Snuppy, the first cloned dog, is the most amazing invention of 2005, Time magazine said on Sunday.
The puppy, a 5-month-old Afghan hound, was cloned at Seoul National University in Korea by a 45-person team led by Professor Woo Suk Hwang. Snuppy"s genes are derived from a single cell taken from the ear of an adult Afghan, rather than the egg and sperm of a mother and father, Time said.
Other inventions featured in the magazine, due on newsstands on Nov. 14, include a bicycle with a hydrogen-powered fuel-cell engine, a one-time use video camcorder, and a robotic cat that recognizes speech commands.
Most amazing invention? A cloned dog is not an invention. "Cloning technology" would be the invention, and it's not new. Of course I can see where Time magazine went "Awwww how cute!" thinking that hey, now we can have our favorite pets back from the dead! When in actuality the Koreans worked toward cloning dogs the same way we work toward cloning cows - for an unlimited FOOD SOURCE. Come on, you all know it's true. =P
Where is the science in this 
Really! Just another milestone in the race to clone everything. Food, pet, yard-art, whatever... Come on, Time! Not an invention, not as much science as technology & definitely not serious journalism.
Do you know how much work it takes for a fully differentiated cell (the ear cell of an adult afghan, in this case) to "undifferentiate" back into a stem cell and produce all the different tissues of an entire dog? Stimulation of the egg cell to start dividing into an embryo is also a hard task as many many hormones are present in vivo when a dog is pregnant that work together to start it off. A lot of background biology has been paving the way for this, so this really is an amazing thing.
Also, potential uses of this technology to cure, treat and prevent all sorts of diseases make this an incredibly important breakthrough. Indeed one that has made it worthwhile for invention of the year.
Sure you may not see any benefits of it now, but a precedent has been set. You don't expect them to clone humans straight away, this is simply a step in a long journey.
(On re-reading this post, it really is full of a lot of crappy cliche`s, but the meaning still stands)
Burnt Toast
Also, potential uses of this technology to cure, treat and prevent all sorts of diseases make this an incredibly important breakthrough. Indeed one that has made it worthwhile for invention of the year.
Sure you may not see any benefits of it now, but a precedent has been set. You don't expect them to clone humans straight away, this is simply a step in a long journey.
(On re-reading this post, it really is full of a lot of crappy cliche`s, but the meaning still stands)
Burnt Toast
Eh?
Of course a cloned Afghan is an amazing thing. But is it an invention?
In that case one could say that Afghans themselves are an invention - in the same way a Pikenese is an invention or anything else that is the new product of human artifice.
They seem to be implying that a product of an invention is the same thing as an invention. Were Afghans invented, or were they produced by years of applying the invention of selective breeding.
We need to know!
Otherwise we may miss out on a patent!
E.
Of course a cloned Afghan is an amazing thing. But is it an invention?
In that case one could say that Afghans themselves are an invention - in the same way a Pikenese is an invention or anything else that is the new product of human artifice.
They seem to be implying that a product of an invention is the same thing as an invention. Were Afghans invented, or were they produced by years of applying the invention of selective breeding.
We need to know!
Otherwise we may miss out on a patent!
E.
Well, Merriam-Webster defines invent as:
to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment
An invention is simply the product of this. Now, the clone provides precedence for human cloning, which is useful. It certainly is the first time this has been done. Also, ingenious thinking and experiment was used in the process of producing the clone. So, by the definition outlined by Merriam-Webster, it is an invention.
Burnt Toast
QUOTE
to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment
An invention is simply the product of this. Now, the clone provides precedence for human cloning, which is useful. It certainly is the first time this has been done. Also, ingenious thinking and experiment was used in the process of producing the clone. So, by the definition outlined by Merriam-Webster, it is an invention.
Burnt Toast
Respectfully I will still maintain it is not an invention. 
Allow me to show emphasis...
First time a dog has been cloned? Sure.
First time an animal has been cloned? A mammal, even? No sir.
Ice cream was an invention. Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream was just a new flavor using the same old technology. =P
Allow me to show emphasis...
QUOTE
to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment
First time a dog has been cloned? Sure.
First time an animal has been cloned? A mammal, even? No sir.
Ice cream was an invention. Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream was just a new flavor using the same old technology. =P
Of course, you're free to think that. It's all a matter of semantics. Language is highly malleable like that. However, as long as you can see how it can be considered an invention, it's fine and we can agree to disagree.
Burnt Toast
Burnt Toast
We can agree to disagree blah, blah, blah he proved to be correct with his language and you don't like it. semantics blah, blah, blah just give up you know when you are wrong the debate has ended it is not an invention so than dolly an invention so we will have hundreds if not thousands of inventions coming in the future when we start cloning every animal in the world amazing, admit defeat, cease, move on, that it bye bye have a nice day Time made a mistake
i hate semantics for the same reason i hate philosophy: both are subjective (though the latter is in deep, deep denial).
simon, one can generalize away any invention. by your reasoning, einstein just came up with another mathematical formula. big deal.
the true measure of the best invention is ingenuity, whose primary determinants are 1) the effort and knowledge required to produce the result, 2) the utility of the product, and 3) the utility of spinoffs from the advance in scientific understanding and method.
simon, one can generalize away any invention. by your reasoning, einstein just came up with another mathematical formula. big deal.
the true measure of the best invention is ingenuity, whose primary determinants are 1) the effort and knowledge required to produce the result, 2) the utility of the product, and 3) the utility of spinoffs from the advance in scientific understanding and method.
I dont see how this phrase could have the dual meaning some of you seems to rely on. The "for the first time" part is pretty well defined and doesnt leave room for a second interpretation, the only way to get a different meaning from the description is if someone misreads it. Cloning an animal using ear cells would be the same as producing a car using korean made parts instead of chinese. Different materials, same product, no invention there.
afturehead:
>Einstein just came up with another mathematical formula
he actually did not invent relativity
he came up with an mathematical formula to explain it.
>Einstein just came up with another mathematical formula
he actually did not invent relativity
he came up with an mathematical formula to explain it.
GER_hachnslay,
i did not mean to imply that einstein invented relativity. i merely meant to follow simon's pattern to show his faulty reasoning by generalization:
had i been explicit, i would have stated it thusly:
first time a mathematical formula has explained relativity? sure.
first time a mathematical formula has been written? an equation, even? no, sir.
i did not mean to imply that einstein invented relativity. i merely meant to follow simon's pattern to show his faulty reasoning by generalization:
QUOTE
First time a dog has been cloned? Sure.
First time an animal has been cloned? A mammal, even? No sir.
First time an animal has been cloned? A mammal, even? No sir.
had i been explicit, i would have stated it thusly:
first time a mathematical formula has explained relativity? sure.
first time a mathematical formula has been written? an equation, even? no, sir.
source:Wikipedia
Object: dog >No invention
process: cloning >No invention
technique: "cloning of a dog using a single cell from its ear"?
Is there a general process of cloning?
Have they done anything different than in the ordinary cloning process by taking a single cell from the dogs ear to reproduce it?
Have they invented a new way to clone animals?
QUOTE
In general terms, an invention is an object, process or technique which displays an element of novelty. In certain circumstances, legal protection may be granted to an invention by way of a patent.
Object: dog >No invention
process: cloning >No invention
technique: "cloning of a dog using a single cell from its ear"?
Is there a general process of cloning?
Have they done anything different than in the ordinary cloning process by taking a single cell from the dogs ear to reproduce it?
Have they invented a new way to clone animals?
A point I don't see here yet; who cares even a little about what TIME says? That publication has been over for so long, their opinion is less than trivial. Seacrest out.
I don't have any great love for Time magazine; I believe this article gathered so much response precisely because someone out there thought it was important enough to warrant the eye of the physorg weblog. One reason articles are brought to public attention is to gather public opinion on the subject material and presentation - in this case we are in a scientific forum and logic prevails. Thusly, the very validity of the topic was at stake due to Time's unfailing ignorance.