One of the issues at the moment (besides the ethics and also the traumas of many failed attempts) is that they have not managed to clone primate babies from adults.

So if the process that was successful for monkeys was the only way it could work for humans, then it is not as though we could decide later in life to clone ourselves.  

From the article: "The process is still very inefficient — it took 127 eggs to get the two babies — and so far it has succeeded only by starting with a monkey fetus. The scientists failed to produce healthy babies from an adult monkey, though they are still trying and are awaiting the outcome of some pregnancies. Dolly caused a sensation because she was the first mammal cloned from an adult."

One may feel uneasy, to say the least, reading that and some people may really freak out.

Another problem is that the new ability is viewed in the context of medical research - these genetically identical monkeys would be useful as research animals in labs.

It is not about preserving endangered species, for example.

Obviously there are huge issues of informed consent among all the participants on any cloning activity. Whether there are any "traumas" associated with all the attempts is also best judged by the individual participants.

Certainly one can imagine societal management of cloning used for societal purposes such as medical research or preserving endangered species.

But why and how does that translate to society having the right to intervene in an individual's informed choice on this matter?

To borrow a phrase: if you don't want a clone(or an abortion), then don't have one.

Would be a pretty extreme society that might try to force people into cloning.

You never know though.  Maybe Margaret Atwood has written a novel about it.

** 

But I see, you are saying if it is possible, then why should it be denied to individuals - let them make the choice.

I leave the debate to others.

In the future, I'd love to have tea with my clone. Maybe we'd even be housemates!

CRISPR–Cas encoding of a digital movie into the genomes of a population of living bacteria: From what I can understand, they take a virus to "vaccinate" the bacteria (as it happens naturally: a bacterium engulfs the genetic material of an invading virus to evolve an inheritable immunity to it - meanwhile, the virus works on circumventing the defence mechanism).
That could mean that if we learn to decode information in the genome, we will be able to know the history of life from the start! Or, for those who aren't yet bored of modern technology (unlike our forum admin), DNA can be used as a hyper-efficient data storage. Which isn't toxic. Maybe a bit virulent if something goes wrong.

CRISPR–Cas encoding of a digital movie into the genomes of a population of living bacteria:

So cool! Opens up lots of possibilities. A silly one:

DNA Tattoo artists will now be able to embed your favorite movie into your DNA.
Then, send in a tattooed saliva sample to 23andMe and get back a report:
"You're 47% European, 42% East Asian and Native American, 11% Sub-Saharan African, and one copy of the The Godfather, Part II" 

"DNA Tattoo artists will now be able to embed your favorite movie into your DNA."

I am more interested in plant genetics, growing money on trees could soon be real (bio mining). Explains the war on cash!

Or a bio-graphy of Viral Ynn with Kevin Spacer. Just kidding, the guy is junk DNA.

I'm thinking that I've seen the Alien and Tolkien series so many times that I probably have them printed in my genes.

FYI   the current (UK) Agriculture Bill is getting a very late stage amendment  to exclude gene editing techniques (like CRISPR) 
from the definition of genetic modification.
This will have the effect of creating a back door around the Cartagena Protocol, of which the UK is a signatory, and effect environmental
protection issues via purely agricultural legislation. 

Scenario 1: Efficient pesticide-free farming, Arcadia (at least for the lucky ones) vs Scenario 2: Allergies, cancers, superbugs, end of civilisation

"DNA Tattoo artists will now be able to embed your favorite movie into your DNA."

I am more interested in plant genetics, growing money on trees could soon be real (bio mining). Explains the war on cash!

What about this?

CRISPR–Cas encoding of a digital movie into the genomes of a population of living bacteria:

From what I can understand, they take a virus to "vaccinate" the bacteria (as it happens naturally: a bacterium engulfs the genetic material of an invading virus to evolve an inheritable immunity to it - meanwhile, the virus works on circumventing the defence mechanism).
That could mean that if we learn to decode information in the genome, we will be able to know  the history of life from the start! Or, for those who aren't yet bored of modern technology (unlike our forum admin), DNA can be used as a hyper-efficient data storage. Which isn't toxic. Maybe a bit virulent if something goes wrong.

Admin or admin?

Scenario 1: Efficient pesticide-free farming, Arcadia (at least for the lucky ones) vs Scenario 2: Allergies, cancers, superbugs, end of civilisation

Quite!  

I wouldn't claim to any great expertise on the details of genetic modification, but if we really want to risk allergies, cancers, superbugs and the end of
civilisation it doesn't seem like that kind of decision to be smuggled through in an amendment to a bill about an ostensibly entirely different subject
on a quiet Friday afternoon.
 
Hopefully we don't go the way of Gros Michel bananas.

Yeah, it's unavoidable - and actually desperately needed, and just because something can go wrong it should stop us... It should obviously come with strict regulations in scientific and economic dimensions, but given all the stakeholders and their knee-jerk dynamics, things will go awry as usual.

CRISPR–Cas encoding of a digital movie into the genomes of a population of living bacteria:

From what I can understand, they take a virus to "vaccinate" the bacteria (as it happens naturally: a bacterium engulfs the genetic material of an invading virus to evolve an inheritable immunity to it - meanwhile, the virus works on circumventing the defence mechanism).
That could mean that if we learn to decode information in the genome, we will be able to know  the history of life from the start! Or, for those who aren't yet bored of modern technology (unlike our forum admin), DNA can be used as a hyper-efficient data storage. Which isn't toxic. Maybe a bit virulent if something goes wrong.

Admin or admin?

What if our DNA was a "memory stick" left by a passing by (in space or time) intelligence - the transcription of their fav song, movie or encyclopedia, but some space hackers wrote viruses to hack it? Neuromancer vs Wintermute? (No, I haven't been reading cyberpunk again!)

Just casually read some articles on CRISPS-Cas, and the progress seems astounding!
Precision gene editing medicine makes history, and it’s just getting started | Nature Biotechnology

"As in something out of science fiction, a team of researchers reached into the genome of a seven-month-old baby with a base editing therapy targeted specifically to repair his unique mutation. Time was of the essence, as the rare, life-threatening genetic disorder caused by a mutation in his carbamoyl phosphate synthetase 1 (CPS1) gene impairs the body’s ability to process protein, causing a toxic build-up of ammonia in the blood, affecting brain function. Half the babies with this urea cycle disorder die before their first birthday, and even when they survive, they experience severe developmental delays. The speed was remarkable: it took less than seven months to go from having the sequence in hand to delivering this first treatment of its kind, made just for him. Now nine month old, baby KJ, as he is known, appears healthy. [...]
While baby KJ made news around the globe, the latest generations of gene editing medicines garnered fewer headlines but made equally impressive strides. In March, Beam Therapeutics released the results of a phase 1/2 trial of in vivo base editing medicine for α-1 antitrypsin deficiency. In April, Verve Therapeutics released dramatic cholesterol-lowering clinical results with their in vivo base editing treatment for familial hypercholesterolemia. And in May, Prime Medicine announced that the first patient to receive their prime editing medicine, an 18-year-old man with chronic granulomatosis disease, saw his health improve rapidly after a single injection of the therapy."

It's not exactly CRISPR-Cas9 that Beam Therapeutics is using, from what I understand (they are rather fixing than removing the problematic genes), but gene editing is already saving lives - even if only one at a time. Perhaps AI could help lower the cost of such therapies.