I suppose with regards to ethics, what may be seen as unethical now may be seen as ethical in the future. Could it be that human cloning could one day be essential for the human race to survive?

My little contribution as biologist...
Leaving the ethics aside, the DNA does not contain any "memories"... unless you refer to the memories of its evolutionary history
Regarding the cloning, two cloned humans will never be 100% the same, and the cloning itself might carry the epigenetic changes that the source individual could have undergo during its life. Though most of the epigenetic modifications are "erased" in your descendants, some of them can be transferred to the next generation.
Also, there is the question that the phenotype is not just genetic... the DNA is not completely deterministic. Many characteristics can be acquired through the cellular migration during the development (fingerprints, distribution of moles in your body...), and many others are derived from the "environment". From the diet to even the way you born (e.g. C-section vs passing through the pelvic channel*) have effect on you.


*this can especially alter the shape of the head

Great post Xabi, I never consider the actual act of giving birth having an impact with regards to how a clone could differ. So essentially while a clone could in theory be identical to the "host" in every way it would actually be unlikely due to the reasons you mention.

This topic touches on a stack of fascinating issues. Thanks Lee for starting it off! It seems very likely in the not too distant future it will be technically possible to clone humans:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning

I agree with those who have suggested that it is also reasonable to assume our descendants will be able to grow a clone from a single strand of human hair. Many of you would have seen the 1984 film Starman that shows an alien visitor to the earth doing just this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starman_(film)

That may concern some of those who intend to blast their tiny bundle of DNA into space to be buried deep into the moon. Perhaps you have an ethical or religious concern about the potential for your hair to be the source material of a clone, or you wish to remain a relatively physically unique being - for now and the future - which I would argue you have the right to assert (and there I go opening a multitude of rights issues!).

Ideally it would be best to ensure that those sending their hair into space who have concerns of this nature could record that in some way - perhaps with a microscopic message on the hair "Do Not Clone" (not that this request would be respected). The development and practical application of such a system would however very likely be completely impractical, time consuming, and extremely expensive. To address this more pragmatically and to protect Lunar Missions from potential ramifications in the future, it might therefore be prudent to develop a simple and clear contract for those choosing to send their hair to the moon. People would need to agree to relinquishment or surrender their rights or privileges concerning the potential future cloning of their DNA - wow. So now we're faced with a potential barrier to the sale of hair to the moon for a group of "concerned people". The digital memory boxes will also potentially be the subject of "cloning" or as we know it, copying, but I suspect we're all far more comfortable with cloning data - well, perhaps.

For many, cloning might not cause such unease. A cloned me would not have my experience. They would not have existed in my time line. They would not have felt, nor met, or interacted with those things I have. I'm talking of more than memory here... A clone would not have developed my identity - they would not be me (which I count as far more then merely memory). Identical twins may have similarities, but they are never the same people because from the moment of their birth they experience the world from a different place and their development is forged by their unique perspective. That said, I would not like to have a chance meeting with my clone. I would need time to reflect on the very many personal, ethical and political issues surrounding cloning and I haven't even scratched the surface!

Some countries like the US, Australia and Canada have prohibited human cloning, and others have a selective approach like the UK who permit therapeutic cloning. Cloning from a DNA sample? That is one big subject...

HI Mike, and everyone, as we know DNA has been recovered from a variety of fossils dating back to around 400 000 years old. This includes species such as frozen pieces of mammoths, also other Ice Age plants and animals. But as far as I'm aware, no DNA has survived from species such as Jurassic dinosaurs or other organisms that were alive millions of years ago. I wonder what the DNA 'shelf life' is estimated to be for the hair samples, which will be placed inside the digital memory boxes? I read some where else that DNA has a half-life of approximately 521 years, or much less if exposed to heat. If I remember correctly, the oldest DNA found was under an ice sheet in Greenland which was found to be between 450 000 and 800 000 years old, from butterflies and pine trees amongst other organisms. I guess if we were to be cloned in the future, there will be a time limit to do it (*only* less than a few hundred thousand years!) and also how will the hair samples be protected from any hazards?

I would like to understand how the DNA would be protected to. I don't know how much radiation the moon is subjected to and how that changes with how deep the time capsule will be buried?