Cloning and its vicinity

And you will be a baobab tree for a thousand years… Biopresence founders George Tremmel and Shiho Fukuhara (Shiho Fukuhara) received the British Award for achievements in science, technology, and the arts, which recognized their development of an original method for immortalizing the memory of the deceased. Their company is ready to incorporate the deceased’s DNA into trees intended for planting on graves. DNA is extracted from oral epithelial cells and incorporated (in an inactive form, according to the plan) into a plant cell, from which the tree is grown. This potential “eternal life” is offered at a relatively low cost—20,000 pounds. And then there is the possibility of propagating the human-tree through cuttings… The obstacles to implementing this idea are more legal in nature (the need to register new transgenic organisms) than technological. Biopresence will have to prove to customers that the deceased person’s DNA will continue to exist in plant cells, while simultaneously convincing regulatory authorities that it will not affect the host plants. Alas, it is not yet clear what will happen to the significant amount of genetic information that is transmitted from cell to cell but does not participate in the life processes. Normally, the structural part of genetic information is subject to stabilizing selection, which suppresses unsuccessful variants of individual development. It is likely that the introduced and deactivated information will change much more rapidly. Only God knows where this will lead. Examining the premises of the proposed idea, one can see in it a reflection of the modern reductionist myth, which reduces the uniqueness of an organism to the characteristics of its genetic information. Of course, genes are important for development, but it is necessary to remember that egg cells with identical genomes can develop differently: during development, what occurs is not the “installation of a genetic program,” but the creation of a new entity using “genetic libraries.” DNA sequences are not the quintessence of a human being, not some kind of “com-file” (and one that is independent of the cell’s “operating system”), but merely a set of “dll materials” mixed with various debris. Incidentally, the logical extension of such a “genetic-centrist” view is the idea of the “New Buddha” Rael, leader of the Raelian sect, to clone Adolf Hitler, and when the child grows up—to hand him over to the International Tribunal for punishment for the crimes of Nazi Germany. The trees Biopresence is ready to experiment with are apple trees. I wonder how eating apples from a memorial tree will be viewed? The weakest link No technology, not even the most sophisticated, can protect against the misfortunes caused by the negligence of those carrying out the work. In 1998, two women—Donna Fasano, who is white, and Deborah Perry-Rogers, who is Black—simultaneously sought treatment at Central Park Medical Services, an American clinic specializing in artificial insemination. The first became pregnant; the second did not. After the expected time had passed, Donna Fasano gave birth to two children, one of whom turned out to be Black. Apparently, due to the doctor’s carelessness, Perry-Rogers’ fertilized embryo was transferred to her neighbor’s uterus via a contaminated catheter. As always in America, whenever trouble arises, there is a winning side—the lawyers. The surrogate parents handed the child over to the biological parents, but the two couples have still been unable to reach an agreement regarding the child’s status and the possibility of shared custody. The court is deciding the case. Donna Fasano sued the clinic and received compensation. The amount has not been officially disclosed, but, according to unofficial reports, it amounts to half a million dollars. Perry-Rogers’ lawsuit against the clinic will begin to be heard in the fall. And yet, as super-technologies continue their triumphant march into our lives, such situations will only become more common! Genetic “cuckoos” Japanese researchers have developed a truly revolutionary technology. They managed to get individuals of one species to reproduce, producing offspring of another species. Cells from which sperm develop were transplanted from trout to a species of Far Eastern salmon. Next, the milt (sperm suspension) from the modified salmon was used to fertilize trout eggs. Normal development was observed in 0.4% of the eggs. The researchers emphasize the promise of this new technology. With its help, it will be sufficient to preserve the precursor cells of reproductive products from endangered species in order to subsequently restore them using surrogate parents. Furthermore (if the survival rate of the offspring can be brought to an acceptable level), it may turn out that in animal husbandry, it will be more practical to use surrogate parents instead of the actual ones. Imagine: sturgeon fry not from parents of their own species (which would require extensive rearing), but, for example, from “early-maturing” carp… However, only the first step has been taken in implementing this new technology. The implantation of egg cells, however, is a much more complex task. Moreover, in the case of mammals, foreign egg cells will need to be implanted into a surrogate mother at the embryonic stage, who is still residing within the “surrogate grandmother.” Furthermore, during maturation, the egg cell enters into a highly complex relationship with the mother’s body, and it is crucial that they “speak the same language”—that is, have compatible regulatory systems. The Japanese, however, achieved results using undemanding male specimens, and moreover—from two fairly closely related species of salmonids. It seems that no matter where you transplant a carp, it won’t start spawning black caviar. Can biotechnology bring something fundamentally new to this world? Mechanisms for transmitting information from one species to another via viruses emerged in nature long before the advent of humans, and certainly not with the development of genetic engineering. For example, the green frogs found in western Russia (as well as in Belarus, Ukraine, and Western Europe), which sit along the banks of bodies of water and jump into the water at the slightest sign of danger, belong to three species. When pond frogs interbreed with lake frogs, they produce edible frogs (in this case, “edible,” “lake,” and “pond” are names, not qualities; all three forms are edible). So, edible frogs—that is, the hybrid form—genetically parasitize their parent species. When edible frogs live with pond frogs, they produce lake frog gametes so that the offspring are again hybrids. As you can see, by interbreeding with lake frogs, they produce pond frog gametes… So it seems Japanese technology has a bright future ahead—it’s not built on thin air. * * * One of Hong Kong’s medical clinics has begun offering services to help couples choose the optimal time to conceive a child of a specific gender. The prediction is based on tests and questionnaires. Doctors claim that their method works in 98% of cases, and if they’re wrong, they promise to refund the money. The irony of the situation is that, by predicting a child’s gender with only a fifty-percent probability, the clinic will honestly keep half of the money received from clients. For this payment method to be unprofitable, the doctors would have to be wrong in one hundred percent of cases, and that is not easy to achieve. A New Cause for Fear Which branch of experimental biology attracts the most attention from the general public? Cloning, of course. There is still no more or less reliable method for cloning mammals, and one is unlikely to appear in the near future. Nevertheless, passions surrounding this technology are running high all over the world. For instance, the website Membrana.ru recently published psychiatrist Sergei Vygonsky’s prophecies about future wars involving clones. In his view, born psychologically old, deprived of intrauterine experience and parental love, human clones will launch an uncompromising struggle against the rest of humanity. The author of the study predicts that “nature will see to it” that clones have reduced sexual desire, which, in turn, will lead to an inferiority complex and a sense of their own superiority. So, the clones will throw all their strength into fighting us. What a PR stunt for the new technology! Even fears associated with genetically modified plants don’t hold a candle to this: they aren’t preparing for war with humans just yet. What can compare to cloning? The creation of chimeras—organisms composed of cells of different origins (for example, cells from different animal species). Chimeras are not a new invention. As early as the beginning of the last century, it became known that foreign cells can be introduced into developing embryos quite easily. It is now understood that before the embryo’s immune system develops, anything that becomes part of it will be accepted as “self.” Professor Irving Weissman, director of the Stanford University Stem Cell Institute, has announced that he is preparing to create a mouse with a human brain. Weissman has already bred mice in which approximately 1% of the brain tissue consists of human cells; the next step is a fully “human” brain. Such research is not regulated by law, but Weissman wants to obtain approval from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (essentially a public organization that reflects the views of the scientific community). Of course, a mouse will not develop a brain that even remotely resembles a human one, but it will be very interesting to see what happens. Most likely, no actual achievement by Professor Weissman would have attracted as much media attention as his declared intention to create chimeras. Are we waiting for a priori analysis of the deformation of the human psyche in the body of a mouse (cow, crocodile, cockroach)? Offspring from a gelding In some areas of breeding, even a small improvement in certain animal traits can be a major success. A cow that, under optimal conditions, produces 0.1% more milk than her peers will not be viewed by breeders as a scientific victory. But a racehorse that covers the distance 0.1% faster than its competitor can bring its breeders a hefty fee. The breeding of racehorses is fraught with great difficulties. As is well known, in general, it can be assumed that it is not the organism’s traits that are inherited, but rather a predisposition toward their development. We cannot know for certain whether a foal will be a good or bad runner. Only when it grows up and shows what it is capable of will it be possible to decide whether to involve it in breeding. But there is a serious obstacle here. In show jumping, endurance racing, and horse polo, the champions are geldings—that is, stallions with their reproductive organs removed. By the time the potential value of a champion horse’s offspring becomes clear, he will no longer be able to produce offspring. If mature horses are gelded, their frozen semen can be used for further breeding. But the rules prohibit entering horses produced by “unnatural” means into competitions. Italian geneticists cloned the Arabian racehorse Pieras—a gelding who won endurance races in 1994 and 1996. The resulting foal was named Pieras-Cryozootech-Stallion (the work was carried out in collaboration with the French company Cryozootech). The last part of the name refers to the clone’s main feature—it is capable of producing offspring, and in a completely natural way, as required by equestrian sport regulations. It is unlikely that such an opportunity to produce offspring would have suited a eunuch guarding the beauties in the royal harem, but there is no doubt that cell technologies have overcome yet another natural limitation. D. Shabanov. And You Will Be a Baobab for a Thousand Years... // Computerra, Moscow, 2004. – No. 18–19 (542–543). – Pp. 13–14 D. Shabanov. The Weakest Link // Computerra, Moscow, 2004. – No. 26–27 (550–551). – p. 16 D. Shabanov. Genetic “Cuckoos” // Computerra, Moscow, 2004. – No. 29–30 (553–554). – pp. 12–14 D. Shabanov. Untitled (One of the medical…) // Computerra, Moscow, 2004. – No. 38 (562). – p. 12 D. Shabanov. A New Reason for Fear // Computerra, Moscow, 2005. – No. 5 (577). – pp. 15–16 D. Shabanov. Offspring of a Gelding // Computerra, Moscow, 2005. – No. 16 (588)