Monthly Archives: January 2022

Understanding the real science behind the headlines and the hubbub.

Cloning. More than ever, the word stirs emotion and triggers debate, as what was once science fiction becomes scientific fact. Just what are researchers working on and why? Do we have anything to gain, or to lose, from their continued efforts?

For the first time, researchers have successfully cloned a human embryo -- and have extracted stem cells, the body's building blocks, from the embryo. Stem cells are considered one of the greatest hopes for curing diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and paralysis caused by spinal cord injury.

Before you decide where you stand on this debate, you'll need to understand where the science is today. To put it all in perspective, WebMD asked some renowned scientists to explain precisely what cloning is and what it isn't. Popular depictions -- from the ominous hordes of worker drones in the futuristic novel Brave New World to Michael Keaton's comic time-saving duplicates in the film Multiplicity -- have almost nothing to do with reality.

"Clones are genetically identical individuals," says Harry Griffin, PhD. "Twins are clones." Griffin is assistant director of the Roslin Institute -- the lab in Edinburgh, Scotland, where Dolly the cloned sheep was created in 1997.

Usually, after sperm and egg meet, the fertilized cell begins dividing. Remaining in a clump, the one becomes two, then four, eight, 16, and so on. These cells become increasingly specialized to a particular function and organize into organs and systems. Eventually, it's a baby.

Sometimes, though, after the first division, the two cells split apart. They continue dividing separately, growing to become two individuals with the exact same genetic make-up -- identical twins, or clones. This phenomenon, though not entirely understood, is far from unusual. We've all known identical twins.

Early on, says Griffin, the term cloning referred to embryo splitting -- doing in the lab what happens in the woman's body to create identical twins. "It was first done in cattle, but there are one or two human examples." Those human embryos were never implanted, he says. "Twins were not deliberately created, but they certainly could be."

When we speak of cloning nowadays, however, we're referring not to embryo splitting, but to a process called nuclear transfer. "The importance is that with nuclear transfer, you can copy an existing individual, and that's why there's controversy," says Griffin.

In nuclear transfer, DNA from an unfertilized egg is removed and replaced with DNA from an adult body cell -- a skin cell, for example. When the process works, the manipulated cell -- coaxed by the newly-implanted genetic material -- begins to divide and eventually becomes a genetic replica of the adult-cell donor. The process produces a new individual whose identical twin is not a minute or two older, but already grown up.

Now, researchers in South Korea and the University of Michigan have cloned a human embryo. This is not cloning to make a genetically matched baby, but cloning for research purposes -- also called therapeutic cloning or research cloning.

This new development means that therapeutic cloning -- the ability to create human clones for research purposes -- is no longer a theory, but a reality. And it's sure to reignite the controversy of whether to ban all cloning or to allow some cloning for therapeutic purposes.

Therapeutic cloning is not new. Scientists have used the technology to cure a variety of diseases in mice. Scientists have also studied the potential uses of human stem cells culled from embryos leftover in fertility clinics.

Previous attempts to clone human embryos to obtain stem cells genetically identical to the patient are believed to have failed despite reports to the contrary -- until now.

In this new study, researchers collected 242 eggs donated by 16 South Korean volunteers. Women also donated some cells from their ovary.

The scientists then used a technique called somatic nuclear transfer to remove the genetic material -- which contains the nucleus of each egg -- and replace it with the nucleus from the donor's ovarian cell.

Then, using chemicals to trigger cell division, the researchers were able to create 30 blastocysts -- early-stage embryos that contain about 100 cells -- that were a genetic copy of the donor cells.

Next, the researchers harvested a single colony of stem cells that have the potential to grow into any tissue in the body. Because they are the genetic match to the donor, they aren't likely to be rejected by the patient's immune system.

"Our approach opens the door for the use of these specially developed cells in transplantation medicine," says Woo Suk Hwang, a scientist who led the research in South Korea.

But some researchers doubt that this technique for human cloning could ever be used for widespread treatment of disease.

"The great vision of this field is to create personalized stem cells for individual patients," says Griffin. "You'd take the cell from the patient and create the cell type you want -- say pancreatic islet cells for diabetics -- by transferring it to an egg, creating an embryo, and growing them."

"If there were enough women to donate enough eggs, and enough [funding], I'm certain it could be done," says Steven Stice, PhD, professor and GRE Eminent Scholar at the University of Georgia in Athens. "But we collect hundreds of eggs a day from cattle to do our cloning. You could never expect to do that in humans. Technically, it's not feasible."

"In the U.K., 120,000 people suffer from Parkinson's disease. Where are you going to get 120,000 human eggs? The reality is that there simply are not enough eggs ... available to make therapeutic cloning a practical, routine therapy," says Griffin.

And offering women money would still not yield the necessary numbers. The egg-harvesting process is just too uncomfortable. "Egg donation is akin to bone marrow transplantation as far as how unpleasant the process is for the donor," says Griffin.

And then there's money. "You'd have to produce an individual cell line for each person to avoid the immune response," says Stice. "The cost would be horrendous. It will be very difficult to get to an application [of the technology] that won't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars [each time]."

In the end, both experts agree that therapeutic cloning is really unnecessary, given the existing supply of viable embryos left over from in vitro fertilization. "They would be discarded," says Stice. "They're donated with consent, and would never have gone on to form an individual. There are great opportunities with existing cell lines to get to the point of treating disease. We don't have to go to [cloning]."

So why continue? Because of the wealth of information it can provide, says Griffin.

But there's another angle to cloning.

For some, the technology is seen not as a source for stem cells to cure disease, but as a last, best hope for biological offspring, or, mistakenly and tragically, as a means of "bringing back" a lost spouse, child, or other loved one.

First of all, says Griffin, "only about 1 to 2% of cloned animals make it to live birth." And you can't even extrapolate that number to humans, because cows and sheep get pregnant much more easily than do women. What's more, many animal clones die late in pregnancy, or early in life, he says.

Sure, there are healthy animal clones that appear to be normal. "But the tests of normality in animals are not particularly rigorous. From a safety point of view alone, no one should be attempting to clone a child," says Griffin.

Even if technology advances to the point where human reproductive cloning, as it's called, were a viable option -- and as you've seen, we're not even close -- anyone suggesting that cloning can duplicate an existing human being is just plain wrong, says Stice.

Identical twins are most certainly two different people -- they even have different fingerprints despite sharing 100% of their DNA. In the same way, your clone would be a unique individual.

In fact, says Stice, your clone would be "even less [like you] than your twin. Most twins are raised in similar environments, whereas a clone of an adult will most likely have different experiences and different environmental factors affecting them [as they grow]."

No matter how far science takes us, one thing is certain, people are simply not replaceable.

WebMD Feature

Pagination

Read the original:

The Facts and Fiction of Cloning - WebMD

When photographer Courtney Udvar-Hazy's wolf-dog hybrid tragically died after being struck by a car in 2018, she decided she needed to clone her.

Udvar-Hazy's dog Willow had quite a following on Instagram when she unexpectedly died. But the account, @WanderwithWillow, is still very much active, except now Udvar-Hazy posts pictures of her pup Phoenix.

Phoenix, a two-year-old wolf-dog hybrid, is Willow's clone.

Udvar-Hazy contacted the same company that famously cloned Barbra Streisand's dog Samantha in 2018, ViaGen Pets. The Texas-based company launched in 2016 and utilizes the original pet's cells to create an embryo which is then transferred to a surrogate mother.

Udvar-Hazy ended up with Phoenix as well as an additional five identical puppies that she gifted to her friends, Input Magazine reported.

Currently, ViaGen Pets is able to clone dogs for $50,000, cats for $35,000, and horses for an initial payment of $45,000. But according to the website, although the clone might have the exact same DNA profile as the original pet, it will still develop its own temperament and personality.

According to the website, the cloning process is fairly expensive due to "state of the art housing," nutritious diets, and "expert" veterinary care that the cloned puppies and kittens are provided.

While the idea behind cloning a deceased pet sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel, the technology isn't actually all that new. The first-ever cloned dog, Snuppy, was born in 2005. Using stem cells from Snuppy, scientists were able to reclone him and create four more dogs in 2017. While one dog died, the other three are all healthy.

While many people still share a concern that cloning animals could affect their health, ViaGen Pets claims that cloned animals are no more susceptible to health issues than noncloned animals.

With more and more people opening up about cloning their beloved pets, ViaGen hopes that the process will become more accessible and normalized in society. For many, cloning a pet serves as a coping mechanism to deal with their grief. But the cloning process is by no means a quick fix.

Kelly Anderson, who runs the Instagram account @adogandacat, said it took about four years for ViaGen Pets to clone her Ragdoll named Chai after she unexpectedly died while in the care of a pet sitter.

Before Chai's death, Anderson had accumulated more than 64,000 followers and now she wasn't sure how to keep the page active.

Anderson explained to Newsweek that she was up all night the day Chai died and remembered a recent conversation she had with a friend about ViaGen Pets and their cloning process. She recalled calling them as soon as they opened the next day.

Since her cat had already been frozen at the vet and the cloning process required live skin tissue, they told Anderson they could make no promises that the procedure would be successful because of the frozen tissue.

"They recommend that you do it while the cat or dog or horse is still alive because it's a noninvasive kind of procedure," she told Newsweek. "I have preached that to everyone since going through this process. Preserve cells now, the worst that happens is you're out like $1,000 or so and don't have any regret in case something unexpected does happen."

But luckily for Anderson, the team at ViaGen Pets was able to gather enough cells to clone Chai. Now, Anderson said she has Belle who looks identical to Chai and is working to build her Instagram account back up with Belle.

Newsweek reached out to Courtney Udvar-Hazy and ViaGen Pets.

Continued here:

Pet Cloning Becomes More Popular As Instagrammers Begin Replicating Deceased Pets - Newsweek

Australia: It Depends Can trust cloning be used to transfer assets between trusts without duty or CGT?

18 January 2022

Cooper Grace Ward

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In this edition of 'It depends', senior associateKeeghan Silcock talks about whether you can use a trust cloningstrategy as a way to transfer assets between two trusts withoutduty or, potentially, CGT.

Hi, and welcome to another edition of It Depends. Today,I'll be talking about whether you can use trust cloningstrategy as a way to transfer assets between two trusts withoutduty or potentially CGT.

It depends. Trust cloning strategy is unique to Queensland. So,the first major it depends factor is where are the assets of thattrust located. If the asset you're looking to transfer islocated in Queensland, then trust cloning may be a strategy foryou.

So, what is trust cloning? Trust cloning, simply put, is whereyou have an existing trust that owns an asset and you want totransfer it out of that trust to a new trust. You set up the newtrust in a particular way. Importantly, so that it has the sametrustee as the first trust and the same trust interests as thefirst trust. And what that means is for a discretionary trust, youneed to have the same default beneficiaries or for a unit trust,you need to have the same unit holders. Or for an SMSF, you need tohave the same members of that SMSF and all of those trust interestsneed to be held in the same proportion as between those two trusts.If you satisfy those requirements and the transfer of the asset isdone correctly between trust one and the new cloned trust, then youcan, in Queensland, transfer an asset between those two trustswithout any duty.

However, there is no specific tax exemption that applies for CGTpurposes on the transfer of assets between the two trusts. Thismeans that the transfer of assets will attract CGT potentially,although it could be minimised or completely eliminated altogether,depending on the availability of particular concessions, such as asmall business, CGT concessions.

If you have a client who is wanting to shift assets out of atrust into a new trust in Queensland, we suggest seeking adviceabout whether trust cloning could be a strategy for them so thatthere is no duty payable on that transfer. Please feel free tocontact a member of our team who would be happy to assist withthat.

Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers

Cooper Grace Ward is a leading Australian law firm based inBrisbane.

This publication is for information only and is not legaladvice. You should obtain advice that is specific to yourcircumstances and not rely on this publication as legal advice. Ifthere are any issues you would like us to advise you on arisingfrom this publication, please contact Cooper Grace WardLawyers.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Corporate/Commercial Law from Australia

Cooper Grace Ward

It is possible to protect assets in discretionary trusts from claims by third parties by a variation in the trust deed.

Cooper Grace Ward

This paper considers specific provisions that should be included in 'smart', tax effective, discretionary trust deeds.

Continue reading here:

It Depends Can trust cloning be used to transfer assets between trusts without duty or CGT? - Corporate/Commercial Law - Australia - Mondaq News...

When you really think about it, and that act right there already is a bit of the hard part for many, there may be no more universally shared feeling of the human condition than existential dread. No matter the spiritual or secular backgrounds possible, everyone pushes against those moments of reflection and crisis. The best movies that have addressed existential anxiety are some of the most challenging viewing experiences that stick with audiences long after their credits roll. Go ahead and add Benjamin Clearys Swan Song to that venerated list.

Furthermore, by channeling its abundantly unique story down a futuristic path, Swan Song also embraces the realm of potential science fiction. Moored by an immensely complex performance from two-time Academy Award winner Mahershala Ali, the crux of Clearys debut feature film oscillates on a virtuous decision amplified by the reach of technology not yet viable today. The drama may be all-inclusive with its existential dread, but the choices and implications considered and then enacted are strenuous yet sublime.

In the not-too-distant future, Ali plays Cameron, an artistically-driven product designer and married father of one son named Cory. His love story with his musician wife Poppy (the luminous Naomie Harris) began with a Meet Cute over a mistaken chocolate bar on a commuter train. Even through the shortcomings of their mutual work-life balance issues, their familys future looks promising with Poppy expecting their second child.That sunny future for Cameron is derailed when seizures he begins to experience foretell a terminal diagnosis giving him mere months to live. He will not survive long enough to see the birth of his new child and cannot bring himself to tell Poppy. However, one experimental medical option presents an unnerving measure of hope.

Pioneered by Dr. Jo Scott (8-time Oscar nominee Glenn Close) and her assisting psychologist Dalton (Adam Beach of Windtalkers), Arra Labs has developed a cloning program that copies your memories and behaviors into an exact physical copy. That healthy doppelganger can then be inserted into your life to take your place while you live out your remaining days at Arra Labs mountain retreat. The goal is to extend your perceived life and spare your family immediate grief.

With a baby on the way, that last part is the goal of Cameron, and he becomes more convinced by observing and bonding with another Arra Labs client named Kate (Awkwafina, star of the thematically similar The Farewell) who has completed this same clone exchange. The labs thorough counseling program of memory transfers and cross-checks has Cameron replaying the highs and lows of his life side-by-side with his clone, all while orchestrating an enormous secret.

Cameron is considering an action that will secure his familys future. Yet, perhaps the hardest part of Camerons journey is the prospect of saying a goodbye that no one will know is an actual goodbye. Even if his days are numbered, he has to live with the notion of someone else living what should be his life. Such reflections jar his indomitable male will as a husband and father.

This laborious proposition of Swan Song guarantees to split audiences with an ethical wrestling match between honesty and empathy on whether they could do what Cameron has chosen. One has to wonder how many shielding spouses and parents would consider this radical course of action if it were available and find pity and solidarity in that grave choice. Yet, its the lie of it all that will be a certain hang-up for others, and understandably so. While this whole undertaking is a personal choice for Cameron to make, it is also a decision he may be unfairly denying from his wife and children, unbeknownst to them. What would you tell yourself to get through this and at what point do you realize that its not only about you?

Because of the crushing emotions and controversial implications in play in Swan Song, an extremely delicate lead and dualistic performance was required from Mahershala Ali, and the soon-to-be 48-year-old conquered every possible struggle. Wherever volatile selfishness or anger threatened to push this film into over-sentimental territory, Ali seized grace armored by sorrow the likes of which is rarely accomplished. Through the painful reflections and prognostications his character goes through, Ali makes the eventual justifications for Camerons unfathomable choices convincing. That is an extremely difficult and connective place to succeed.

In dipping its toes into science fiction, the production values of Swan Song match that sturdy dramatic beauty. Cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi (Hostiles) absorbs the posh production designs of Annie Beauchamp (The Yellow Birds) to create a stark setting of contrast and cleanness trying to contain the messy human temperaments. Composer Jay Wadley (Im Thinking of Ending Things) and music supervisor Meghan Currier amplify that morose mood further with a divine and haunting combination of score and songs.

Playing on AppleTV+, Swan Song is the feature debut of writer-director Benjamin Cleary, an Oscar winner for the live action short film Stutterer in 2015. The burgeoning visionary deserves tremendous recognition for constructing and charting a compelling path through this moral minefield of a narrative. A different director would wrongfully inject spectacle for spectacles sake or construe some external villainy. Cleary avoids those mistakes with an Andrew Niccol-like vibe of thoughtful design and intelligent patience. He knows the true nucleus of this story lies between the ears and between the ribs. Clench your own heart and mind tightly in welcoming one of the best films of 2022.

Read the original here:

Swan Song Clenches the Morals of Your Mind and Heart - 25YearsLaterSite.com