Scientists in Iran clone endangered mouflon – born to domestic sheep

[Daneshmand]

You sir, just nailed it, couldn't have said it any better.

Another question: Can we produce endangered species? For example, lions or leopards? What would be the main difference from original species in terms of functionalities and habits?

Also, since everything seems to be handpicked, we should naturally be able to choose whether the new born is a boy or girl, right? Or am I missing something here?

And the last question(s), what would be the probabilities of this science for humans? Can we clone humans? Modify their strength? And what would a cloned human look like? Is it possible to produce humans who almost look the same? And for an infertile female human, can we take the cell from the father and the egg from the mother, fuse them and then plant this "fertile egg" in another fertile woman? In this case, the baby would be close to man and women whose cell and egg were used and not the woman who just 'contained' the fertile egg and raised it, right?

Sorry for so many questions, I am an engineer and I am interested in this $hit, yet don't know much about it.

No problem. Thanks for the rating! Taking a rating from you has another mazeh . Though I have to caution you that I belong to human medicine and I am not a conservation biologist. In simple terms:

Can we produce endangered species? For example, lions or leopards? What would be the main difference from original species in terms of functionalities and habits?

Yes As long you have a living example or intact genetical material you can. In case genetical material is lost, then for all practical purposes with our current technological capability, you can consider that species gone. Since genetical material is like the data needed to build that animal. In engineering terms it is the blueprint schematics. The M code file. Though there is alot of work going on in synthetic biology, I do not think we are anywhere near to produce a completely synthetic higher organism from scratch (though this might become possible in future).

As long as you have living examples of those lions or leopards, you can do it with today's technology. If you have genetical code for those, then it will in high probability be possible in future (near to medium term).

The cloned animals theoretically should be the same from genetical point of view. But the learned behavior will be lost. For example a cloned bird will not have any parents or community to learn migratory routes from or for lions the hurting and socializing patterns etc.

Also, since everything seems to be handpicked, we should naturally be able to choose whether the new born is a boy or girl, right? Or am I missing something here?

Sex selection technology already exists and for an extra payment the IVF is modified to select the sex of the baby. Though it is not "120%" fool proof but it has a very high success rate. Originally it was being used for families having sex specific genetic diseases to weed out the carrier sex and have normal babies. Nowadays specially in Non-Western countries this procedure is being abused to "weed out" girls.

And the last question(s), what would be the probabilities of this science for humans? Can we clone humans? Modify their strength? And what would a cloned human look like? Is it possible to produce humans who almost look the same?

Theoretically you can. No one has attempted it (at least in public). But there is nothing in biology that prohibits it. The only inhibition comes from social expectation of what science should or should not do.

What do you mean by modifying strength? If you mean taking out the chance of developing certain diseases, then these are certainly possible and some are in fact in use (for example the sex selection above).

Another way which might happen in future, would be to genetically engineer your baby. Weed out the diseases in your family and the wifey's family, introduce genes associated with longevity and intelligence, and even introduce ones which you deem desirable for example blue/black eyes or black/white skin or whatever else. But then the more you modify the genetic code, a philosophical question might arise. The question that, this "thing" you are creating is NOT YOU. The whole act of reproduction, having a baby and investing in their upbringing has one of its foundation motivations the reward of knowing that YOU will continue to live on through the genes you have passed on. As you replace more of your genes with other variants even if those are exactly what you want and know you want, at the end you will face the paradox of Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The human clone will look "exactly" like the original nucleus donor. There might be very small differences for example the ratio of hand fingers or the symmetry of the face (an indicator of beauty) are usually determined by uterine environment. If mother during pregnancy was under stress, then the result will be different from if the mother was well fed and taken care of. After birth too, a portion of how tall one becomes for instance depends on nutrition. So depending how things go for the clone and had gone for the nucleus donor, there will be differences between the two. In theory, to produce an "exact" likeness of someone, you will need to reproduce exact uterine life environment and the growth phase period after birth. But even after all these, you will not be able to get a complete exactness. Even identical twins (natural clones) with separate placentas at birth who lived life together have small differences. After all the body has some 100 trillion cells and to produce the exact likeness would necessitate these 100 trillion cells to have the exact distribution and organization. You can get pretty close with cloning like the identical twins though with a chronological gap. But this is the best you can get. The only way to produce an exact clone would be to use some kind of a nanotechnology manufacturing. It is not possible via known biological pathways.

And for an infertile female human, can we take the cell from the father and the egg from the mother, fuse them and then plant this "fertile egg" in another fertile woman? In this case, the baby would be close to man and women whose cell and egg were used and not the woman who just 'contained' the fertile egg and raised it, right?

The technical term for what you described is IVF (invitro fertilization, in vitro is latin and means in "glass"). Now IVF can be done using the couple's sperm and egg, or donated sperm or egg or both. The fertilized eggs can also be implanted in a surrogate mother. People are already doing this for both medical and non-medical reasons for example Western women who do not want to experience pregnancy and want their own biological children often go to countries such as India and hire surrogate mothers.

Genetically the baby is going to be the couple's. And till now it was thought nothing is picked up from surrogate mother. But then this paper came out recently: Semen secrets: How a previous sexual partner can influence another male's offspring | EurekAlert! Science News

Basically as you can see, it is any man's nightmare. It seems the uterine environment is more complex and contributes in gene expression way more than previously thought.

 

[Serpentine]

No problem. Thanks for the rating! Taking a rating from you has another mazeh . Though I have to caution you that I belong to human medicine and I am not a conservation biologist. In simple terms:



Yes As long you have a living example or intact genetical material you can. In case genetical material is lost, then for all practical purposes with our current technological capability, you can consider that species gone. Since genetical material is like the data needed to build that animal. In engineering terms it is the blueprint schematics. The M code file. Though there is alot of work going on in synthetic biology, I do not think we are anywhere near to produce a completely synthetic higher organism from scratch (though this might become possible in future).

As long as you have living examples of those lions or leopards, you can do it with today's technology. If you have genetical code for those, then it will in high probability be possible in future (near to medium term).

The cloned animals theoretically should be the same from genetical point of view. But the learned behavior will be lost. For example a cloned bird will not have any parents or community to learn migratory routes from or for lions the hurting and socializing patterns etc.



Sex selection technology already exists and for an extra payment the IVF is modified to select the sex of the baby. Though it is not "120%" fool proof but it has a very high success rate. Originally it was being used for families having sex specific genetic diseases to weed out the carrier sex and have normal babies. Nowadays specially in Non-Western countries this procedure is being abused to "weed out" girls.



Theoretically you can. No one has attempted it (at least in public). But there is nothing in biology that prohibits it. The only inhibition comes from social expectation of what science should or should not do.

What do you mean by modifying strength? If you mean taking out the chance of developing certain diseases, then these are certainly possible and some are in fact in use (for example the sex selection above).

Another way which might happen in future, would be to genetically engineer your baby. Weed out the diseases in your family and the wifey's family, introduce genes associated with longevity and intelligence, and even introduce ones which you deem desirable for example blue/black eyes or black/white skin or whatever else. But then the more you modify the genetic code, a philosophical question might arise. The question that, this "thing" you are creating is NOT YOU. The whole act of reproduction, having a baby and investing in their upbringing has one of its foundation motivations the reward of knowing that YOU will continue to live on through the genes you have passed on. As you replace more of your genes with other variants even if those are exactly what you want and know you want, at the end you will face the paradox of Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The human clone will look "exactly" like the original nucleus donor. There might be very small differences for example the ratio of hand fingers or the symmetry of the face (an indicator of beauty) are usually determined by uterine environment. If mother during pregnancy was under stress, then the result will be different from if the mother was well fed and taken care of. After birth too, a portion of how tall one becomes for instance depends on nutrition. So depending how things go for the clone and had gone for the nucleus donor, there will be differences between the two. In theory, to produce an "exact" likeness of someone, you will need to reproduce exact uterine life environment and the growth phase period after birth. But even after all these, you will not be able to get a complete exactness. Even identical twins (natural clones) with separate placentas at birth who lived life together have small differences. After all the body has some 100 trillion cells and to produce the exact likeness would necessitate these 100 trillion cells to have the exact distribution and organization. You can get pretty close with cloning like the identical twins though with a chronological gap. But this is the best you can get. The only way to produce an exact clone would be to use some kind of a nanotechnology manufacturing. It is not possible via known biological pathways.




The technical term for what you described is IVF (invitro fertilization, in vitro is latin and means in "glass"). Now IVF can be done using the couple's sperm and egg, or donated sperm or egg or both. The fertilized eggs can also be implanted in a surrogate mother. People are already doing this for both medical and non-medical reasons for example Western women who do not want to experience pregnancy and want their own biological children often go to countries such as India and hire surrogate mothers.

Genetically the baby is going to be the couple's. And till now it was thought nothing is picked up from surrogate mother. But then this paper came out recently: Semen secrets: How a previous sexual partner can influence another male's offspring | EurekAlert! Science News

Basically as you can see, it is any man's nightmare. It seems the uterine environment is more complex and contributes in gene expression way more than previously thought.

Thanks for the thorough and elaborate answer, I think I got all my answers. It's always a pleasure asking questions from someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

 

[bsruzm]

Iran should also find some remains of the extinct Caspian tiger, get its DNA and revive one.

 

[SOHEIL]

 

[haman10]

Theoretically you can. No one has attempted it (at least in public). But there is nothing in biology that prohibits it. The only inhibition comes from social expectation of what science should or should not do.

Both practically and theoretically .

The main scare is that the mammals that are cloned are much more susceptible to ARDS and organ failure . CHF , CRF and abnormal LFT due to liver failure and even hepatorenal syndrome is very common .

Royana's LFT became abnormal before she died at only 3 years old

 

[Daneshmand]

Both practically and theoretically .

The main scare is that the mammals that are cloned are much more susceptible to ARDS and organ failure . CHF , CRF and abnormal LFT due to liver failure and even hepatorenal syndrome is very common .

Royana's LFT became abnormal before she died at only 3 years old

Yes. These are some technical issues with cloning and the researchers are working on these. After all forming a whole new organism from a somatic cell is not easy and everything has not been worked out yet. But I am not aware of anyone having attempted to clone a human.

Thanks for the thorough and elaborate answer, I think I got all my answers. It's always a pleasure asking questions from someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

No problem. I hope we are going to see Iran progressing even faster in near future.

 

[raptor22]

Here is a story. Once upon a time a mechanical engineer while repairing a complicated diesel engine, complained to a heart surgeon, how come I get paid so little while we are basically doing the same job. You repair a mechanical pump by name of heart, and I repair pumps, engines and all sorts of things. There should be no difference between us.

Doctor looked at the opened crankcase and the exposed cylinders and all the pistons and piston rods on the floor and told the engineer. You are right, but there is one difference. For you to get paid as much as I do, you have to be able to repair the engine while it is running.

There my friend, remains the difference.

That's right but don't forget the fact that doctors are the only group that enjoy the opportunity of burring their mistakes ....

No problem. Thanks for the rating! Taking a rating from you has another mazeh . Though I have to caution you that I belong to human medicine and I am not a conservation biologist. In simple terms:



Yes As long you have a living example or intact genetical material you can. In case genetical material is lost, then for all practical purposes with our current technological capability, you can consider that species gone. Since genetical material is like the data needed to build that animal. In engineering terms it is the blueprint schematics. The M code file. Though there is alot of work going on in synthetic biology, I do not think we are anywhere near to produce a completely synthetic higher organism from scratch (though this might become possible in future).

As long as you have living examples of those lions or leopards, you can do it with today's technology. If you have genetical code for those, then it will in high probability be possible in future (near to medium term).

The cloned animals theoretically should be the same from genetical point of view. But the learned behavior will be lost. For example a cloned bird will not have any parents or community to learn migratory routes from or for lions the hurting and socializing patterns etc.



Sex selection technology already exists and for an extra payment the IVF is modified to select the sex of the baby. Though it is not "120%" fool proof but it has a very high success rate. Originally it was being used for families having sex specific genetic diseases to weed out the carrier sex and have normal babies. Nowadays specially in Non-Western countries this procedure is being abused to "weed out" girls.



Theoretically you can. No one has attempted it (at least in public). But there is nothing in biology that prohibits it. The only inhibition comes from social expectation of what science should or should not do.

What do you mean by modifying strength? If you mean taking out the chance of developing certain diseases, then these are certainly possible and some are in fact in use (for example the sex selection above).

Another way which might happen in future, would be to genetically engineer your baby. Weed out the diseases in your family and the wifey's family, introduce genes associated with longevity and intelligence, and even introduce ones which you deem desirable for example blue/black eyes or black/white skin or whatever else. But then the more you modify the genetic code, a philosophical question might arise. The question that, this "thing" you are creating is NOT YOU. The whole act of reproduction, having a baby and investing in their upbringing has one of its foundation motivations the reward of knowing that YOU will continue to live on through the genes you have passed on. As you replace more of your genes with other variants even if those are exactly what you want and know you want, at the end you will face the paradox of Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The human clone will look "exactly" like the original nucleus donor. There might be very small differences for example the ratio of hand fingers or the symmetry of the face (an indicator of beauty) are usually determined by uterine environment. If mother during pregnancy was under stress, then the result will be different from if the mother was well fed and taken care of. After birth too, a portion of how tall one becomes for instance depends on nutrition. So depending how things go for the clone and had gone for the nucleus donor, there will be differences between the two. In theory, to produce an "exact" likeness of someone, you will need to reproduce exact uterine life environment and the growth phase period after birth. But even after all these, you will not be able to get a complete exactness. Even identical twins (natural clones) with separate placentas at birth who lived life together have small differences. After all the body has some 100 trillion cells and to produce the exact likeness would necessitate these 100 trillion cells to have the exact distribution and organization. You can get pretty close with cloning like the identical twins though with a chronological gap. But this is the best you can get. The only way to produce an exact clone would be to use some kind of a nanotechnology manufacturing. It is not possible via known biological pathways.




The technical term for what you described is IVF (invitro fertilization, in vitro is latin and means in "glass"). Now IVF can be done using the couple's sperm and egg, or donated sperm or egg or both. The fertilized eggs can also be implanted in a surrogate mother. People are already doing this for both medical and non-medical reasons for example Western women who do not want to experience pregnancy and want their own biological children often go to countries such as India and hire surrogate mothers.

Genetically the baby is going to be the couple's. And till now it was thought nothing is picked up from surrogate mother. But then this paper came out recently: Semen secrets: How a previous sexual partner can influence another male's offspring | EurekAlert! Science News

Basically as you can see, it is any man's nightmare. It seems the uterine environment is more complex and contributes in gene expression way more than previously thought.

The paradox of "Ship of Theseus" could be a matter for debate in every aspect of our lives , for example a culprit could reject standing in the court of law by issuing and referring to this paradox ... that as far as I've changed and aged I'm not the one who committed the crime (abdication of responsibility) ... but it's a little bit different when it comes to the cloning in man with the rest of beings and species , all what we as human transfer through reproducing ain't the color of the eyes or hair and etc ... it's our thoughts that make all the differences ... moreover no one could claim that their offspring is 100% a carbon copy of themselves .....

Damn , thats a burrrn . let me drink some apple juice to that

@Serpentine , you're one of the most talented engineers Iran has - literally - and you're continuing your studies at one of the world's TOP engineering schools .

but dude , only after getting your master's degree , you'll make 1/10th of me annually . @kollang

thats gotta hurt

ouch .


you little monster

You are right I know a doctor that earns around 200 million T in a month ... in Tehran ....