Cloning of a Human

{Note: This post is #8 in a series of 12 where I review what Scientific American magazine has called the “12 Events That Will Change Everything”. See previous posts “Machine Intelligence”, “Superconductors”, “Creation of Life”, “Nuclear Exchange”, “Extra Terrestrial Intelligence”, “Extra Dimensions”, “Polar Meltdown” and “False Dichotomy” for more information.}

The Event: Scientists will successfully clone a human. To date, they have only been successful at cloning animals and that has only come after numerous failures (ie defects in the embryos that resulted in death before or immediately after birth). In 1996, the world was introduced to Dolly, a cloned sheep. Since then, a relatively small group of scientists have been attempting the same thing with humans.



The Impact: Human clones occur naturally – we call them identical twins. Producing a clone in a laboratory is much more complicated and extremely difficult to get right. The announcement of the successful creation of a human clone won’t have a big impact on the world scientifically, but morally. The practical applications of cloning are essentially limited to providing an alternative to natural reproduction (some futurists have predicted the human race will eventually become sterile from various pollutants – watch/read ‘Children of Men’ – and cloning may be the only way to create offspring) . However, some fear that people may wish to create a clone so they can have access to “parts” they might need to replace their own failing organs to prolong their own life while sacrificing the clone’s life (watch the Star Trek: Enterprise episode ‘Similitude’ to see how the crew grapples with this moral dilemma). While the media tends to focus on efforts to clone entire humans, many scientists are working on developing processes that would allow them to clone specific cells so replacement tissue could be made that is compatible with the patient. Imagine being able to grow a new kidney to replace one that has failed or been injured and not have to worry about finding a compatible donor since the cloned kidney would be an identical match. This is process is referred to as therapeutic cloning and is the more likely event to have an impact on medicine in the future.



The Science: Identical twins occur when the fertilized egg splits and forms two embryos, each with identical genetics. This is a completely random event and science is not clear on why this occurs. To create a clone in the lab, the nucleus of an egg cell is replaced with the nucleus of a donor cell. This egg cell then has the identical genetics as the donor cell. As long as the egg cell proceeds through its normal development, the new organism will be an exact genetic match to the donor. However, in most cases the modified egg cell does not follow normal development – with Dolly the famous cloned sheep, it took over 200 attempts before it finally worked.



Jac’s Analysis: Cloning as a method of reproduction is common with plants – I’m sure many of us have cloned houseplants by taking a cutting from an existing plant and stimulating roots to grow so a new plant is created. Identical twins are naturally occurring clones in the animal world and most of us probably know some identical twins (my Dad and uncle Stu are identical twins). So what science is trying to do is duplicate what happens naturally in plants and randomly with animals. I would agree with Scientific American Magazine that human cloning is inevitable and will likely occur in this century. I expect therapeutic cloning will come first, with the development of the methods needed to clone organs and tissues needed to replace damaged or failing ones. Once these processes are perfected, creating complete human clones won’t be far behind.



Our Reaction? I don’t think we need to over-react to cloning and demand that all cloning research be stopped. Many of us have seen movies where cloning has advanced to the point where science can not only clone people but can accelerated the aging process so the clone is the same age as the donor (watch 'Multiplicity', ‘Star Trek: Nemesis’ or ‘The Sixth Day’). The ability to do this leaves us wondering if the clones have souls and questioning our own identity. I think we can safely leave these thoughts in the science fiction section where they belong. Cloning organs and tissues for therapeutic purposes should be welcomed and encouraged as this could alleviate much pain, suffering, and premature death as people wait for compatible donors of livers, hearts, lungs, etc. However, the research methodologies used to advance this science is where the ethical questions arise. The only human cells that actively “clone” themselves are embryos – fertilized eggs – and this is where science would like to focus their studies so they can understand how the embryo “knows” it should duplicate itself and then be able to artificially stimulate other cells so they would duplicate themselves on demand. But those fertilized eggs – are they “people”? Should we be conducting any experiments on embryos? When does life begin – at conception? My personal opinion (which is shared by many Christians) is that we should not be experimenting with embryos – life does begin at conception and experimenting with a fertilized egg is no different than experimenting with a newborn – we would all recoil in horror if someone suggested experimenting with newborns. So we need to find other ways of figuring out how to grow new organs. I don’t have this answer, but I hope some bright Christian young people are brave enough to venture into this area of scientific research and can find a way to do this that doesn’t involve the use of embryos.



Questions and comments?

1. Do you agree with me that we shouldn’t be using embryos to do this type of research? What if it is the only way – do the ends justify the means?
2. Would your answer be different if you were waiting for a donor heart and had only a year to live?

Next week we look at the impact of a big earthquake on the Pacific coast.

Jac

Machine Intelligence

{Note: This post is #7 in a series of 12 where I review what Scientific American magazine has called the “12 Events That Will Change Everything”. See previous posts “Superconductors”, “Creation of Life”, “Nuclear Exchange”, “Extra Terrestrial Intelligence”, “Extra Dimensions”, “Polar Meltdown” and “False Dichotomy” for more information.}

The Event: Machines – robots / computers – will become so powerful, so human-like that they will become “self aware”. To be self aware is to have the ability to understand who you are, what you are, what you could be, to have the ability to “better” oneself, to have independent thoughts, to make choices including those we know are wrong, to wonder, to dream, to anticipate, to question one’s own existence. Today’s computers and robots are not even close to this state – they run programs that restrict them to specific functions and they can’t do anything else unless we change their programs. Scientists are trying to develop computers and software that mimic human consciousness, so these machines can learn on their own, adapt to change without human intervention, and apply subjective thinking before reaching a conclusion.

The Impact: Machines becoming self-aware has been a common theme in science fiction novels and movies. The classic “2001: A Space Odyssey” was released in 1968 and the computer – HAL – went beyond its programming and acted on its own – with disastrous results. The “Terminator” movies are based on machines becoming self-aware and launching an armed revolt against man-kind. The recent re-make of Battlestar Galactica had a similar premise. On a more positive note, the android Data in Star Trek was a portrayed as a worthwhile and enviable crew member, and the movie “I, Robot” showed that robots would only harm humans if humans programmed them that way. While the possibility of a violent revolt exists, a more difficult challenge awaits us in deciding whether a self-aware machine has rights - whether shutting one off is morally correct, whether they are to be considered “persons”.

The Science: Computers are becoming more powerful everyday – faster processors, larger memory, adaptive programming – and many scientists feel it is inevitable that we will one day create an artificial equivalent to the human brain. There is some disagreement about whether this artificial intelligence will automatically lead to self-awareness, and how long it will take us to get there. Humans are the only creatures with a highly developed self-awareness. Some animals like dolphins, apes, and dogs do exhibit some limited aspects of being self-aware, but their brains are much more powerful than any computer we have today and we haven’t seen any of them try to take over the world.

Jac’s Analysis: I’m much more doubtful than Scientific American magazine regarding this event. They give it a better than 50-50 chance. I give it a less than 1%. I think that self-awareness is something bestowed upon us by our Creator, and it is not a result of how advanced our brains have become. At best, I can see science creating the illusion of self-awareness through clever programming that will allow machines to act and respond in ways that mimic humans, but it will still just be a computer program. There are some websites where you can have some pretty interesting conversations with a computer and you might not realize you are conversing with a machine. I think the real challenge for science is developing a way of determining what is true self-awareness in a machine versus what is just some really good computer programming. I tend to agree with those scientists who doubt that simply creating super intelligent robots will somehow automatically lead to them becoming self aware.

Our Reaction? Enjoy the “Terminator” movies for what they are – science fiction. Put aside any worries that someday your laptop will refuse to turn off because it doesn’t want to “die”. However, be alert that many scientists are actively working on making machines that mimic self-awareness, and we will need to ensure they don’t try to pass off their poor imitations for the real thing. It’s also going to be quite a while before machines have enough power and we can develop sufficiently complex programming to even mimic the behaviour of simple life animals like insects (consider how a fly can maneuver in mid-air so quickly – they are much more agile and responsive than any computer controlled device in existence today).

Questions and comments?

1. Have you ever given much thought about what it means to be a being that is self-aware? Do you agree with me that this is something special that God bestowed upon us and only us?
2. Do you think any animals are self-aware?

Next week we look at the extremely controversial topic of human cloning.

Jac

Room Temperature Superconductors

{Note: This post is #6 in a series of 12 where I review what Scientific American magazine has called the “12 Events That Will Change Everything”. See previous posts “Creation of Life”, “Nuclear Exchange”, “Extra Terrestrial Intelligence”, “Extra Dimensions”, “Polar Meltdown” and “False Dichotomy” for more information.}

The Event: Scientists will develop superconductors – wires used for electrical transmission that have almost no losses – that can operate at room temperature. The existing superconductors only work at extremely low temperatures ( -196 degrees C) which makes them impractical for normal use where transmission lines are typically 100s of kilometers in length.



The Impact: If room temperature superconductors become a practical reality, it would greatly increase the efficiency of the electrical grid. A typical transmission line will have losses around 10% – the electrical resistance of the wires results in some of the electricity creating small amounts of unwanted heat. While 10% may not seem like a lot, on a larger scale such as the province of Ontario, it can be the equivalent to one or two generating stations in use simply to compensate for the losses. These losses are accounted for and paid by the end use customers, so any reduction in these losses would be a financial savings to all electricity users, plus we would need fewer generating stations.



Superconductors can also be used to create “supermagnets” which could be used to levitate vehicles such as trains so they can glide along a track without touching it, greatly reducing the amount of energy needed to move it forward.



The Science: Research into superconductors has been going on for quite a while, with some early developments in 1986. However, those conductors needed to be kept extremely cold, which requires energy to keep the temperature down, so they don’t result in a true reduction in electrical use. In the past few years, some developments have occurred using iron based compounds, but they still need to be very cold to operate. When materials become very cold, electrons can move with very little energy which means the electrical resistance is lower.

Jac’s Analysis: Scientific American magazine gives this event a 50-50 chance of happening in this century. I’m a bit more doubtful, maybe less than 10%. Without getting too technical, the laws of physics are really against us on this one. Most of the matter in the universe does not conduct electricity very well – which is a nice built in safety feature if you think about it. It is this property that allows us to control the flow of electricity and shield ourselves from its lethal power by covering wires with rubber or plastic insulation. Trying to create a compound that has no electrical resistance seems a bit futile to me.

Our Reaction? Unless you are a power systems engineer or really interested physics, this topic is probably pretty boring. Even if they do develop something practical in the next decade, it will take 25 to 50 years before we can rebuild the electrical network. So, I’ll accept a brief yawn from most of you and move on to a more exciting topic.

Questions and comments?

1. Do you give much consideration to how much electricity you waste in your own home by leaving lights on when not needed?
2. Do you think this type of science is worth pursuing or should we focus on more efficient and cleaner ways to generate electricity?

Next week we look at the possibility of machines (robots) thinking for themselves.

Jac