Clones a Copy of a Copy

[Trekker4747]

Ok, so we all know that when you make a copy of a copy it doesn't come out quite as good as the original. Well, this isn't as true today with digital media but it certainly was true during the day of tapes (both audio and video) and it certainly can be true with making a copy of a photocopy.

This is "true" because the resolution of the copymachine is only "so" good so when you make a copy of a copy you're just making the resolution that much worse.

Anyway, at least two things I can think of tried to apply this axiom to human cloning. The movie "Multiplicity": In this movie Michael Keaton plays a man who feels stretched thin between his job, his home, his wife, and his children. So he decides to have himself cloned and makes two clones of himself -they come out as adults. One clone end up being rude and crass but good at running things at Keaton's work, the other clone is a bit softer and, er, "metro" and pretty much maintains the house. Meanwhile Keaton goes around and enjoys his life.

The clones then decide that THEY need someone else to help them out and clone one of them the result is a fuzzy "copy of a copy" a very dim and "special" version of Keaton's character. (Eventualy Keaton's character learns the value of life, doing things himself, and takes charge of his life again. The three clones move away to start their own business.)

In TNG's "Up the Long Ladder" the Enterprise comes across a fogotten humany colony on which there's a small handful of humans who've been "breeding" by making clones. Their genetic pool is getting shallow, the centuries of cloning a scant few has taken its toll on the gene pool and they suspect to not have much time left and want an infusion of DNA from the Enterprise crew. The explanation for the problems they're having with making viable clones is attributed to "making copies of copies." (Eventually some back-waters from another colony who are need of new home planet are used to infuse the clone colony with new DNA.)

I can't help but think:

DNA DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!

As I said, I believe the problem with making a copy of a photocopy, or even a tape, is that something is lost in the translation mostly due to resolution. The thing making the copy cannot see the original "fine enough" to make a perfect copy so what results is a "very good approximation." It's like looking at something made from Lego and then making the best copy you can with Duplos and then the next person making a copy of the Duplo by using large bricks.

When "making a copy" with DNA nothing is being recreated in a manner like this. The DNA is replicating itself just like it did when your egg was fertilized. There's no "copying process" where things get messed up.

Am I off base in this? Am I missing or misunderstanding something?

I mean it was a cute moment/plot-thread in "Multiplicty" but as a plot-point in TNG it just seemed odd.

I *could* see if the DNA of the original was a little damaged to exposure of something, the clone would start off with that damage and then if HIS DNA gets damage HIS clone would get off fromt hat. But I cannot see this damage being major enough to have any major effect, isn't an effect of a "copy of a copy" and if it was signficant enough to effect the copy-of-a-copy it'd effect the "original copy" too.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I *could* see if the DNA of the original was a little damaged to exposure of something, the clone would start off with that damage and then if HIS DNA gets damage HIS clone would get off fromt hat. But I cannot see this damage being major enough to have any major effect, isn't an effect of a "copy of a copy"

That's the way replicative fading works. The initial clones might work well, but with each successive iteration, more errors and mutations creep into the genome. At some point it becomes impossible to maintain a healthy clone.

and if it was signficant enough to effect the copy-of-a-copy it'd effect the "original copy" too.

Cloning cannot, by definition, ever affect the original, because all you're doing there is taking a genetic sample for later use. You can't harm the original by cloning it, any more than you could cause the master tapes of Star Trek to disappear by videotaping the show and then copying the tape.

 

[Trekker4747]

I *could* see if the DNA of the original was a little damaged to exposure of something, the clone would start off with that damage and then if HIS DNA gets damage HIS clone would get off fromt hat. But I cannot see this damage being major enough to have any major effect, isn't an effect of a "copy of a copy"

That's the way replicative fading works. The initial clones might work well, but with each successive iteration, more errors and mutations creep into the genome. At some point it becomes impossible to maintain a healthy clone.

and if it was signficant enough to effect the copy-of-a-copy it'd effect the "original copy" too.

Cloning cannot, by definition, ever affect the original, because all you're doing there is taking a genetic sample for later use. You can't harm the original by cloning it, any more than you could cause the master tapes of Star Trek to disappear by videotaping the show and then copying the tape.

What I meant was, that if there was some genetic hiccup in the DNA of the "original" that the clone got -effecting the "quality" of the clone- then the original would have the same problem. Not the clone by virtue of being a clone.

 

[Jadzia]

DNA isn't guaranteed to be perfectly copied. It can be mutated, and there's no saying which cells will contain mutated dna. As you get older, it's likely that a number of the cells in your body contain mutated dna. Whether that's a cell used for cloning is entirely down to probability.

The "original" might have a hiccup in one of their cells. If that cell happens to be the one used to clone with, then the clone would have a hiccup in all of their cells.

 

[RobertVA]

Thus the success of organisms that utilize sexual reproduction. Since the child organism has genes from two parents, there is a backup gene (from the other parent) in case the gene from one parent is defective. Since close relatives might have the same defective gene from a common ancestor there would be added risk if related adults produce young together.

Digital storage usually has some mechanism for detecting missed or damaged data segements. Many schemes have provisions for retransmitting or rereading missed or erronious packets. A few digital transmission and[or storage shemes have enough redundancy to recreate a limited percentage missed content. Since digital TV broadcasts don't offer a mechanism for the receiver to request repeat packets when too many packets arrive damaged, there are drop outs, hesitation/freezing and or pixelization.