Traitwell's Future of Genomics Series: Cloning
We're continuing our discussion about the future of genomics.
We’re continuing our analysis of the future of genomics. For those who are curious, please visit Traitwell.com. Be sure to check out our free apps.
Cloning, practised using animals for decades, is even more feasible than gene editing. Given the complexity of gene effects, starting from a completely expressed genome with proven properties is very attractive. Editing may be combined with cloning: keep known traits, alter others. The downside is that the benefits of sexual breeding are lost—for instance, the reshuffled variation that enables disease resistance. Again, ethical constraints when working with humans require much greater caution than, say, with livestock. Cloning of pets, say from the gene memorial repositories mentioned above, is straightforward where cell samples are kept.
There has been much speculation about cloning of eminent humans from their remains where those are available. Many—though perhaps not all, nor for all time—would consider this unethical, but we will consider practical questions here first. Using current technology, cloning would have to proceed from cells, such as hair, tissue or saliva samples. Working from whole genome sequences is more difficult, since it requires reprogramming another cell to use the desired sequence. There is an intermediate application though, where only sub-sequences are reprogrammed, not the whole genome—one may know exactly which segments of the genome are of functional interest for the cases at hand. Two follow-on questions may be explored. Would cloning of the eminent be useful? Are there downsides?
Usefulness is relatively easy to demonstrate where we confine ourselves to the very upper limits of human ability—those individuals who come along once a century say and have had epoch-changing impacts. Newton, Gauss, Riemann, Hilbert, Einstein, Von Neumann, Gödel and the like. Those unable to convince themselves of this should pause to consider if others, say foreign governments, will similarly fail to be convinced.
Downsides are frequency dependent. Widespread cloning among humans would undermine sexual reproduction, with its restless exploration of gene-space and disease-resistance benefits. But if only a few very eminent individuals are cloned this is not a concern at all: they will have no measurable impact on overall human diversity. It is often argued that the evil may just as well be cloned as the eminent, where these are not the same people. This is undoubtedly true, but if cloning itself can be abjured, so can cloning of the evil.
Will ethical concerns about cloning humans ever be overcome? Given enough time, one may speculate that they will, given the overwhelming temptations on offer.