We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
i have a question about cloning, if a person had his/her DNA sample like hair or blood used to make a clone wouldn't that clone be that same person's brother or sister since they share the same genetic makeup? also, what if a person had heterozygous genes and had two clones? but the clones had their alleles swapped making one clone have most of that person's dominant genes while the other had that person's recessive genes making the clones homozygous, would that make the person a father of mother to those clones or a blood related brother or sister?
This actually isn't a biology question, it's a moral, legal and semantic question. "Siblings", biologically, are offspring of the same parent(s). A clone, as developed through human technology, isn't the offspring of any parent in the usual sense. It was not generated from a pair of gametes that came from two different parents; it came about via a completely different biological process, one that doesn't really occur in nature (there are many natural processes that result in identical copies we call "clones", but none of these does exactly the same thing as technological process we call "cloning").
Biologically, a clone is a clone, siblings are siblings, and they come about via very different processes.
None of this means that legally, or morally, or by the dictionary definition, we cannot redefine "sibling" to include clones. And it makes perfect sense to do so. It could also make sense to define clones as "offspring" instead. This could be based on genetic similarity, or on other things.
The thing is, there isn't an obvious single answer to how they should be redefined if human cloning were a thing. This isn't an issue human society has had to deal with yet so none of these redefinitions have happened.
For an idea of what they could look like though, I'm reminded of Lois McMaster Bujold's science-fiction Vorkosigan series, that deals with cloning (in books like Brothers in Arms in particular). Different societies in her books deal with cloning in different ways, and human clones have different statuses. One of those societies (one of the more sensible ones) considers a clone to be the child of the cloned person if it's an adult cloning themselves to make a baby, but to be the sibling of the cloned person if the person's parents decided to clone their child. Basically, in that society the people who decided to make the clone would be considered its parents, and the clone's genetics would have nothing to do with it.
Note that even in our society, siblings and parents aren't only defined by genetic similarity or any biological process, but by a legal relationship, shared history and responsibilities. Adoptive parents and siblings are considered in many (most? all?) countries to be legally equivalent to biological parents and siblings.