)

~~~
perl4ever
"why? What is the point?"

A government or something with similar power wants to "improve" their society
via eugenics. It's vastly more efficient with cloning.

~~~
DrScientist
If you had a science driven eugenics programme then the scientist would say a
population with identical genomes in all respects is an accident waiting to
happen ( think everyone killed in a global pandemic for example because of
identical immune systems.... ) - ie not 'genetically' fit. ( The scientist
also might question whether the goal is actually achievable - nevermind
ethical ).

Also depends on what you mean by cloning - if you wanted to create lots more
twins then actually you could probably trivially do it today by following the
existing twin process - ie viable embryo and splitting at early stage. (
[https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/23/2/156/2527545](https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/23/2/156/2527545)
) That would be 'cloning' and give you a identical base genetic background on
which to start making changes.

However most people consider cloning to be taking adult cell DNA and creating
a new viable embryo from that - which is tricky to do without genetic damage.

The reason people want to do the second nuclear transfer approach is they want
to select the DNA to used based on adult characteristics - ie you only know
Mozart was Mozart when he grew up not when he was an egg.

However in my view that kind of eugenic thinking is deeply flawed.

~~~
perl4ever
"a population with identical genomes in all respects"

I'm not advocating this sort of thing, but that's an extreme straw man and
neither what I was describing nor what anyone would do. Some country with say,
a billion people, could make a million clones of the smartest person in the
country, and who knows what else, and still have 99% of the pre-existing
diversity.

~~~
DrScientist
Assuming all the suppositions about these clones all being smart ( however you
define that ) are true.

Then do you really think these million people will be working for _you_????
:-)

Or will it be the other way around....

~~~
perl4ever
I don't have any knowledge of how to brainwash smart people, but that doesn't
mean it can't be done.

------
kzrdude
Is it unethical? I think that before long, we won't think that cloning humans
is unethical. The reason is that the moral stances start sliding when the idea
becomes more and more well known and normalized, in for example fiction.

~~~
Ygg2
From an evolutionary perspective, cloning is a great way to shoot yourself in
the foot. Why would you do that to the population?

The more similar genes are, the easier it is for a single pathogen to kill all
those that share those genes.

~~~
perl4ever
Cloning has its pros and cons, that's why it exists in the natural world. An
obvious advantage of cloning is that a successful variant can spread faster.

------
vinniejames
How about same sex couples who wish to have offspring without a 3rd party's
DNA in the mix?

~~~
jaxx75
Is it possible to get XY from XX and XX?

~~~
nwah1
The Y chromosome has almost no genetic information. So if you acquired one,
even from someone else, it would be practically irrelevant.

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-
nature/y-chromosome-m...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-
nature/y-chromosome-may-be-doomed-180967887/)

------
yellow_lead
Working in technology offers the opportunity to learn that just because
something can be done doesn't mean that it should. Also, watch Altered Carbon
if you're interested in how this could play out.

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
Altered Carbon is about cloning yes, but in conjunction with an ability to
transfer a consciousness from body to body, and an ability make backups of a
human consciousness somehow "in a cloud". That was the main reason for the
apparently morally questionable outcomes presented in Altered Carbon, not the
cloning itself. Great series BTW, a large proportion of HN crowd is likely to
enjoy it.

------
dekhn
I think a big part is the balance between a scientist/doctor wanting to be
"first" to achieve this, and the fear that something will go wrong. With a
human clone, you'd basically have to monitor it for 35+ years (really, monitor
a population) to make any sort of statements about the absence of unexpected
health effects.

------
tomashertus
Around 2000's there has been couple of claims from company called Clonaid[1]
that they successfully cloned numerous babies. It has never been confirmed to
be true though.

My humble and amateurish opinion is that cloning is happening in some degree,
especially in China[2], but on very experimental basis.

It's very surprising to me how little media coverage the topic of cloning
gets. I would be really interested in a podcast/interview about the latest
development in this area.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonaid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clonaid)

2\. [https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2015/dec/05/c...](https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2015/dec/05/chinas-cloned-cows-meat-on-the-table-or-environmental-
disaster)

~~~
kingpiss
Clonaid is tied to a ufo cult so I doubt they have much credibility.

------
searine
The simple answer is "because it'd be a hassle".

Just look at He Jiankui post-crispr babies. Sentenced to 3 years in prison. 3
million dollar fine. Ostracized from the scientific community. It's just not
worth it.

~~~
AstralStorm
Yet. Wait until we figure out the way to prevent serious diseases.

------
jillesvangurp
Cloning pets is a thing: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/style/barbra-
streisand-cl...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/style/barbra-streisand-
cloned-her-dog.html)

The main issue with cloning humans is that it is controversial and legally
frowned upon in most countries. That means that if it's happening, all parties
involved have a big incentive to keep it a secret. Also, it likely involves a
lot of money as it is risky and there are only so many scientists willing to
risk their careers.

Morals aside, the main technical challenge with human cloning is the high
failure rate in terms of the numbers of less than perfect clones with defects
that would have to be euthanized. But it's not fundamentally harder or
different from cloning sheep or pets. Of course high failure rates are also a
challenge with IVF births. However, this seems to be far less controversial.
Most non viable IVF embryos simply don't make it to the womb (i.e. get
discarded before implantation) or fail in a early stage. Some couples try for
years before succeeding. I doubt it would be very different with cloning.
Finding women willing to carry the child is another challenge. With IVF it's
typically (but not necessarily) the 'natural' mother who gets her own eggs
implanted back opting into this. With clones this might be less practical as
the mothers might be a combination of too old/dead/unwilling so you'd need
some woman to carry the child (probably in exchange for cash).

When it comes to animals, we simply care less about all this. Once the
technical issues around this are addressed the remaining moral issues will
have more to do with religious/philosophical concerns than any practical
concerns. The whole boys from Brazil thing is going to keep this controversial
for a long time after most technical concerns are addressed no matter what.

Yet, there's no shortage of wealthy hedonistic / narcissistic types that are
likely to want this no matter what. So it's more of a case of when than if and
you have to wonder how far in the past 'when' is going to be exactly. I guess
we'll find out when people start discovering they have genetically identical
twins of different ages in gene databases in a few years.

------
Gatsky
It is possible this hasn’t happened. The final step of implanting an embryo in
a human still involves a lot of trial and error. In IVF it is basically fired
into the uterus and fingers are crossed. There us quite a high threshold for
getting an embryo to implant in humans compared to animals.

Also, I think it would be quite difficult to eventually explain to your kid
that you cloned them.

------
thedirt0115
I'm pretty interested in the morals/law discussion we'll need to have soon
when we have creation of embryos without needing exactly two parents, plus the
ability for the embryo to develop to term in an artificial uterus (no humans
needed). There are so many questions here that we just don't have precedent
for!

------
juancampa
If I were to clone a human, I would wait until it had developed into a fully
formed, healthy adult before even thinking about announcing it to the world.

------
jordanpg
It seems somewhat likely to me that a human has been cloned, perhaps by many
governments, and just kept secret.

~~~
buckminster
You may enjoy this documentary:

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077269/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077269/)

~~~
arbitrage
That's science fiction, not a documentary.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_from_Brazil_\(film\))

------
auiya
We have. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-127836/Chinese-
cl...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-127836/Chinese-
cloned-30-human-embryos.html)

~~~
arbitrage
The Daily Mail is a garbage tabloid. It's not a reliable source for anything.

------
tmpz22
1) Because its hard

2) Our legal system would never catch up

------
b0n40
Why has nobody released a gen modification virus ? "China jails scientists for
CRISPR gene-edited babies" doesn't count ?

------
Heyso
They have, you just don't know it.

------
shiblukhan
Sometimes what doesn’t happen is as interesting as what does.

Cloning human embryos has been possible for nearly seven years. Yet as far as
I know, during that time no one has made a cloned baby or, apparently, has
tried to make one. And what I find most surprising is that no one has
announced they intend to make one.

------
b0n40
why has nobody released a gen modification of a virus ?

------
kingpiss
Rael cloned a human years ago, you sheep.

/s

------
jeffadotio
Technology is driven by starting companies. VCs don't care about what a
company does, they care about the price of the company's stock. Stock pricing
is based on confidence in the value of the stock. Even if people want clones
or cloned organs, nothing can be done until the slow-thinking world of finance
finds a way to make money off of the ethereal premise that a company may one
day do something of value.

No company will even scratch the surface of human cloning until there is at
least an inkling of an immediate profit from the stock of such a company.

~~~
leto_ii
> Technology is driven by starting companies.

Almost always scientific and technological breakthroughs are made in publicly
funded institutions such as universities and research laboratories.

The research done in companies usually takes the core science and shapes it
into a sellable product, nothing much more than that.

~~~
jeffadotio
Right. That is what I’m saying. You are taking my comment as a general
statement rather than a response to the article. The article is about the lack
of companies making a product from the research.

~~~
leto_ii
Hmm, I may have missed it, but is the article strictly referring to companies?
It seems to me that it's asking in general why nobody (in the public or
private sectors) has cloned people.

In any case, my comment was referring to the idea that in general research
comes from the private sector. Sorry if I miss-interpreted your comment.

------
jsjddbbwj
People are usually insufferable—who'd want to deal with two copies of the same
person?!

Fluffy sheep, on the other hand, are cute and nice to have around.

I don't really have the data, but this is my theory. Greetings

