The technology exists to clone Stephen Hawking. Although no one has had the nerve to do it, the same technology that was used to clone other animals would work on humans. Various governments and religions have taken a stand declaring cloning humans to be immoral. But I’ve never heard a reason why cloning should be banned.
So I say let’s clone Hawking. Yes, I understand that the clone will not start out with the knowledge or skills of Stephen Hawking. It’s like having an identical twin separated at birth by both space and time. But – is there something genetic about Hawking that would make his clone have the same abilities as Stephen himself? What if the clone were raised in an ideal environment where he was trained by the world’s leading physicists. Would the clone pick up where Hawking left off?
Whether it worked or not we would at a minimum learn a great deal about cloning. The possibility that his skills might live on in the clone would be a gift to the human race.
So – I’d like to open up a discussion as to why we shouldn’t do this. Thoughts?
Oh, does this clone get to be a cripple too so that he will be motivated to focus his life on science since there’s nothing else to do?
That would be something else we would get to learn about. If he were raised today knowing he has ALS perhaps we could treat it early. Something else we would learn. Hawking has been studied intensely medically so cloning him would be a great scientific opportunity for the medical community.
We’re all born blank. It’s our experiences in life and social environment that make us who we are and what drives us. Cloning will make a duplicate body, but the mind will be whoever the new person is. Picture Einstein not working at the patent clerk’s office looking up at the watch tower. Or interacting with our first love.
I guess it makes sense if you think man is just a collection cells.
Do you think that man would wish his life on another? A genetic clone would also be subject to endure life with ALS. As if having people staring at him waiting for him to say something brilliant weren’t hardship enough.
I think that Dr. Hawking should be the one to make that choice. While it is believed that ALS is not inherited, with a few exceptions that indicate a possible genetic component, this should not be a barrier to such an experiment.
As for the outcome of the next generation of Dr. Hawking, I would not be too awful hopeful for a successful result. The chances of this Dr. Steven Hawking II being a brilliant scientist are slimmer than one might think. The learning process and experiences have much to contribute. On the other hand it might in some cases be successful beyond or wildest imagination.
Also, this idea is rather late in the life of the donor, and the chances for flaws and defects in the DNA copies are greater for a number of reasons. How would the researchers be able to confirm the quality of the cells selected to clone are prime, not defective or mutated?
F#CK NO! What all the animal cloners fails to mention is how many eggs it takes to get a successful clone. 10,20,200? Even if these are the frozen eggs left over from fertility clinics that is still too many potential humans to waste. The cloned embryos are usually screened in utero and aborted if a defect is detected. In the worst case the cloned embryos go full term and then are put down after birth once a defect is detected. Even if the ratios was one sucessful clone to one egg the Hawking clone would still end up with ALS. Why make a human clone and sentence them to a life of a debilitating disese?
#3 – Dave T
Good points.
The “identity of self” issue. Would a human clone necessarily empathize with his “donor”, let alone feel endowed with greatness? Religious people would liken this to having a “soul”, a sense of self. A sense of self worth, as an individual, not as an extension of another life. The psychological effects on human clones, is a very dark and unfamiliar area to science.
The problem with your proposition of cloning Sephen Hawking is that your not considering the human being that will result. This person will have hopes, dreams, and thoughts that are entirely unique to him. Your acting as if he’ll just be some sort of robot who will do anything we want him to. In fact, he’d probably reject the life you’d force on him and would do everything in his power to circumvent your purposes. Human beings tend to have a mind of their own.
and then you would only get something just as good as the donor, no chance at getting anything better. remeber if you dont evolve, you die.
Cloning? Since the so-called enlightened believe man evolved from the ape, why don’t we have some fun while playing Dr. Frankenstein and just place his head on a monkey body? Of course we’ll need an Igor or will Algore do?
#3 Dave T:
“We’re all born blank. It’s our experiences in life and social environment that make us who we are and what drives us.”
Thank you for solving this!
I was starting to worry, because the greatest human minds couldn’t answer this even after thousands of years of pondering and arguing.
Will you be publishing this blog comment in any academic journals?
Beware the laws of unintended consequences. The answer is “No”.
Read “Cyteen” by CJ Cherryh.
It covers a practical methodology of raising clones, on mass produced vs personal care scale.
No no no. We don’t need more knowledge of physics. We must clone Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Then, breed the results. Then, clone THEM. That should fix everything. An ageless, politically correct, richly diverse leader, who knows no limits to their power and is not afraid to use it. Or, just breed them now.
http://tinyurl.com/5fn8sk
I think it’s unethical to clone a human being with an illness that may have a significant genetic component to it. As Sea Lawyer pointed out correctly in post #1, his clone would need to also have Spinal Muscular Atrophy type IV in order to truly get another Hawking. Is it ethical to put a human through that experience deliberately? What about the ethics of simply creating a high probability of such an occurrence?
For that matter, is it ethical to create more humans when there are far too many on the planet now?
Besides, why Hawking over Einstein? To my knowledge, Einstein’s brain is still sitting pickled in a jar at Princeton.
Why not instead just create an environment where all of the many Einstein and Hawking level intelligences of the world actually get educated properly and get proper nutrition and health care so that they can become the Einsteins and Hawkings of tomorrow?
Yes because a clone will face and respond exactly the same to every life event.
Cloning biology is not the same as a hard drive but don’t tell the Hollywood screenwriters.
#7 – Palooka,
F#CK NO! What all the animal cloners fails to mention is how many eggs it takes to get a successful clone. 10,20,200? Even if these are the frozen eggs left over from fertility clinics that is still too many potential humans to waste.
Funny. I agree with your conclusion that we should not do this, but for very different reasons. Do you really think human eggs are in such short supply? Are they really so precious at a time when they have not yet been fertilized, split once, produced a single neuron, or anything else that might really even start it on the road to being human?
Boy, you must really think I’m wasting millions of potential humans just by having had my vasa deferentia cut.
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
Or something.
Every person is a unique being whether they are a clone or not.
#11 – Alfred1,
He would be an evil clone…using his considerable mental prowess to become Lex Luthor or the Joker…
That follows from being called “Frankenstein” as one grows up.
I doubt humans are ever this predictable. But, if you believe this, you might try not calling him Frankenstein since it is unlikely to be his name.
No one should play GOD (.)
John:
Your altruistic reasoning for cloning Dr. Hawking are admirable, but where would we be if someone who admired the leaders of Iran and N. Korea felt just as altruistic and cloned those hate-filled leaders?
Do people really think humans have not been cloned yet?? Ignorance must be bliss.
#3 I don’t believe we are born entirely blank. The genetic traits passed on by our parents include brain structures and we do inherit mental and personality traits that are not entirely nurture driven.
Humans have surely been already cloned in secret by governments and/or corps. There are no moral impediments when it comes to the holy $. Brave New World is playing out just like Huxley foretold. The man was a genius. Now cloning Huxley would be an irony!
Why do people seem to assume that a clone is automatically a slave?
When Stephen Hawking was born and grew up, he made decisions for himself that ultimately led him to the life he has made.
Wouldn’t a clone have a right to have the same choice? And if he decided to study 18th century french poetry? Or just get wasted and play XBOX all day?
Where does the religious right get off saying that cloning is immoral? where does it say that in the bible anyway? As if God and Jesus knew this was going to be a controversy 2000+ years later that they already said “no” to it. Come on, they don’t even have an opinion on abortion for that matter written down in the bible.
And when will the religious right grow some of their own balls and come up with their own option (even though it is) and NOT say it’s from god?
It’s not immoral.. it’s just damn creepy.
I don’t see much point. What is the scientific purpose of cloning humans? Other than “because we can” I don’t see one. Cloning may be useful for endangered species or perhaps even as a step towards genetically modified farm animals. But I don’t see any point in cloning people. Of course I don’t see any point in human fertility treatments either since there are more than enough kids without parents out there already.
The clone won’t be anything like the original any way. This American Life did a story on a couple that had a very docile bull cloned and the clone gored the owner and put him in the hospital. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=291 If they can’t get an animal clone to have the same personality as the original then there’s no way Hawking’s clone would be a brilliant physicist.
“Where does the religious right get off saying that cloning is immoral?”
morality in a society may have some religeous origins, but they certainly aren’t dependent on them.