Scientists drew their conclusions after interviewing identical twins about their experiences of sharing exactly the same genes with somebody else.
The team said the twins believed their genes played a limited role in shaping their identity.
The UK/Austrian research will shortly be published in the journal of Social Science and Medicine.
Co-author Dr Barbara Prainsack, from the University of Vienna, Austria, who worked with Professor Tim Spector, from the Twins Research Unit, St Thomas' Hospital, London, said: "The birth of Dolly the sheep triggered many questions about what it would be like to be a clone.
"We don't have clones we can interview - but we do have identical twins."
|
This interesting study reveals how we should not have any prejudiced
feelings about the idea of genetically identical individuals living
amongst us
Professor Lovell-Badge |
Identical twins are created when a single egg, fertilised by a single sperm, splits into two separate, but genetically identical, embryos.
The researchers said because twins - like potential clones - share the same genes, they offer the only existing method of studying the feelings a clone might experience.
But they also emphasized twins would differ from clones because they are born at the same time, whereas clones would differ in age.
One of a pair?
The scientists carried out 17 interviews of identical, non-identical and non-twin siblings.
The identical twins said being a twin did not compromise their individuality - although they pointed out that people often had preconceptions that they were one of a pair rather than individuals.
Those interviewed viewed being an identical twin as a blessing, and said they would not rather be a non-identical twin or a "singleton".
They also said they believed their genes had no great bearing on their relationship with their twin and their identity.
The twins felt factors such as being brought up in the same environment, having spent a large part of their lives together, and being treated in a similar way by their parents were more important.
One interviewee said: "We spent 20 years together, and so that was a close experience. And that hasn't changed all of these years we've been apart. So I don't feel that genetics made any difference."
From these findings the scientists said they could assume a clone would probably not feel their individuality was compromised by sharing genes with someone else; that their relationship with their co-clone was a blessing; and their uniqueness was not a negative thing.
Dr Prainsack said: "According to the genetically identical people in our study, the problem would not be genetic sameness, but more the motives with which somebody would determine somebody else's genome.
"The cloning debate would benefit from shifting away its focus from genetic sameness to looking more at social reasons for why the deliberate creation of human beings with a certain genetic make-up could hurt society."
Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, a geneticist from the Medical Research Council's National Institute for Medical Research, London, said: "Human reproductive cloning is not safe and should not be attempted with current knowledge.
"In my opinion, there are no strong reasons for even attempting it.
"But this interesting study and, although small, reveals how we should not have any prejudiced feelings about the idea of genetically identical individuals living amongst us."
(K.W. how about that statement up there from Prof. Lovell-Badge. up there , he said 
human cloning should not be attempted with "Current Knowledge". Nice to see he has an open mind about it. That is really what is wrong here. It's not that they have some moral problem with it. It's that currently they don't know how to do it. Isn't it obvious what is going to happen one day. It could be a cult or it could be North Korea, could be South Korea, but one day some nutcase is going to clone a person and tell us about it. What are they doing here laying some ground work for the future?)
(ED. note I don't have to make this stuff up. The media supplies me with this stuff. )
Read this and weep!
WASHINGTON: Former US President Bill
Clinton who many Arab thoughts was more even-handed on the Palestine
question than his predecessors shocked many when he asserted in Toronto
last week that had Israel been attacked by Iraq or Iran during his
presidency, he would have been ready to “grab a rifle, get in a ditch
and fight and die.”
“The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the
Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a
rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die,” Clinton told the crowd at a
fund-raising event for a Toronto Jewish charity Monday.
You should have been able to figure out that the pentagon was not attacked by the CIA but if you are still confused? Here you go a total analysis of the last minutes of flight 77 and pictures of all of the debris and all of the damage. I don't know how you could have ignored the calls coming from the planes before they crashed anyway. You must really hate Bush to think up some really dumb stuff like this.
Or maybe you have seen to many Hollywood movies where the CIA is the villain of the ages. Even in the Rambo movies the CIA is the enemy so I am not surprised really, I should expect it. Not that you would be affected by Hollywood propaganda that could not be possible.
More Articles...
- Leading Ouija Board Experts Agree
- Gun Ownership Up & Violent Crime Down
- In Pyoungyang they are saying Dang!
- Why citizens must own and carry firearms
- The Godless have a new/old saint
- Do I look like a clown to you?
- It's a fine line between human shield and human killing machine
- Alcohol a Bigger Threat to U.S. Youth Than Drugs
Page 44 of 50
