Wait, what? Do I wish I had multiple clones of myself?

Trials, replicates, sample size are synonymous and of the greatest importance when it comes to scientific experiments. In order for any study to be considered as a study conducted with high levels of scientific vigour, it is essential for the study to have multiple replicates for every test condition. If scientists were to make judgements regarding the effects of a test condition on the basis of results seen in one sample, then it would be impossible to say that such a result will be observed in any random sample with similar initial characteristics as the test sample, even if it undergoes the same test condition. Hence, in order to say that a test condition would have a certain impact on a sample with certain characteristics, with a high level of certainty, it is essential to test out that condition on multiple samples that have the same characteristics. If these multiple samples all show the same effects or at least effects that are comparable, then scientists can extrapolate the results to the entire population that bears similar characteristics to the sample population. If publications were made on the basis of a single sample, then it would be irrational to assume that the sample was not a one-off sample and that the entire population will react in a comparable manner to the test sample.

In the medical field, all research includes a significant number of replicates, if it involves cell cultures or model organisms like mice, or a significant sample size, so that researchers can claim that a particular test condition will result into a specific result in the population. Whenever I read research papers, I ensure that I consider the sample size and sample characteristics to judge if the study was rigorous by scientific standards and if the results can be applicable to me. But, I always wonder what if I am the one-off case? What if I am distinct from the study population in a characteristic that was not controlled for while selecting the sample population? What if me possessing this particular characteristic affects the way my body might react to the same test condition? This is one of the most important reasons behind my interest in personalized medicine. I want to know how exactly MY body will react to the test condition regardless of how the “general” population might react to the test condition.

The medical field has genereated ideal ranges for health parameters like cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, homocysteine levels, body fat percentage, glycated haemoglobin levels, which are used to define whether a particular person is “healthy”. These ideal ranges have been obtained after conducting multiple studies with significant sample sizes, ensuring that the studies are scientifically rigorous.

Let us take the example of triglyceride levels. Certain people might be healthy even if their triglyceride levels deviate from the ideal triglyceride range, which is exemplified in the case of the group of “lean mass hyper responders” who tend to have higher than “normal” LDL, HDL levels, and lower triglyceride levels especially in the context of a low carbohydrate diet. If a lean mass hyper responder’s health were to be judged on the basis of the ideal lipid profile range, then the doctors would conclude that the person has hypercholesterolemia and might prescribe the person a course of statins to bring the levels within the “ideal” range. The ideal range however, is not applicable to the group of lean mass hyper responders as they are distinct from the general population for which the ideal range has been defined. Thus, in this situation the doctors’ concern with the person’s triglyceride levels and the prescription for statins might not actually be healthy for the patient as the defined ideal range is not his ideal healthy range for triglycerides. This shows that a person might be unhealthy even if his triglyceride levels lie within the ideal range, a person might be healthy even if his triglyceride levels lie outside the ideal range and a person might be healthy only if his triglyceride levels lie within a limited range in the suggested ideal range. In order to judge a person’s actual health status in present day on the basis of his current triglycerie levels, his levels should be compared with his own past levels and if there is a significant fluctuation then his levels should be flagged. In this way, the triglyceride levels from multiple blood tests throughout the life cycle of the individual can act as a substitute for multiple replicates. Also, just because there is a significant fluctuation, one cannot conclude that the person’s health has taken a turn for the worse. This fluctuation should be seen with respect to all the other parameters like his LDL levels, HDL levels, cholesterol levels etc. along with the person’s lifestyle choices like diet, exercise regimen, etc. to determine the person’s overall health.

Considering that the existence of such a group of people, i.e. lean mass hyper responders came to be known in 2021, it will take the medical community a good amount of time to consider the possibility of a person being a lean mass hyper responder while looking at the person’s lipid profiles. If the person has been consistently keeping a track of the blood parameters, then the doctors can study the trends over multiple tests, take into consideration the lifestyle choices of the person (in this case, a low carbohydrate diet) and then decide whether the fluctuation seen in a test indicates good health or ill health.

I have had blood tests done atleast once every single year. I have multiple values for all the parameters over 21 years of my life. So, I should technically be happy with having 21 quasi-replicates right? 21 replicates should be enough to define what my body’s ideal range is for certain parameters right? Well, unfortunately that is not the case. The quasi-replicates can be considered to be proper substitutes for multiple replicates only if all those 21 tests were conducted on me in vacuum. “In vacuum” in this case refers to me having the same diet, same internal/biological age, same organ health, same chronological age, same body fat percentage, same living environment, and so on and so forth. Since all the tests did not control for the biggest confounding variable - ME and the inevitable changes one goes through through one’s lifetime, these test values are not true replicates. Hence, even though they provide “good enough” or “acceptable” approximation of ideal ranges for certain parameters for my health, these ranges are not perfect. I am a perfectionist. I want to know the exact values. I want to conduct experiments with highest levels of precision.

I have always been fascinated with epigenetics and I am currently conducting research in the field of diet, epigenetics, metabolism and aging. Thus, to me through my own research projects and through the available literature, it has become apparent that every person is not only distinct from every other person when it comes to health and health outcomes, but every person is distinct from himself when a change is made to his environment, environmental stressors or lifestyle choices. Every person’s body reacts differently to different environments. One such example is that a slight change in the diet can change the gut microbial community which in turn affects the way the microbiome communicates with the rest of the body and in turn affects the epigenetic marks like methylation. Our bodies are complex machines with many intricate parts and decoding the machinery is a huge challenge, which makes the field so exciting and interesting.

Thus, taking epigenetics into consideration, a great way for me to determine my ideal range for particular parameters given my present condition (lifestyle choices, environmental stressors, etc.) is to have multiple clones of myself who are exactly identical to me in every single sense - what they eat, how much they eat, when the eat, when they sleep, how much they sleep, what is the gut microibial diversity, what is the size of every single gut microbial community, etc. These multiple clones will act as multiple replicates, making my observations and experiments scientifically rigorous and applicable to me. Well human cloning is not easy and the ethics of such a practice are highly debated. I personally am of the opinion that human cloning if made into a mainstream practice can have immense bioethical consequences and can result in innumerable dilemmas. The thought of human cloning becoming a reality just makes me think of science fiction movies and for me every scenario leads to a truly disastrous ending. One particular show that I think of is Black Mirror and the episode that exemplifies few of the potential issues with human cloning is “Be Right Back” (Season 2 Episode 1). I will not talk a lot about the episode here because I plan on doing a bioethics deep dive on most of the the black mirror episodes.

Besides, the process of cloning does not really result into 100% identical copies. So, even if I were permitted to have multiple clones of myself and even if I supported the practice of human cloning I will not have multiple physical clones of myself as they will not actually act as multiple replicates for me. Also, even if the clones were fully identical to me, imagine having to control every single action of every single clone to ensure that there are no confounding variables in the experiment. I can only think of two words when I think of this scenario - NO THANKS.

At this point you might be wondering if anything will ever satisfy my need to have multiple replicates? Will anything be a “good enough” substitute for replicates for me? Well those are great questions which I wonder ever so often. But, right now with whatever is available to me, I have settled on a “good enough” substitute for replicates. I am attempting to create a digital clone of myself with the help of the multiple biohacking tools and devices that I currently possess. At any point of time, I have a slight idea of what is happening in my body, and what is currently being changed. I have all the information regarding myself and it is extremely easy for me to keep track of this information like when I ate, what I ate, how much I ate, when I slept, how many minutes of deep sleep did I get and so on and so forth. Thus, what I now possess is data on how my body reacts to certain changes or stressors like whenever I drink alcohol, my heart rate variability decreases and my heart rate increases and I find it difficult to get into a fat burn mode for 24 hours. So, with the data that I have and the observations that I have made, I can make some predictions regarding what might happen if I introduce something new in my daily routine by drawing similarities with things that I have introduced in the past and how my body has reacted to it. This is essentially a Trial and Error Process, which is NOT PERFECT in any way and is extremely slow, but it is the best that I can currently do to satisfy my need to know what is happening to me and to better predict my own health outcomes.

In the future, with devices getting better, health technologies becoming smarter and more research being published regarding epigenetics, I foresee having a complete digital clone which is atleast 99% identical to my current form. With such a digital clone, I can create multiples of the clone and then run a simulation on the clone. This way, I will be able to conduct an experiment on myself without actually conducting an experiment on myself. If for example making a certain lifestyle change in the simulation affects my digital clone negatively then I will not make that lifestyle change in real life. Then, I will be free of the trial and error process, wherein there is always a good chance that I might end up causing slight damage to my health. Besides, having a digital clone will also reduce bioethical considerations regarding research ethics of subjecting a living thing to a test condition without knowing what the outcome might be. No one will have to get hurt in this ideal situation, the research process will get easier but stay rigorous and medicine will become as personalized as possible.

References:

Norwitz, N., Soto-Mota, A., Feldman, D., Parpos, S., & Budoff, M. (2022). Case Report: Hypercholesterolemia “Lean Mass Hyper-Responder” Phenotype Presents in the Context of a Low Saturated Fat Carbohydrate-Restricted Diet. Frontiers In Endocrinology, 13. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.830325