Week 7 assignment
General rules that must be followed:-
1- Remember to number the answers to each question.
2- Be kind to my eyeballs. You do NOT have to write pages and pages and pages.
Be CONCISE. However, there is sometimes a fine line between being concise, and
being incomplete. So, go directly to the point of the question – go DIRECTLY. Your
answers will always be evaluated on quality, rather than quantity, of information.
3- Please do not include the questions themselves in your submission. Either delete the
questions, or create a separate document.
4- For some question, there is no right or wrong answers. You should think critically and
answer with a good logic or science.
1. The process of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer certainly lacks the transfer of mitochondrial DNA. Suppose there was a way to also transfer mtDNA. Is it your opinion that SCNT and the “classic” view of cloning would now be exactly the same? Support your opinion with good science. For example, if your answer is “yes”, then give scientific reasons why SCNT and cloning are exact synonyms. If no, then why not.
2. Southern blot and PCR are used widely for nuclear DNA analysis.
a. Which part (or parts) of the entire Southern blot protocol need(s) to be modified to analyze mitochondrial DNA?
b. Which part (or parts) of the entire classic PCR protocol need(s) to be modified to analyze mitochondrial DNA?
3. Looking at all aspects of mitochondrial diseases, are they more like (1) single gene nuclear disorders, (2) polygenic nuclear disorders, or (3) multifactorial nuclear diseases? Choose one of the three given options, and defend your choice. Be sure to include a reference to homoplasmy/heteroplasmy as part of your support.
4. The course materials present the stance of the FDA on cloning. It was last updated in 2009, and has not been updated since. This was written 12 years after (then) President Clinton issued his statement on cloning. Does the 2009 FDA policy support Clinton’s statement, or does it run counter? Cite at least two examples to support your opinion.
5. Examine the NRTLC’s remarks about President Obama. Aside from the politics, do you think they are SCIENTIFICALLY correct in their criticism? Of course, defend your stance.
6. Questions 1 – 5 above count for 3 out of the 5 points this week. The other 2 points come from your reaction to the discussion board question. You will be evaluated both on your posting, and how you interact with at least one other student.
– The discussion board question is: Three cloning categories are presented by ViaGen. Which one of these do you think has had, or will have, the most success in cloning the category of organism cited in that area? Always support your choice with good science.
(Section 1) Try your hand at cloning
Introduction: aka – food for thought.
A baby with three biological parents? OK – I can predict what just popped into your head. No, not that way! So, if “that” didn’t happen, then how can it? We’ll see………
Have you seen the (old) movie called “Multiplicity”? If you haven’t seen it, don’t bother to Google, Bing, or Chrome it. I do refer to it in one of this week’s sections.
If a topic involves elements of science, politics, controversy, back-biting, etc., I always like to start off with the basics. Cloning certainly fits that profile. Notice that I have NOT started with a definition of cloning. You will see why later.
You have all heard of the landmark achievement of the Scottish scientist, Ian Wilmut. In 1997, at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Wilmut and his colleagues successfully “cloned” a Finn Dorset sheep named Dolly, the first time ever a complex organism was “cloned”. Why, you ask, does our instructor insist on putting the term ”cloned” in quotes? Are you getting the idea that I am not too sure that this is cloning? Well, you are right – I definitely have a problem with the use of the term. I take the old-fashioned view. Cloning to me is this: I take one cell from one of my kneecaps, add some coconut oil, a little sugar, some cilantro, and a touch of umami. After many generations of cell division, and appropriate differentiation, several copies of me will be running around. Does this match your definition? For now, let’s keep the question rhetorical.
What today’s science calls “cloning” is actually Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (known by the acronym “SCNT”). That is why I have a problem with it. To be sure, SCNT is a very elegant scientific technique, but is it cloning? I don’t think so. BUT, that is only one man’s opinion. Yup, that is the definition of cloning that has, is now, and will probably remain, gospel in all of science. Let me ask you this: do you think the world would have sat up and taken notice if the newspaper headlines proclaimed “Sheep produced by SCNT”? BUT, the headlines proclaimed “Sheep CLONED”. It may sound corny, but everyone was all “ears”.
Here is a very hypothetical picture of how this technique might work in a human:
In the following link, you will try your hand at cloning a mouse, as well as to review the mechanics of modern day cloning. Be sure your mouse traps are baited, in case something goes wrong. What am I talking about? If you have been to EPCOT, and seen the exhibit on “Honey, I shrunk the audience”, you will know. If not, then don’t give it another thought!
SCNT, copy “Mimi”, and cloning quiz
( http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/clickandclone/ )
After that, you can go on to the next section, where we will do some ancient history, and concentrate on the specifics of how Dolly was cloned.
(Section 2) Hello, Dolly!!!
BEHOLD: As we have said, 19 years ago, the news media were trumpeting a scientific breakthrough that was supposed to be the equivalent of the invention of the wheel, the discovery of the DNA double helix, the landing of the first man on the moon, the development of the Salk vaccine, and the Red Sox winning the World Series in 2013.
The one with the sheepish grin below is an actual picture of Dolly:
Below is a summary of the cloning process in a single graphic
Please be sure you completely understand today’s definition of cloning before going on to the next section. You don’t have to agree with the definition (I don’t!), but you need to grasp it, because that is how it is defined in today’s science.
(Section 3) Nuclear transfer technology in cloning complex organisms
Nuclear transfer technology in cloning complex organisms
For most of the last two decades, you have probably heard that many sophisticated organisms have been “cloned”. Mice, rats, cattle, salamanders, cats, dogs, etc., have all been successfully cloned. Advanced Cell Technology of Cambridge, Massachusetts, said they had grown embryos with the intent of harvesting their stem cells. Of course, when this latter announcement hit the media, the outcries that you heard came from all walks of life, from the average citizen to former President Bush. They again made it clear that that their goal was not to create a human being!!! Their claim was that they were going to use the undifferentiated embryonic cells to repair and replace damaged human tissues, as if this is any less controversial. However, we have already visited this area in the previous week.
To get back on course, one of the questions asked in my introduction is this: is the technique really and truly cloning? There was a movie many years ago called “Multiplicity”. You might have seen it? If you didn’t, it starred Michael Keaton, who actually got himself cloned a number of times. Cells were taken from parts of his body, treated with a chemical mixture (sorry, I don’t know what was in it) and many copies of Mr. Keaton were instantly created. Problem was, that each time a new copy was made, the person’s “quality of existence” deteriorated. The last (sixth, I think) copy of him was a gnome-like android with an IQ somewhat approaching that of wilted spinach.
It is almost like making xerox copies of xerox copies of xerox copies — the quality deteriorates. The point is, though, the movie’s concept of cloning was more like the definition that I like! — take some cells, feed them some magic goop, and grow out a whole new person. Obviously, this was not the procedure used in any of the cloning that has occurred, so let us examine that in a little more detail
1. A mammary cell was taken from a white-faced donor sheep (the one to be cloned). Instead of using the entire cell, the nucleus of this mammary cell was removed.
2. An egg cell was taken from the recipient black-faced sheep, and enucleated. The mammary nucleus from the donor sheep replaced it.
3. The recipient egg cytoplasm/donor cell nucleus “hybrid” was then stimulated with a mild electric shock to initiate mitosis. It was then placed in the uterus of the recipient sheep.
4. Gestation was normal, and a sheep was born with a white face. This indicated that, indeed, the genetic instructions came from the donor sheep. The baby sheep was named Dolly because the genetic instructions came from a mammary cell — that’s the truth!!!!
One thing that you didn’t hear when Wilmut and his group made their announcement was how many failures occurred before success was achieved. This is something you never hear when you read any scientific publication. In fact, there were about 270 failures before Dolly was born. Why is this significant? Obviously, scientific achievements require good science, but you have to be extremely lucky (or fraudulent) to get the final goal with the first try. So, there are always failures – it is inevitable. With an advancement of this sort, the number of failures I quoted is not unusual.
So, if we try this with human beings, what do we do with THOSE failures? Throw them away? Keep this question rhetorical, but think about it anyway . . . . .
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, is this cloning or isn’t it? “Multiplicity” was obviously science fiction, but the concept of cloning elucidated in the movie was closer to the classic biological concept than the technique used by Wilmut and his colleagues! And the ones being used today. The biggest problem in the classic biological sense involves another part of the cell that was never included in the cloning process — the cytoplasmic components, especially cytoplasmic DNA located in the mitochondria. Yes, when we all learned about cell division way back when, no one paid much attention to the cytoplasm. Watching the chromosomes dance, especially during anaphase, was dynamic and exciting. Cytokinesis was as exciting as watching paint dry. Over the last few decades, we have learned much about another very significant DNA complement — mitochondrial DNA. RIGHT. The “cloned” organism lacked the very significant mtDNA – and we know today HOW significant the mtDNA contribution is. So, the “cloned” organisms, even today, do not receive the entire DNA component from the donor.
Wait a minute! Why is this topic being introduced in this week’s module? What does mtDNA have to do with “cloning”? As you go through the next section, the answers to these questions will become quite clear.
(Section 4) Mitochondrial DNA
So, why ARE we including mitochondrial DNA in the same neighborhood as cloning? Before we answer that question, let’s do a little reviewing. You know that the mitochondrion is the “powerhouse” of the cell — its “batteries”, if you want. Recall that this cytoplasmic organelle is a double-walled structure. The inner wall invaginates forming finger-like projections on the inside of the organelle — these projections are called cristae. The cristae impart an enormous amount of inner surface area to the mitochondrion, where all of the complex, energy-generating pathways, like glycolysis, Krebs cycle, pentose phosphate pathway, etc., take place. The following diagram shows a detailed view of a typical mitochondrion:
The double wall is clear from the cutaway view above — the cristae are shown. DNA molecules are scattered throughout those cristae. Notice that the DNA molecules in the sketch are shown as tiny “circles”. Yes, that is accurate!
There are some extremely complicated things that occur in mitochondria. The most commonly studied one is the energy generated from the metabolism of glucose – glycolysis, followed by the Krebs cycle, followed by the complicated electron transport pathway. Using percentage as a guide, and not the raw numbers, mutations occur much more frequently in mitochondrial DNA than they do in nuclear genes. Remember: I am talking percentage-wise.
Not surprisingly, errors in mitochondrial DNA result in diseases that occur as a result of imbalances in energy dynamics. This brings forth a very significant concept: this DNA, when mutated, can cause some very serious diseases. In fact, the list of such disorders is ever-increasing. But, there are some very significant differences between nuclear DNA, and mitochondrial DNA. We have previously summarized those in a very general way. Here is a reiteration, and more detailed summary, of those differences:
The following is a sketch – yes, it is just a sketch – of mitochondrial DNA:
It is actually two concentric circles of DNA, consisting of a total of 16568 base pairs (bp). Don’t be concerned about what all the symbols represent, unless you feel like learning every detail about the electron transport chain. Notice also that the transfer RNA component of translation is made by mtDNA, and not nuclear DNA. Actually, so is the RNA component of the ribosomes.
This table shows a comparison of mtDNA and nuclear DNA:
Mitochondrial DNA Nuclear DNA
1. There are 3 – 10 mtDNA molecules per mitochondrion. There could be thousands of mtDNA molecules per cell, depending on the cell. 1. Nuclear DNA is in the form of a double helix. Laid end-to-end, the total length of DNA in one cell nucleus is over 2 meters long.
2. mtDNA represents 0.5% of the total cellular DNA. 2. Nuclear DNA represents 99.5% of the total cellular DNA.
3. One mtDNA molecule consists of 16568 base pairs. 3. Nuclear DNA consists of approximately 3 billion base pairs.
4. MtDNA is a double-stranded circular molecule:
– The inner (light) strand is cytosine-rich.
– The outer (heavy) strand is guanine-rich.
– Histones are NOT present.
4. Nuclear DNA is arranged in the chromosomes in a typical “string of beads” fashion. Each “bead”is called a nucleosome, consisting of a histone octomer combined with DNA. Each nucleosome is connected by “linker DNA”.
5. MtDNA does not contain introns. 5. Well over 95% of nuclear DNA does NOT code for proteins. This type of DNA produces introns in pre-mRNA (the primary transcript).
6. MtDNA transcription occurs clockwise on the inner (light) strand, and counterclockwise on the outer (heavy) strand.
<!–[endif]–> 6. Nuclear DNA transcription consists of sense DNA coding for a pre-mRNA complementary molecule called the primary transcript. You already know that introns are spliced out of the primary transcript, and the exons get together to form mRNA.
7. Replication starts at specific points in mtDNA and proceeds in one direction. 7. Nuclear DNA replicates by unwinding at scattered points creating “replication forks”. Small pieces, called Okazaki fragments, are then spliced together.
8. MtDNA has minimum repair capability. 8. There are a multitude of repair mechanisms for nuclear DNA. These are constantly occurring.
9. There is no crossing over in mtDNA. 9. Crossing over in nuclear DNA occurs during prophase I of meiosis.
10. MtDNA has a very high mutation rate, due to its “proximity” to the chemical reactions affecting oxidative phosphorylation. 10. The mutations in nuclear DNA have many causes, and the rate varies according to environmental and/or other genetic conditions.
It is clear that mtDNA is a very unique molecule, isn’t it? After the Krebs cycle, the electron transport chain takes place, generating water, and making sure free radicals (which are constantly searching for electrons) don’t form. Transcription of mtDNA produces almost all of the enzymes needed to catalyze the reactions in oxidative phosphorylation, especially in electron transport following the Krebs cycle. MtDNA also transcribes some of the protein that makes up the ribosomes. Bottom line is this: if you are truly cloning cells to make a copy of an organism, you must include ALL (EVERY BIT) of its DNA. SCNT (somatic cell NUCLEAR transfer), discussed in previous sections, does not do this. If you don’t include mtDNA, you are not cloning the entire genetic complement of of the organism. Whew — finally, the connection between mtDNA and cloning is made. Yes, it took me a while.
There is another very significant aspect of mtDNA to consider, but we have already looked at this, so this will be review. So, let us do that, and talk about diseases that occur from mtDNA mutations. Remember how the zygote is formed? The sperm fertilizes the egg. How much cytoplasm does the sperm have? Yes, the sperm does have mitochondria, but they are located in the tail, which is lost upon fertilization. So, all the cytoplasm, and therefore all of the mitochondria, come from Mom’s egg cells. So, if Mom has a genetic disorder due to a mtDNA mutation, she passes it to ALL of her children — invariably (make sense?). If Dad has the same disorder (which, of course, he got from his mother) he will not pass it on to any of his children, since there is no mitochondrial contribution by the sperm cells!!! So, if you are looking at a family history, and you see every child of an affected mother with that disease, AND, none of the children of an affected father with the same disease, you know this is a problem with mtDNA, and not nuclear (sorry about the run-on sentence).
There are, however, varying degrees of a mtDNA disorder, just as there are with every other disease. The severity of the disease depends upon the way mitochondria segregate in the cytoplasm when the cell divides (more attention to cytokinesis here!). Keep in mind that when mtDNA mutates, the mutation may not take place in every mitochondrion. And, it may not take place in every mtDNA molecule within the same mitochondrion. In fact, in people with mtDNA diseases, every cell has a mixture of normal and mutated mtDNA. So, there are two possible scenarios here:
Homoplasmic inheritance means all (or most) of one kind of mitochondrion is passed on to the next generation (either the mutated or the normal). In this case, the child will either be severely diseased or completely normal. The following is a sketch of homoplasmic transfer:
Heteroplasmic inheritance means that there are some of each type of mitochondrion passed on. Obviously, the severity of the disease depends upon the heteroplasmic mix the child receives. Observe the following photo of “heteroplasmy”:
So, what about curing mitochondrial disorders? Here is where some very sophisticated molecular therapy comes into play. That’s right — molecular therapy. Suppose a Mom has mutated mtDNA — it is clear that all of her children will get it. A technique called In Vitro Ovum Nuclear Transplant, or IVONT, can take care of this. Remember, that Mom’s cytoplasm is carrying the diseased entity. IVONT involves taking her egg cell nucleus, and transferring it via exisiting in vitro technology into another egg cell that has been enucleated. So, her nucleus in a disease-free cytoplasm means that the children will get her nuclear characteristics, but the normal mitochondrial characteristics. Observe the following photo:
Compare and contrast now!!! Isn’t this nuclear transfer technology the exact same thing that biologists are now calling cloning? When Dolly was cloned, and when every other organism today is being cloned, enucleated egg cells receive a nucleus from another cell. So, “cloning” technology can be adapted to cure mitochondrial diseases! As Mr. Spock on the old Star Trek series used to say: “Fascinating!!!”
Over the last few years, some very successful attempts have been made to cure mitochondrial disorders in a very unique way. Since the Mom will pass it on to all of her children, the defect is in the cytoplasm. So, if eggs are fertilized in vitro, “healthy” mitochondria can, and have, been transplanted into those eggs, and the correct gene product is made, thereby eliminating the potential for the disease in the children. This raises a very interesting point: is the mitochondrial donor a third BIOLOGICAL parent? Certainly, there is contribution to the child’s genotype.
In the last week or so, the news media have been trumpeting the attempts of a British laboratory to duplicate mitochondrial transfer. Since the in vitro technology is in place, But the question arises – is the mitochondrial donor also a biological parent? Certainly, the original sperm and egg donor are biological parents. But, since the mtDNA from the mitochondrial donor is also contributing to the biological makeup of the soon-to-be person, is that person also a parent? WOW! Now we have to redefine what we mean by “parent”? Anyway, the following article explains the technology; be sure it is quiet around you when you read this – it is fascinating. Click on:
Can we have a child with three biological parents?
OK – what do you think? Here are some questions to ponder:
(1) The two “original” biological parents (sperm and egg donor) obviously have to be male and female. However, the gender of the mtDNA donor can be either male or female.
(2) Does the mtDNA donor have a right to see the child on a periodic basis?
(3) Suppose the “original” biological parents get divorced. Does the mtDNA also have a right to custody? HOW’s THAT for an interesting scenario? This is one the discussion board, where I would like you to post your opinion.
(Section 5) Government, Right To Life, and UN stance on human cloning
Government, Right To Life, and UN stance on human cloning
In 2001, the Weldon-Stupak bill, which was endorsed by both Congress and President Bush, was the first official legislation that completely outlawed human cloning. It also outlined the specific penalties to be imposed in the case that human cloning is attempted.
Twelve years ago, on February 28, 2003, the US House of Representatives voted, by an overwhelming margin, to outlaw all forms of human cloning. The legislation, which passed 241-155, is called the “Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003.” It strictly prohibits the production of cloned human embryos for medical research as well as the creation of cloned babies.
In 2005, the United Nations tossed their hat in the ring. They came out with their “official” policy on cloning. This one is rather short, and also outlines the “pro” nations and the “con” nations. Now, 11 years later, there have been no updates/revisions to these policies. So, click on the following link:
United Nations stance on human cloning
( http://www.un.org/press/en/2005/ga10333.doc.htm )
As a follow-up to his revival of stem cell research, President Obama introduced a bill dealing with how cloning should be handled. The NRTLC objected to this, and wrote an article about what they thought about this. The article is below.
Click on this link:
The NRTLC viewpoint on Obama’s bill
( http://www.lifenews.com/2009/10/12/bio-2981/ )
And now let us return to the present
Clicking on the following link will present the general stance on cloning in the United States.
The general US policy on the legality of cloning
( https://www.ipscell.com/2013/05/human-cloning-generally-legal-in-the-us/ )
(Section 6) Which companies are engaged in cloning?
First, the work described below was done by a company called Advanced Cell Technologies. At the time they did their work, they were located in Worcester, Massachusetts. Later, the company “reorganized”, and became Ocata Therapeutics. The headquarters was moved to Marlborough, Massachusetts. In February of this year, a company called Astellas Pharma, Inc. acquired them (OM – Astellas bought them out). The new name is Astellas-Ocata.
For over three decades, ACT/Ocata was attempting to cure human disorders using combinations of stem cell technology (discussed in week 6), and cloning technology, mainly by trying to reprogram differentiated cells into totipotent cells. They called their initiative autologous regenerative medicine. As Ocata Therapeutics, they wsere, and still are, focusing on trying to find a cure for Stargardt’s macular degeneration, and dry macular degeneration. Before we go into what they are doing now, let’s look at the history, since this provided the foundation for a lot of today’s protocols in both stem cell research and cloning technology.
The first animal cloned by ACT is called a gaur, whom they named “Noah” (pictured below). The gaur is a large wild ox species, which is generally brown or black with a humplike ridge on its back and with white or grey stockings on all four legs (OK, they are not called “stockings”, but that’s what I call them). The cells from which Noah was created originated from a male gaur that died of natural causes at 5 years of age. At autopsy, skin cells were frozen and stored for eight years in the San Diego Frozen Zoo’s Center for the Reproduction of Endangered Species (CRES). Eight years later, Ocata thawed the cells, and performed the first successful cross-species cloning, by removing the nucleus of a cow egg, and implanting the nuclei of the thawed gaur cells. Forty embryos resulted from their ongoing work, but only one survived, which eventually became Noah. The birth of Noah, in late 2001, is the first successful birth of a cloned animal that is a member of an endangered species. Here is a photo of Noah:
Unfortunately, while healthy at birth, Noah died within 48 hours of a common dysentery. This was likely unrelated to cloning (or that is what they told the world). Noah was actually nurtured by a surrogate mother from another, more common, species, in this case a domestic cow. The point is, one species was brought to term by another species. Hence, cross-species cloning actually worked!
“The data collected clearly indicate that cross-species cloning worked and, as a scientist, I am pleased,” explained Philip Damiani, Ph.D. “As a person, however, I am saddened that an animal died. In the short period of time Noah was with us, he showed himself to be a vigorous and friendly calf.” As it turns out, Noah died from clostridial enteritis, a bacterial infection that is almost universally fatal in newborn animals. His surrogate Mom, Bessie the cow, did fine — until she died about six years ago.
Autologous regenerative medicine
One of the biggest problems with using even human embryonic stem cells is to overcome the very critical problem of histocompatibility. Even Human ES cells obtained from embryos derived during in vitro fertilization, are very often “treated” as cells from another individual (allogeneic). This means that they, or any cells made from them, would be at risk of being rejected if transplanted into a human being. To solve this problem, ACT developed three means to manufacture embryonic cells identical to a human adult, this is to say, autologous embryonic cells. These are still standard protocols today. We have already looked at some of these, but let’s review them, because they are germaine here:
1. Cloning by reprogramming. This involves the utilization of the cloning by nuclear transfer technique already discussed in this section. The idea is to combine an egg cell that has its DNA removed, with the nucleus of a cell obtained by in vitro fertilization. The hope is that the body cell’s DNA becomes reprogrammed back to an embryonic state, and totipotent stem cells are produced identical to the patient. Any chance of rejection is therefore obviated.
2. Parthenogenesis. In this technique a woman’s oocyte is directly activated (using electric shock, chemical stimulation, or mechanical manipulation) to produce spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number. So, the extamt DNA initiates development on its own, forming a preimplantation embryo from which totipotent stem cells may be isolated.
3. Ooplasmic Transfer. This one is really neat! It is the reverse of nuclear transfer. It involves the removal of the cytoplasm of an oocyte and transferring it into the body cell of a patient thereby transforming the patient’s cell into a primitive stem cell.
Of course, all of the hue and cry associated with BOTH stem cell research AND human cloning were being funneled to ACT, and the work they were doing. Members of the general public and government officials right up to the head guy in the oval office, came out against both protocols. But you can’t argue with the science when it works . . . .
A little over six years ago, they successfully cloned a monkey, and have stated this might lead to the technology that would work for humans. PLEASE take the time to click on this link and read this article – you will find it both fascinating and thought-provoking. It is also kind of long, but you don’t care about that, do you? Enjoy!
ACT scientist helps to clone a monkey
( http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-stemcell111507-story.html )
OK – so let’s fast forward to the present, and see what is going on at Ocata. Click on the following web link. When the page opens, roll down to “View our current Ocata corporate presentation”. Click on “download the .pdf”. It will open as a .pdf, but it is really more of a glorified powerpoint. This will tell you, in detail, the groundbreaking work Ocata is trying to accomplish.
Can you utilize cloning services today?
You absolutely can. Let’s suppose you lost your favorite pet. Can some cells that you retrieve from your pet be cloned into the same animal? There are a number of companies both national and international that are in the business of doing just that. The biggest one in the United States is called ViaGen. They have the ability to clone your own pet. They can also clone livestock and horses, and have provided this service to large companies who raise livestock and horses for a living.
Here is a quote from ViaGen:
“ViaGen Pets is committed to helping dog and cat owners continue the loving embrace and experience with their animals through the delivery of healthy genetic twins that may embody many of the same personality and behavioral traits.”
Click on the link below to view their site and their services. There are also links that allow you to take advantages of those services today:
( https://www.viagen.com/?gclid=COKdl-jtw80CFddahgodDzMJ4Q )
So, what do you think? Certainly, I do not want to influence your thoughts. I can just tell you that this, and the other cloning companies, are legitimate. AND, this is NOT science fiction.