Nathan Myhrvold Quotes

We managed to write chapter one. Chapter two, we will have a child a parent can take home and raise as a cloned child.

Like the 'test tube babies' born of in vitro fertilization, cloned children need not be identifiable, much less freaks or outcasts.

Cloning isn’t all that unusual. For thousands of years we have been cloning plants.

Cloning represents a very clear, powerful, and immediate example in which we are in danger of turning procreation into manufacture.

It's very hard to make arguments about the effects of cloning on family relations if family relations are in tatters.

We're not really under pressure to deliver a cloned baby to this world. What we are under pressure to do is to deliver a cloned baby that is a healthy one.

Cloning looks like a degrading of parenthood and a perversion of the right relation between parents and children.

There is absolutely no doubt about it, and I may not be the one that does it, but the cloned child is coming. There is absolutely no way that it will not happen.

In Massachusetts, scientists have created the first human clone. The bad thing is that in thirty years, the clone will still be depressed because the Boston Red Sox will still have not won a World Series.

Man has no right to claim the role of the creator of his likes or to choose their genetic prototypes, thus determining their personal characteristics .

If society becomes comfortable with cloning and sees value in true human diversity, then the whole Neanderthal creature itself could be cloned by a surrogate mother chimp - or by an extremely adventurous female human.

I've been opposed to human cloning from the very beginning.

We are at a major epoch in human history, which is that we don't need sex to recreate the race. You can have babies without sex. This is the first time in human history that has been true, and it means, for example, we could do some extraordinary things.

Suppose that 'Unsolved Mysteries' called you with news of a long-lost identical twin. Would that suddenly make you less of a person, less of an individual? It is hard to see how. So, why would a clone be different? Your clone would be raised in a different era by different people - like the lost identical twin, only younger than you.

A human clone is nothing but an identical twin that is born much later.

One of the more fantastic possibilities is that man will be able to make biological carbon copies of himself.

Simon Cowell is trying to get everyone to clone their dogs, and we've had our dogs 'done' so they can't have puppies any more. Cloning is like modern day reproducing - reproducing the bits you want.

Why would you clone people when you can go to bed with them and make a baby? C'mon, it's stupid.

Perhaps you could sympathize with those who seek to replace a dead child with a copy, or to copy a parent or a relative or even a celebrity.

If one is seriously interested in preventing reproductive cloning, one must stop the process before it starts.

Humans are something very different from animals, and the numbers required to get cloning to work in animals are completely prohibitory with humans.

We're not interested in cloning the Michael Jordans and Michael Jacksons of the world, but rather assisting infertile couples that deserve the right to have a biological child to have one.

We are not interested in cloning the Michael Jordans and the Michael Jacksons of this world. The rich and the famous don't participate in this.

I wondered whether the nuclear transfer techniques could be used to introduce purified macro-molecules into an egg, and hence into embryonic cells.

In cloning, in contrast, reproduction is asexual - the cloned child is the product not of two but of one.