and are you for therapeutic cloning versus reproductive cloning?
2007-06-01 11:36:21 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
A stem cell knows what kind of cell to turn into in part from environmental conditions. Thus, there is no reason to believe that if we can produce the right environment, we cannot convince the stem cells to become whatever we like on any scale - a single tissue, a single organ, an organ system, or even a whole person.
I have seen experiments which have actually produced globs of cartilage and heart cells, and I seem to recall an Asian researcher producing small bunches of capillaries from stem cells (something we have no way of producing or transplanting otherwise!). So lab work seems to be confirming the theoretical framework. But we still have a ways to go.
Personally, I don't think it's a question of being for or against cloning. The potential benefits are so vast that someone WILL do it. And when they succeed, everyone else WILL follow suit or be left behind. There just aren't many other options.
2007-06-01 13:12:21 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We can already grow skin.
An ear has been grown on the back of a mouse - but it was experimental and a non-transplantable xenograft.
2007-06-01 19:01:36 · answer #2 · answered by Orinoco 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. I'm for naturall cloning. It sounds so futuristic.
2007-06-01 18:42:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Theoretically, it should be possible, but it hasn't been done yet. That's part of what stem cell research is supposed to find out, but embryonic has proven worthless, so far. Umbilical cord seems to be the most promising.
_____________________________
KrazyKyngeKorny (Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
2007-06-01 18:43:47 · answer #4 · answered by krazykyngekorny 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. A body is needed to keep the organs "living".
2007-06-01 18:40:54 · answer #5 · answered by Curiosity 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋