Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity theft

[Malleus]

1) How far has the world's scientific community mastered genetic manipulation?

2) We can clone animals, but did Dolly look EXACTLY the same as her genetic original?

3) What role can biometrics play in future genetic manipulation projects, from wanting to look a little more like one's parents to looking like another stranger to looking like a new person altogether?

4) To what extent can the extraction of an offspring's genes and the genes of that offspring's cousins help in reconstructing the parent's (paternal or maternal) genetic code (again, for the purpose of looking like someone else or a new person altogether)?

5) How extensive are today's identity theft laws, especially when considering lookalikes of dead persons and lookalikes of much younger versions of much older persons?

 

[Deleted 2]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Laws are, as always, woefully behind real-world security concerns. Think about it; for many things, something as easily forged as a signature is a legally binding indication of consent.

In the security community, biometrics are seen as a past station. They never worked, and they will not work in the future. Even courts are shying away from admitting fingerprints as evidence.

So I think the influence of genetic manipulation on those things will be quite limited.

 

[Christopher]

Malleus said:
1) How far has the world's scientific community mastered genetic manipulation?

Define "genetic manipulation." It's a very broad label. What specific kinds of changes are you referring to?

2) We can clone animals, but did Dolly look EXACTLY the same as her genetic original?

Presumably not, since environment, upbringing, and chance influence our development as well as genes. Genes are just one aspect of what shapes us; we're learning that there's also epigenetics, hormonal and other factors that influence how our genes express themselves. For instance, identical twins can have the same susceptibility to a disease, but sometimes only one of them gets the disease because their environments, diets, lifestyles, histories, etc. are different, leading to epigenetic changes. I think I read once that clones of cats wouldn't necessarily have the same colors or patterns that their originals had, because the same genes can be expressed in different ways.

Also, Dolly was "born old," in a sense -- since she was cloned from adult cells, she started out with shortened telomeres. Telomeres are extra material on the ends of our DNA molecules, and they get shorter every time a cell replicates. Eventually they're gone for good and the cell stops replicating and dies. This is a major factor in aging, although it's also a safeguard against cancer. Dolly was created using DNA taken from adult cells, so her telomeres were short to begin with, probably giving her a truncated lifespan.

So there are a variety of ways in which a clone would be distinct from its original. The most obvious of which is that it's born later. Only in fiction can you create an adult clone of an adult in a matter of days or weeks. In reality, if you were cloned at 25, it would take 25 years for your clone to reach that age (outwardly, not cellularly) and you'd be 50, so obviously your clone couldn't be mistaken for you. Also he or she would've had a different upbringing and life experience, so he or she wouldn't talk or act just like you.

3) What role can biometrics play in future genetic manipulation projects, from wanting to look a little more like one's parents to looking like another stranger to looking like a new person altogether?

I'm not sure how you're using the word "biometrics" here. Biometrics are identification methods like fingerprints, voiceprints, retinal or iris scans, etc. I don't quite see how that could "play a role" in changing your appearance. Wouldn't it be the other way around? That you'd change your appearance to try to fool a biometric ID system?

And changing your appearance probably wouldn't be something you could do genetically, because, again, genes aren't everything in biology. They're just the blueprints, not the builders. Once your skeleton has grown into a certain shape, I don't think it'd be that easy to change it by manipulation on a subcellular level. Cosmetic surgery would probably be a more effective method of achieving such large-scale changes. I suppose genetic alterations on the local scale could be used to alter the way your hair grew out, the pigmentation of your skin and eyes, things like that, but only for parts of your body where cells continue to grow and be replaced. Your "core" genetics would still be your own; you'd become a chimera, an organism with two or more different genetic codes in the cells of different parts of the body.

4) To what extent can the extraction of an offspring's genes and the genes of that offspring's cousins help in reconstructing the parent's (paternal or maternal) genetic code (again, for the purpose of looking like someone else or a new person altogether)?

I doubt it could give you a definitive result, and it would be far simpler just to get a tissue sample from the parent directly -- along with photos, voice samples, video footage of their mannerisms, extensive dossiers on their lifestyles and habits, etc. Genetic tweaking of an impostor would only be one part of the process, and extensive surgery and training would be necessary as well.

5) How extensive are today's identity theft laws, especially when considering lookalikes of dead persons and lookalikes of much younger versions of much older persons?

Identity theft laws pertain to the theft of credit card numbers, social security numbers, and the like. They pertain to the documents that we use to identify ourselves to the computers and bureaucracies of the world. They aren't about lookalikes. Why go to the immense trouble of creating a physical double of a person when you can just steal their ID numbers? After all, so much that we do these days isn't face-to-face anymore. It's mediated by computers.

True, there is a growing interest in using biometric identification as a safeguard against identity theft, and the identity thieves will no doubt seek ways around that. But obviously nobody's going to wait 20 or 30 years to create a viable adult clone of somebody, so that's right out. Cosmetic alterations and genetic alteration of surface cells and blood proteins could be used to impersonate someone, but you'd need to find an impostor who was already a good physical match for the person's facial structure, build, and voice. But again, why go to the trouble? It would probably be simpler to hack the computers and substitute your own biometric data in place of the real person's -- a high-tech equivalent for sticking your photograph onto someone else's stolen ID badge.

 

[Malleus]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Christopher said:

2) We can clone animals, but did Dolly look EXACTLY the same as her genetic original?

Presumably not, since environment, upbringing, and chance influence our development as well as genes. Genes are just one aspect of what shapes us; we're learning that there's also epigenetics, hormonal and other factors that influence how our genes express themselves.

...

In reality, if you were cloned at 25, it would take 25 years for your clone to reach that age (outwardly, not cellularly) and you'd be 50, so obviously your clone couldn't be mistaken for you. Also he or she would've had a different upbringing and life experience, so he or she wouldn't talk or act just like you.

I'm not interesting in raising the question of a Hitler clone or anything. All I'm interested in right now is looks and voice.

For example, the Sedin twins look very much alike.

Yes, there are slight differences (one is taller), but facially speaking, they look very much alike. I was wondering about the potential for genetic manipulation to create lookalikes, with the minimum threshold being the level of "identical twin."]

Hopefully my PM will make things more clear.

Once your skeleton has grown into a certain shape, I don't think it'd be that easy to change it by manipulation on a subcellular level.

I take it that includes the shape of the skull, too, or is the skull not as hard as the other bones?

Cosmetic surgery would probably be a more effective method of achieving such large-scale changes. I suppose genetic alterations on the local scale could be used to alter the way your hair grew out, the pigmentation of your skin and eyes, things like that, but only for parts of your body where cells continue to grow and be replaced. Your "core" genetics would still be your own; you'd become a chimera, an organism with two or more different genetic codes in the cells of different parts of the body.

Something to think about...

Cosmetic alterations and genetic alteration of surface cells and blood proteins could be used to impersonate someone, but you'd need to find an impostor who was already a good physical match for the person's facial structure, build, and voice. But again, why go to the trouble? It would probably be simpler to hack the computers and substitute your own biometric data in place of the real person's -- a high-tech equivalent for sticking your photograph onto someone else's stolen ID badge.

My only concern was that a bunch of political doofuses would pass a law that would criminalize the question that I'm raising here, even after considering the clone aging question you mentioned above - that is, looking like obviously younger versions of someone else (which I obviously foresee no criminal intent due to more economically feasible means of fulfilling that intent).

 

[Christopher]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Malleus said:
I was wondering about the potential for genetic manipulation to create lookalikes, with the minimum threshold being the level of "identical twin."

As I said, I think genetic alteration would be a limited component at best of any such modification. To the extent that it would be theoretically possible, it's decades beyond the current state of the art. When intelligence agencies use impostors, they select people who already bear a strong physical and vocal resemblance to the subjects so that only minimal alteration is required.

Even with advanced future tech, I think there would still be limits. I could see, say, making Ben Browder look like Michael Shanks, or vice versa. I don't think it would be feasible to make Don Davis or Amanda Tapping look like Michael Shanks.

Once your skeleton has grown into a certain shape, I don't think it'd be that easy to change it by manipulation on a subcellular level.

I take it that includes the shape of the skull, too, or is the skull not as hard as the other bones?

Yes, the skull is included as part of the skeleton. I was referring to the shape of the face as well as the body.

My only concern was that a bunch of political doofuses would pass a law that would criminalize the question that I'm raising here, even after considering the clone aging question you mentioned above - that is, looking like obviously younger versions of someone else (which I obviously foresee no criminal intent due to more economically feasible means of fulfilling that intent).

Well, as I said, any such issues are a generation or two beyond the current state of the medical arts. A disreputable cosmetic surgeon might be able to indulge someone's desire to have their facial structure sculpted to increase their resemblance to a certain celebrity, say, but only if they looked a lot like that person to begin with. As for altering the voice, that would probably require precise surgical alterations of the larynx and the entire respiratory/vocal tract, and I'd imagine that would be quite a tricky and dangerous procedure given the delicate tissues involved and the risk of compromising the respiratory system.

However, I imagine there are already laws in place that would affect hypothetical technologies that could allow such duplication -- namely, the laws pertaining to likeness rights. In general, you can't use someone's face or voice without their permission, which is why it's illegal to publish pictures of a model without a signed release, and why cartoons and comic books based on live-action shows or films often change the appearance of the characters (because it's cheaper than paying the actors for the right to use their faces). If the means existed to transform oneself to look identical to someone else, it could be argued that it's an unauthorized use of their likeness. And I would agree with that argument. Using futuristic technology to copy someone's face is as bad as plagiarizing their work. It's taking something that's uniquely theirs without their consent.

 

[Deleted 2]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Christopher said:
True, there is a growing interest in using biometric identification as a safeguard against identity theft, and the identity thieves will no doubt seek ways around that. But obviously nobody's going to wait 20 or 30 years to create a viable adult clone of somebody, so that's right out. Cosmetic alterations and genetic alteration of surface cells and blood proteins could be used to impersonate someone, but you'd need to find an impostor who was already a good physical match for the person's facial structure, build, and voice. But again, why go to the trouble? It would probably be simpler to hack the computers and substitute your own biometric data in place of the real person's -- a high-tech equivalent for sticking your photograph onto someone else's stolen ID badge.

Because in most, if not all cases, faking biometric aspects is much easier than 'just hacking into the computers'?

 

[farmkid]

Christopher said:
And changing your appearance probably wouldn't be something you could do genetically, because, again, genes aren't everything in biology. They're just the blueprints, not the builders. Once your skeleton has grown into a certain shape, I don't think it'd be that easy to change it by manipulation on a subcellular level. Cosmetic surgery would probably be a more effective method of achieving such large-scale changes. I suppose genetic alterations on the local scale could be used to alter the way your hair grew out, the pigmentation of your skin and eyes, things like that, but only for parts of your body where cells continue to grow and be replaced. Your "core" genetics would still be your own; you'd become a chimera, an organism with two or more different genetic codes in the cells of different parts of the body.

Exactly. A person's appearance is, for the most part, determined during embryonic development and childhood. The common Star Trek plot device where a character has some genetic change and they shrink or turn in to a lizard or into someone else is complete BS. Tissue structure is laid down by genes during development and controlled by genes involved during development. Changing the genes later won't change the structure. In fact, if it were possible, you could replace an adult person's genome with the genome of a mouse or a rabbit or monkey or something and the person would remain human. They would likely still function properly, though they would probably have some physiological abnormalities.

If a person were cloned, the clone would be mostly identical to the original, though there would probably be some small differences due to the slightly different developmental environment and the different diet during childhood. They would probably be less identical than identical twins.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Zero Hour said:

Christopher said:
But again, why go to the trouble? It would probably be simpler to hack the computers and substitute your own biometric data in place of the real person's -- a high-tech equivalent for sticking your photograph onto someone else's stolen ID badge.

Because in most, if not all cases, faking biometric aspects is much easier than 'just hacking into the computers'?

Why would it be? If you're talking about something crude like a fingerprint scanner, sure, that can be fooled. But fooling more advanced biometric identification methods, such as facial recognition, iris scans, voiceprinting, hand geometry, thermographic profile, odor, gait, and other methods under development or on the horizon, is a different matter.

Anyway, the premise under discussion involves transforming your entire appearance, voice, etc. -- your whole biometric profile -- to match that of another person. My point is that there'd be little reason to go to all that trouble if fooling biometric sensors were your only concern. I confess I'm still baffled as to what biometrics has to do with the original question at all.

farmkid said:
Tissue structure is laid down by genes during development and controlled by genes involved during development. Changing the genes later won't change the structure. In fact, if it were possible, you could replace an adult person's genome with the genome of a mouse or a rabbit or monkey or something and the person would remain human. They would likely still function properly, though they would probably have some physiological abnormalities.

That's fascinating. I never considered that.

I guess one way of looking at it is that DNA is software, the operating system for our cellular machinery. Since all life on Earth is descended from the same origins, we're all pretty much programmed in the same language, using variations of the same OS. So you could install one species' OS into another species and it would more or less work since most of the basic commands (make this protein, initiate that metabolic process) are the same. But there would be certain glitches and compatibility issues where the code differs.

Of course, "replacing a genome" isn't that simple, because we don't just have one copy of the genome, we have trillions, one in the nucleus of every cell in the body. (Although aren't there some cell types, blood cells or something, that don't have nuclei? So maybe not every cell.) There are ways of altering the genes of a whole group of cells within the body, like altering the stem cells so that the new cells that grow from them replace the old, unaltered ones, I guess. But not all the cells of the body are regenerated in that way. Heart and brain cells aren't, for instance, and I'd imagine most bone cells (marrow aside) aren't either, though that's just a barely educated guess. So any genome alteration within a full-grown person would be piecemeal, resulting in a genetic chimera.

 

[Malleus]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Christopher said:
However, I imagine there are already laws in place that would affect hypothetical technologies that could allow such duplication -- namely, the laws pertaining to likeness rights. In general, you can't use someone's face or voice without their permission, which is why it's illegal to publish pictures of a model without a signed release, and why cartoons and comic books based on live-action shows or films often change the appearance of the characters (because it's cheaper than paying the actors for the right to use their faces). If the means existed to transform oneself to look identical to someone else, it could be argued that it's an unauthorized use of their likeness. And I would agree with that argument. Using futuristic technology to copy someone's face is as bad as plagiarizing their work. It's taking something that's uniquely theirs without their consent.

Of course, I wouldn't stoop that low (thankfully). Such informed consent would have to be obtained just before genetic extractions from them took place.

Thanks for clarifying on the legalese, though. I was under the impression that this kind of manipulation without the to-be-copied person's consent was identity theft, but you clarified re. documents.

As for altering the voice, that would probably require precise surgical alterations of the larynx and the entire respiratory/vocal tract, and I'd imagine that would be quite a tricky and dangerous procedure given the delicate tissues involved and the risk of compromising the respiratory system.

Even though I was aware of the current technological limitations (I was merely 10 years more optimistic than you, but even those 10 years from now is merely an "at best" scenario), I am very shocked by the remarks above regarding vocal manipulation.

Furthermore, what I had in mind in terms of vocal manipulation was pervasive enough such that newly-manipulated folks would sound like the originals not just at the targeted age (younger versions), but all the way through.



Anyhow, after having read your comments above regarding cloning, on the other hand, could identical clones sound like the originals? [I think here I'm addressing brain transfers, but I know that's as dangerous - if not more dangerous - than vocal manipulation that involves altering one's respiratory system.]

So any genome alteration within a full-grown person would be piecemeal, resulting in a genetic chimera.

Thanks for introducing this science term to me, too. Yeah, my idea of changing one's appearance and voice is limited to just that. I wasn't thinking at all about going so far as to manipulate, say, the brain cells of an individual to match those of the person to be copied.

That, I believe, could only be achieved by full cloning, and even then would have to consider the brain transfer issues I raised above (which would still result in a chimera because of that brain).

Even with advanced future tech, I think there would still be limits. I could see, say, making Ben Browder look like Michael Shanks, or vice versa. I don't think it would be feasible to make Don Davis or Amanda Tapping look like Michael Shanks.

Gender changes?

[Seriously, I wasn't going for that, either. The manipulations I have in mind are same-sex manipulations. ]



Anyhow, Merry X-mas and enjoy the holidays!

 

[Christopher]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Malleus said:
Thanks for clarifying on the legalese, though. I was under the impression that this kind of manipulation without the to-be-copied person's consent was identity theft, but you clarified re. documents.

Given that the term "identity theft" is in common use today, that should've been a giveaway that it didn't refer to a purely hypothetical technology we're nowhere near achieving.

Even though I was aware of the current technological limitations (I was merely 10 years more optimistic than you, but even those 10 years from now is merely an "at best" scenario), I am very shocked by the remarks above regarding vocal manipulation.

Furthermore, what I had in mind in terms of vocal manipulation was pervasive enough such that newly-manipulated folks would sound like the originals not just at the targeted age (younger versions), but all the way through.

Well, I'm hardly an expert on the subject -- I've never even considered the question of what it would take to alter a person's voice to that degree -- but it stands to reason given what I do know about how the voice is produced. The human vocal tract is a wind instrument, essentially, and its timbre is a result of the shape and size of the air column and resonating chambers as well as the physical parameters of the "reed," i.e. the vocal cords. So we're talking about the shape of the mouth, the throat, the trachea, the diaphragm, the nasal cavity, the sinuses, practically the whole upper body. It seems to me that would require extensive structural modification of that internal anatomy, and as discussed above, that's not something that would magically happen as the result of plugging in new DNA, but would have to be done surgically. And given that the respiratory system is involved, and that the sinuses are very close to the brain, I'd say it's more trouble than it's worth.

Anyhow, after having read your comments above regarding cloning, on the other hand, could identical clones sound like the originals? [I think here I'm addressing brain transfers, but I know that's as dangerous - if not more dangerous - than vocal manipulation that involves altering one's respiratory system.]

Well, you yourself cited the example of identical twins, which are essentially clones. They tend to have very similar voices, due to their very similar body structures. But there could be recognizable differences if, say, one is athletic while the other is overweight, or if one smokes and the other doesn't, or the like. So yeah, very similar, but not necessarily identical in timbre.

Also, an individual's voice pattern is about more than timbre. It's also about delivery -- the cadence, the intonation and pitch, the pronunciation. These are the sorts of things that we can change in our own voices to do impressions of others, and some people can do it exceedingly well, but it takes a lot of skill and practice. It's not a matter of genetics.

As for brain transplantation, that would be an extremely advanced technology, still in the realm of fantasy, if it's even possible. Brain and body are more closely integrated than we tend to think. Even if the microsurgical knowledge existed to transplant a living brain and hook up all the individual neural connections a la "Spock's Brain," I'm not sure the brain would function or think in quite the same way in a different body -- even a younger clone body. It's kinda like how a door never closes quite right once it's been removed from its hinges and replaced, or how a piano needs to be tuned every time it's moved. And those are much simpler systems than a brain.

I wasn't thinking at all about going so far as to manipulate, say, the brain cells of an individual to match those of the person to be copied.

That, I believe, could only be achieved by full cloning, and even then would have to consider the brain transfer issues I raised above.

A clone's brain would not develop identically to the original's. As with body development, brain development is shaped by various hormonal and environmental factors, with genes just laying down the initial conditions. Our personality and the way we think are shaped by life experience, with neural-network connections being formed and selected through trial and error, producing a unique result. An original and a clone, like a pair of twins, would have some gross similarities in their behavioral tendencies, but would still be distinct individuals.

Which ties into what I said about the brain and body being closely interlinked. The brain and body learn to work together, to respond to each other. They're an integrated system. Move the brain to a different body and both brain and body would need time to adjust, to learn a new symbiosis -- or rather, to form a different whole.

 

[farmkid]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Christopher said:

farmkid said:
Tissue structure is laid down by genes during development and controlled by genes involved during development. Changing the genes later won't change the structure. In fact, if it were possible, you could replace an adult person's genome with the genome of a mouse or a rabbit or monkey or something and the person would remain human. They would likely still function properly, though they would probably have some physiological abnormalities.

That's fascinating. I never considered that.

I guess one way of looking at it is that DNA is software, the operating system for our cellular machinery. Since all life on Earth is descended from the same origins, we're all pretty much programmed in the same language, using variations of the same OS. So you could install one species' OS into another species and it would more or less work since most of the basic commands (make this protein, initiate that metabolic process) are the same. But there would be certain glitches and compatibility issues where the code differs.

Of course, "replacing a genome" isn't that simple, because we don't just have one copy of the genome, we have trillions, one in the nucleus of every cell in the body. (Although aren't there some cell types, blood cells or something, that don't have nuclei? So maybe not every cell.) There are ways of altering the genes of a whole group of cells within the body, like altering the stem cells so that the new cells that grow from them replace the old, unaltered ones, I guess. But not all the cells of the body are regenerated in that way. Heart and brain cells aren't, for instance, and I'd imagine most bone cells (marrow aside) aren't either, though that's just a barely educated guess. So any genome alteration within a full-grown person would be piecemeal, resulting in a genetic chimera.

Oh yes, "replacing a genome" is entirely impossible. It can be done to individual cells in a lab, but each cell requires individual handling. With current technology, it could not be done at all in an intact organism. My point was to illustrate that most genes are essentially functionally equivalent in all mammalian species and to a lesser degree in all vertebrates. What makes species different is due more to regulation of genes governing embryonic development than anything else. That is something of a simplification, of course, but it is mostly true.

If it were possible to replace the genome of cells in an organism, those cells would eventually become the species of the new genome as cellular components are replaced with gene products of the new genome. So, even without new cells being generated the molecular identity of the cell would change to match the new species. That would slightly change the function of some organs. For example, if a human's genome were replaced by that of a mouse, the heart rate would probably gradually increase as the ion channels in the membranes of the pacemaker cells in the heart (SA node if I remember right) were replaced. Most cells, however, would probably continue functioning more or less normal.

 

[Malleus]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

I raise two other questions: What about compatibility with blood type and immune systems? [I don't want to see masses of genetic lookalikes all of a sudden have immune system "deficiencies" (which in this case wouldn't be, given how they've worked well with the previous genetic structure) in adapting to the chimera material placed on them.] Also, am I correct in saying that reproduction would result in offspring with the original genetic makeup only?

farmkid (Merry X-mas to you, too), I greatly appreciate the science material, but so far you haven't translated your contribution into the specific problem I posed above. While I realize that both the current technology is woefully short and the structural/skeletal problems for exact genetic manipulation, I also wasn't expecting exact genetic manipulation in the future.

 

[farmkid]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Yeah sorry, I did get a little off topic. In my first post, I was trying to point out that cloning an individual isn't enough to get an exact duplicate of an individual. I mentioned the thing with the genome to illustrate the point. My second post was somewhat of a tangent in reply to Christopher so it really doesn't relate to your specific question. The original point, though, I think does answer some of your original questions. Genetic duplication doesn't necessarily mean exact duplication. Even with the same environment and genes there can still be some variation. Every woman, for example, is a genetic chimara because at some fairly early point in development, one X chromosome is inactivated in each cell. Which X chromosome gets inactivated is random. In most cases, that doesn't make any real difference, but it could make a difference if one of them had some severe mutation. That is the most obvious case of random chance affecting development, but random chance does play a role in determining the final outcome of development, independent of genes.

 

[Malleus]

Re: Genetic manipulation, cloning, biometrics, identity thef

Speaking of cloning, more sheep:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071231/ap_on_sc/iran_cloned_sheep