Fertility expert: ‘I can clone a human being’

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

STEM CELLS

A controversial fertility doctor named Panayiotis Zavos claimed yesterday to have cloned 14 human embryos and transferred 11 of them into the wombs of four women prepared to give birth to cloned babies.

“There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen,” Dr Zavos said in an interview yesterday with The Independent.

The cloning was recorded by an independent documentary filmmaker who has testified to The Independent that the cloning had taken place and the women were genuinely hoping to become pregnant with the first cloned embryos specifically created for the purposes of human reproduction.

If true, Panayiotis Zavos has broken the ultimate taboo of transferring cloned embryos into the human womb — a procedure that is a criminal offense in Britain and illegal in many other countries. He carried out the work at a secret laboratory, probably located in the Middle East where there is no cloning ban.

This entry was posted in International News, News, Science and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Fertility expert: ‘I can clone a human being’

  1. Aunt Peg says:

    I guess this is a big step forward in fertility science.

    I guess I just assumed human cloning was already a fact of science and probably carried out in a country without laws to restrict it. I’m not enthusiastic just because there are so many kids living in foster care who will never be adopted and enjoy a family of their own, so what’s the point of cloning?

  2. RealWorldRadical says:

    I’ve always wondered how identical twins feel about some of the expressions of horror that people make about cloning. I can certainly see why there are arguments for caution, but I keep hearing the “not an individual” argument, and I always think of the millions of twins to which the same horror would therefore have to be applied. Let’s just hope the science is solid before people get too eager to experiment.

  3. lea-lea says:

    What happened to cloning to replace human body parts damaged and worn out for the host to benefit from?

    Like an ear or a finger damaged in an accident, or a significant organ like a heart or eye damaged by a disease? I thought this was the direction of human cloning and not for some rich, straight couple to get their designed baby?

  4. Walk on Socks says:

    I think one day we will turn on cable news or the network news and they will be featuring a perfectly formed, 4 year old human cloned boy or girl.

    Naturally, the world will screech, the religious loons will say the child should be killed to stop the End of Days, and the U.S., always a decade behind the scientific curve, will secretly try to figure out how to use the technology to clone soldiers to fight and die in one of our endless wars.

    Sorry to be so cynical but this is my opinion.

  5. Joe in Colorado says:

    So the wealthy among us can have their designer babies after all? The boys will all be blonde, 6′ 4′ tall, blue eyes, heterosexual and primed to run a 3 minute mile. The girls will all be blonde, 5′ 7″ and willowy, green eyes, and programmed to be as passive as puppies. In 100 years, gone will be the diversity that makes humanity so interesting.

  6. JollyRoger says:

    I thought we already had them? Aren’t they known as “Dittoheads?” Inbreeding is just cloning by other routes, isn’t it?

  7. libhomo says:

    Can he clone some really hot guys I know who already have boyfriends?

  8. Rachel says:

    It’s the same reason I don’t understand AKC dogs when there are all these fabulous, unwanted dogs in kennels and pounds needing to be adopted. People want everything perfect. Sorry, but this isn’t reality. How about not cloning babies and adopting instead?

  9. Joshua says:

    In 100 years, gone will be the diversity that makes humanity so interesting.

    You assume that all parents want the same thing. People have differing opinions on what their dream house would be, what their dream car would be, and what their dream job would be. Surely each couple’s idea of the child of their dreams will be as varied and diverse as the couples themselves.

  10. “What happened to cloning to replace human body parts damaged and worn out for the host to benefit from?”

    This is opens a Pandora’s Box. Do the clones have rights? Is it acceptable to kill a clone to “save a human?” I honestly do not know and therefore don’t want to open that can of worms.

  11. Conejo1982 says:

    I didn’t think a cloned ear had rights?

    It’s an ear — not a living man or woman. Unless I’m missing the point here.

  12. I think the problem here is defining “cloning.” From my perspective, you clone a whole being, human or sheep. On the other hand, you can produce tissues. So, sure, producing an ear, for example, poses no issues for me, but cloning a human does.

  13. Joshua says:

    So, sure, producing an ear, for example, poses no issues for me, but cloning a human does.

    If I may ask, how much of a human body must you clone before you have an issue with it? Would you have a problem, say, with the production of anencephalic human bodies via cloning?

  14. See now the heart of the issue for me is where you draw the line at being human. I myself haven’t given it enough thought. I am not a philosopher per se, but it seems to me that once you go past parts and go to the whole, there is a problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s