.
Join our Voices Dispatches email newsletter to receive a comprehensive roundup of the top opinions of the week.
Register for our complimentary Voices newsletter, delivered weekly.
Researchers report that a cloned rhesus monkey, deemed “healthy,” has surpassed two years of life in China and is offering valuable knowledge on the scientific process.
Chinese scientists utilized a revised approach similar to the one used in the production of Dolly the sheep, the initial cloned mammal in history.
Of the 113 copied embryos, 11 were inserted into surrogate monkeys, however only one successfully developed.
ReTro, the male rhesus monkey, was given his name after being born after a gestation period of 157 days.
The team stated that, while the success rate for creating viable clones is low (less than 1% in this case), it does contribute to the knowledge of primate cloning mechanisms.
Six years ago, a team of researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai, led by Qiang Sun and Zhen Liu, successfully cloned a pair of identical long-tailed macaques (also known as crab-eating macaques), making them the world’s first cloned monkeys.
The researchers stated their goal was to create populations of genetically identical monkeys to facilitate groundbreaking research on human diseases.
The advancement also sparked significant moral concerns as it brought society one step closer to human cloning.
However, according to experts, these concerns were completely unfounded and the effectiveness of the cloning process remains low.
In response to the results, Dr. Lluis Montoliu, a scientist at the National Centre for Biotechnology in Spain, who was not part of the research, stated: “The cloning of both crab-eating macaques and rhesus monkeys illustrates two important points.”
Initially, the replication of primates is achievable.
“Additionally, it is highly challenging to achieve success with these experiments due to their low efficiencies, further eliminating the possibility of human cloning.”
He stated that the low effectiveness of replicating primates also proved the obvious fact that human cloning was not only unnecessary and questionable, but if pursued, it would be incredibly challenging and morally unjustifiable.
Dolly, who was cloned at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh almost 30 years ago, made a significant impact in history.
This was the initial instance in which scientists successfully replicated a mammal using an adult cell from the udder of a Finn Dorset sheep.
Following this, numerous other mammals have been replicated through the utilization of the single-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) method, in which the DNA from a cell nucleus is transferred to an egg cell that has been donated, and then stimulated to mature into an embryo.
The animals listed are sheep, cattle, pigs, dogs, cats, mice, rats, and long-tailed monkeys.
Unfortunately, the success rate of cloning animals is still very low and many clones do not survive the pregnancy or pass away shortly after birth.
In order to tackle these concerns, the group created a technique called the trophoblast replacement method, which aids in linking the growing cloned embryo with a functioning placenta.
The scientists reported that this method resulted in greater success, resulting in a male rhesus monkey who is currently thriving and has surpassed two years of survival.
In a publication in the journal Nature Communications, the writers stated: “These findings offer valuable understanding on how monkey SCNT can be reprogrammed and present a promising approach for cloning primates.”
Although the study may not enhance the likelihood of human cloning, it does bring up moral concerns regarding animal experimentation.
According to Dr Montoliu, it should be noted that these experiments could not have taken place in Europe due to the European Union’s laws on animal experimentation. These laws prohibit the use of non-human primates unless the experiment is focused on researching a severe and life-threatening disease that affects either humans or the primate species itself. However, this was not the purpose of the experiment being discussed.
Source: independent.co.uk
