if cloning is successful  why cant we clone another einstien with his preserved brain and eyes.?
110014
1)Cloning isn’t very successful. Currently scientists have to attempt to produce hundreds of clones just to get one success. The rest of the clones either resulting a spontaneous abortion or else are deformed deformed and die or are euthanased shortly after birth. Obviously we can’t ethically apply such a technique to human babies, even if we could find women willing to carry children with a high probability of miscarriage or being born deformed.\n\n2)It’s a worthless exercise. Genetics is only a small part of  what makes someone intelligent. Environmental effects such as diet, childhood stimulation, education and upbringing are far more important.  Even if we could clone Einstein we almost certainly wouldn’t end up with anyone of any great ability.\n\n3)It’s ethically and legally impossible. Einstein gave consent for organ harvesting, he never gave consent to being cloned. You simply can’t do this legally, which means it could only possibly be achieved by a Mad Doctor, possibly using a lightning rod. Possibly working a a castle on a high peak in Transylvania. Necessarily with an assistant named Igor.\n\n4)It’s physically impossible, at least with modern technology. Cloning requires live cells. Al has been dead for some time. Even if technology reaches appoint where we can clone animals form dead cells we still won’t be able to use remains that have been pickled in formaldehyde like Al because formaldehyde destroys DNA. Maybe in another 50 years or so we will have the technology tot allow use to reconstitute shattered DNA, but not today.
450694
1. Because it still wouldn't be the same... If you truly love your child they are irreplacable.\n2. Because science makes more trials than errors before they get it right do you want to take that chance?\n3. It defies human nature.  You don't fall in love with someone or love a child like they are an object.  And cloning simply creates an "object"\n\nGood Luck
1027341
It all depends how you look at the clone.  Some people might not like the clone and disregard the kid.  Whereas, some might accept it that they are the same.  But in my opinion, I would say that no it is not.  Since each clone can function independently of one another, then each must be considered as a separate "object" even though the DNA is the same.  By the way, your clone might end up cutting his right finger, but his DNA is still the same.  There are external factors such as anxiety, depression, and other life experiences that might shape your clone differently emotionaly and physically.
694664
(this is an ad-hoc answer for an ad-hoc question)\n\n - because cloning is good - because no one wants to die or have to amputate something or live impared.
456073
If I was to clone myself, I would do it for different reasons. There is no way that I would put my life over someone else's...at least that is how I think now...I do think it would be cool to have another one of me...My clone would have my twisted mind just with maybe some different life experiences. I think that it would be pretty cool to philosophize with my differently same self. I think that a person could really learn a lot about themselves from such an experience. Just think of what you would be about if you lived in a third world country, or lived life as a king, or you had different parents, or you eat different food, smelled different things, knew different people, or so on...I think that the answer is that there is no real knowing what you would really be about...I think that there is a lot to be said about what you could learn. They say that some people that get amnesia act completely different then before it, and with no sign of any real brain trauma...by that I mean that they are actually the same person, genes and all, just missing some of the life experiences that made them the way they were...this would go to prove that a person is completely capable of change as long as they understand that their mind is their own and all they need to do is control how it "looks" or uses its stimulus...Meaning that we are really not predisposed to be anything and all we need to do is see things the way we need to see things to become what we want to be...
421475
Because of the way a cloned human being would have to be made they would not be identical. To create a clone they inseminate an egg with the DNA of the person they wish to clone until it begins to devide and grow. Then the embryo is implanted into a woman's womb. There would be some gentic difference due to the influence of the egg and womb that the child developed in.
79394
To answer this properly, we would really have to define what is meant by cloning. To clone something is just to make a copy, and genes are cloned safely all the time. I think you mean making an individual who is a genetic copy of another individual.\n\nThis certainly hasn't been done often, and is in no way safe. Dolly the sheep died young and had problems, and I don't think it's completely understood yet why. There was a dog cloned in Korea, but now that researcher has been fired for publishing fraudulent data, even though they've checked out the dog and he does seem to be an actually clone. It still casts some doubt.\n\nThe idea of cloning humans is completely unethical at this point, because it is unsafe. At the current state of technology, you couldn't clone a human without producing probably hundreds of babies with birth defects in the process.\n\nHow long until it is safe? There's really no way to tell. If people were determined to do this (not sure why, there are much easier ways to have children), being able to do it safely will depend on discoveries that haven't been made yet, so there's really no way to predict. Could be 50 years, could be ten years if something really amazing happens in the meanwhile.
671971
I don't think it is as much bad, as it is unnecessary. A clone is a different person than the original. It would have a different personality and different memories and a different life. Who would want a look alike running around. The only purpose in a clone would be to farm body parts and that is WRONG.
721810
I don't agree with cloning or interfering with nature to this degree.\n\nI think sometimes scientists get obsessed with getting their names in the history books and lose sight of the bigger picture.
597860
IT WOLD BE GREAT IF WE COULD GET EINSTEIN BACK TO WORK ON IT.EINSTEIN SAID IT WOULD WORK,AND WE HAVE NO OTHER BRAIN CLOSE TO HIS.I BELIEVE IF HE WOULD HAVE LIVED LONGER HE COULD HAVE SOLVED IT.THEN AGAIN IT MAY TAKE ANOTHER COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS,LIKE IT DID BETWEEN NEWTON AND EINSTEIN.MINDS LIKE THEIRS ONLY SHOW UP RARELY.
366636
there are some efforts going on to bring mammoth to life by using its frozen sperm. with an african elephant. as far as cloning goes i dont have any idea.
491568
I think there is nothing wrong with cloning. It is just creating an exact copy of someone's body, it isn't going to replicate their mind. If someone cloned Hitler, it would look like Hitler but it wouldn't actually be him. The clone would need to be raised under the exact same circumstances, and even then, he might react differently to his surroundings. It's like how twins look alike, but don't have the same personality. If they ever decided to clone humans, I'd volunteer to be a test subject, as long as I didn't have to raise my clone.
662477
I'm not sure whether a human has been cloned yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.  My perception is that when something is scientifically possible, it will be done.  The important thing is to have ethical standards around how and under what circumstances it is done.\n\nScience fiction has been dealing with this question for many years, and it is one reason science fiction is so important.  It constitutes a forum for working out the moral values involved in a particular technological advance by "thought experiment" before being done in laboratory experiment.\n\nThe one I have problems with is whether or not clones will have souls.  Somebody asked that on Y!A awhile back, and I answered that it's a question we will need to resolve before we get into cloning humans.  And it's a question that raises a host of others:  What is a soul?  Do people really have such things, or is it just an abstract idea with no basis in "reality."  For that matter, what is "reality?"  ("What a concept!" says Robin Williams.)  If there is really such a thing, how does it get into a person?  What difference would it make if a clone did not have one?\n\nYou see, we have some important questions to answer here.
798851
What if they werent clones? What if it were all the work of the original?\n    I think I would find that far more amusing than random people cloning him
209132
Some people claim they have already done it (but they were French cultists and there was no reliable evidence). It can theoretically be done but there are a lot of unknowns. Dolly the sheep aged very rapidly because the dna of her chromosomes was already old when she was created. Ethically, there are lots of potential problems. For example, rich people might try to achieve some kind of immortality by cloning themselves but this is problematic if that person is a male because only the nucleus of the cell will be used ... the rest of the egg will have to come from a woman and the clone will not be identical to the donor.
406300
This is my own conclusion, but based on most people's belief in God, man is the most intelligent of God's creations.  So therefore we have been given the knowledge to clone.  For animal testing, cloning could possibly cure or eradicate diseases (for our benefit), and allow us to mass produce animals.  \nI think a lot of people's concern has to do with at what stage of development cloning becomes unethical.  Is forcing a cell to split early in development the same as cloning later in the development process?  I researched this same topic for a class project that I did, and found most everybody in my class biases toward cloning were based on if animals had souls, and if and when they received them.  \nAs for my personal opinion, I believe that animal cloning in most forms is ethical.  If we as the human race can benefit from what we learn from cloning organs to eradicating diseases, this knowledge should be used for our benefit.  We have no idea what if any repercussions will take place from cloning, but the benefits seem to outweigh any of them.
1180676
The first steps have already been taken: human organs and stem cells have already been grown in the laboratory. New strides in genetics research such as identifying genes which cause disease are moving the scientific community ever closer to cloning a human. It would be interesting to see if a clone of a genetically mutated animal or human would exhibit the same symptoms as its duplicate. If not, what is the difference?