"The DNA of Albert Einstein is still available..."

Yes, but if cloned, it wouldn't be our 'old' Albert. Could be an antethesis of Al or 'someone' that may find it difficult and even against his/her will to live up to Al's legacy.

Cloning for therapeutic purposes is great, cloning a human... maybe, just maybe good for a couple or a single person that wants to leave a part of them behind. Those are the good points.

I have to bring Gene Roddenberry up again because I seem to agree with his views and what he tried to explain. He too was all for therapeutic cloning, but always stopped short when it came to cloning and taking it to excess. Cloning Spock was no problem for GR, but he showed the dark sides of it when it came to cloning 'a' wife (lol), showed how it can be taken into the extreme in that episode and even an android-part-human high IQ professor that found that he had to be re-generated frequently and as he did, he became less human... a fraction of his original self.

We're all given choices and always the struggle that comes in making the right one helps us become better individuals and a better human race.

Marcia

* While reading the Scientific American article, I clicked on the 'how to' section for cloning for therapeutic purposes without sperm and it all made sense except for #6.

[The injected egg is exposed to a mixture of chemicals and growth factors designed to activate it to divide.]

Ok, it makes sensethere, but, will the cells keep on dividing on their own indefinitely, or will they have to be subjected to additional mixtures of chemichals and those growth factors?

The article says that figures #9 and #10 have not been accomplished yet, but I can't help but wonder if then too, to keep the process going, will the cells have to be subjected to even more additional chemicals and growth factors and then again once they are inside the host. Maybe, after being in the body after some period of time, they may work well with the rest of the body, maybe not. Sorry, but that's been bugging me. *g*