I have am doing a presentation on the ethics of animal cloning, and was wondering everyone's opinion and why?
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.
780969
Question: Where are you going to find an authentic sample of his cells?\n\nNo, it's not ethical, but it would most certainly be done if the scientists thought they had an authentic viable sample. \n\nPeople would kill to get their hands on it. One to protect the sample from being debased by science, another in the belief it will heal or provide immortality, one to see if the clone would have perfect morality and miraculous powers, one to prevent the sample or clone from becoming an object of worship, one to keep Jesus a mystery only attestable to by faith, one to prevent the other from getting it... each would have thier own motivation.
1089442
Well..Scientific experiment or no, there is a new thing out that when it becomes more popular amoung the general public, I'm SURE it will create quite some controversy..The thing I am talking about are called, GenPets. They are genetically created pets, and I think they are cloned using a splice between a human child and a mole..That's what they look like, and believe it or not, next year, they will be coming available for purchase..Go check out the website for them, i'll leave it on the source thing..It's amazing actually..Living and funtioning clones, and for a pet at that..Biogenetic engineering is such a controversial thing, but I believe if scientists could actually hoan the full potential of it and not just goof around with it, it would be VERY useful!!\nHttp://www.GenPets.com
899552
Hello, and what an interesting question.  \n\nMy answer is not about cloning humans, but rather cloning cells from humans that have the potential to turn into specialized cells.\n\nCorporate support of cloning human cells (like all Pharmaceutical companies supporting drug development) would only result in treating "end stage" support for diseases. \n\nThis is not a good thing.  Here is the reason: \n\nCorporate support generally does not advocate a fundamental understanding of how the disease begins, and it would not support understanding how to prevent the disease. \n\nThe best reason to support human cloning, in my opinion, is to understand disease and to prevent it. This has nothing to do with profits. \n\nIf Corporate companies supported preventative medicine, then they would make small profits in the long run.  \n\nBut when they support "end stage" therapies, their profit potential is limitless.\n\nNowadays Corporate profits can be hidden in money driven governmental policies (I live in the USA), by making human cell cloning sound wonderful and very humanitarian (and costly).  \n\nBut the real point is missed by consumers (who pay taxes which would offset tax benefits given to corporations anyways). \n\nThe real point in human cloning should be in preventing the disease in the first place.  And that is the real potential in human cloning of cells.  \n\nMaybe there are some humanitarians and good doers out there that really see this potential, and when you find them, they probably have nothing to do with corporate industry (or politicians or universities).  \n\nMy suspicion is that the humanitarians are being silenced throughout this money making frenzy for human cell cloning.  \n\nAs this happens, a shift towards "end stage" treatment will be emphasized, and understanding of the biology behind the disease will be suppressed (or, worse, even patented).  \n\nThis philosophy of treating diseases (as opposed to preventing them or even curing them) does have its advantages.  \n\nFirst, you won't have to change your lifestyle.  \n\nSecond, if you work in the field (as I do) then you can be assured of a long career supported by government and corporate entities and monies.  \n\nIt was fun thinking of our future.  I hope I helped you out!
156574
I don't think we should test such paltry things as beauty products on animals.  I don't think we should use animals for research of any kind UNLESS we can show that it is a study that will possibly save or extend human life, and that no human beings are willing to participate in the testing.  Any animals used for this purpose should be put into a state of sleep or made insensitive to pain.  They should be rewarded with everything they like best.  They should be given names, and these names should be listed on the products for all people benefitting from these tests to read.
512606
Okay, I'm tempted to offer to put you out of your misery.\n\nThis is a big topic and you have to find a meaningful focus. Do you want to talk about the ethical debate? Do you want to discuss the legal issues? \n\nHere's one idea, since it's civics: Look at the one country where euthanasia is legal, Holland, and talk about whether the law there would be a good or bad model for the United States to follow. Is the enactment of such a law desirable? Would it be workable in the climate of the US given the polarization over the abortion issue? Is this something that could be enacted nationally or only statewide, as the mercy-killing law in Oregon. \n\nI've cited a few websites below that could be useful starting points, but you problem need to delve into hard-copy stuff, journals and books.\n\nHope this idea is helpful. Better get going.
1051036
We haven't cloned any downright extinct animals yet, because most of them either have no extractable DNA remianing or have no living relatives close enough to use an an incubator. As for people, the ethical controversy is too big to condone any experiments. We've coloned most domestic animals, though.
263964
Absolutely, I suggest\n\nYang X, Tian XC, (2002). Cloning adult animals - what is the genetic age of the clones? Cloning, 2(3):123-8. \n\nThat is an almost perfect review!\n\n:-) Happy reading!
737242
I think that human cloning makes a lot more people than just the Christian Conservatives a bit uncomfortable and nervous.  This moderate Independent securalist thinks it's a very bad idea to clone humans.  I support stem cell research for many reasons, but cloning a human being just for the sake of doing so is irresponsible and some would say, dangerous.  There are still so many problems and unanswered questions involved in cloning that I don't think this will actually happen for a very long time to come (hopefully never).  What is the point of cloning a human being beyond egocentrism?  For extra parts?  \n\nI love science and technology, but it's not hard to see the danger areas we will have to address in the future brought out by progress.  Another example is that science has now developed technology that can tell whether any person is lying about anything.  It sounds good right?  Think further...  What need would we have for a jury system any longer?  How far does that take us into George Orwell territory?  What are the possible abuses this technology could spark?  I think sooner or later, as science continues to advance onto uncomfortable ground, that we as human beings will have to address many human rights issues regarding these advances.  It won't be a conservative or liberal issue, but a human issue that rises above the political line.
957884
Very thought provoking question! I am suprised that the responses you have received so far have been either negative or incomplete. It does pose a serious problem for conservative minded people. If the creation of a "Frankenstein" embryo by the hands of man is a religious abomination as you postulate, then supporting its existance is an equal abomination. But then comes the right to life issue. So far the responses seem to have been "well, too late to do anything about it". I think those responses are cop outs.\n\nI think that, should God make available to man the technology to perform such acts, then God must want us to be capable of doing it, otherwise he would prevent it.  Interestingly, it calls into question fundamental religious beliefs of whether or not this might be a "test" by God...\n\nI really dont have an off the cuff answer. This has provoked a lot of questions in my mind, and I have to sit back and think about it carefully for awhile. Thanks for the great question.
595413
You should use your own opinion. My personal opinion on the matter though is that cloning does not necessarily mean actually producing another one of yourself. Therapeutic cloning is the act of making a cloned embryo and extracting its stem cells before they even differentiate. The use of these stem cells in research is very valuable and has the potential to save millions of lives around the world (for reasons I opt not to get into).\n\nThus, I believe therapeutic cloning should be legal. The reproductive cloning of humans however, should remain illegal. Basically, the creation of formed embryos should be allowed, but it should be illegal to implant them so that can develop into human beings.\n\nThat's my personal point of view though. This is a highly controversial subject and you really need to research it and form an opinion of your own.
493684
Cloning has become a widely debated issue in the media since 1996, when a group of Scottish scientists led by Ian Wilmut cloned Dolly, a sheep that was the first clone of an adult mammal. The cloning process involves destroying the nucleus of an egg cell of the animal that will carry the clone and injecting a donor nucleus from the individual to be cloned into that egg cell. The resulting egg thus has a nucleus from the donor animal (which may be an endangered animal) and can develop into an animal that has the same genetic makeup as the donor, thus making the resulting offspring a clone.\n\nSince Dolly's appearance, a wide variety of uses for mammalian cloning have been proposed, including using cloned animals to produce superior livestock and to simplify the process of creating transgenic animals (genetically modified animals that can make human proteins in their milk, for example). Several groups have suggested cloning endangered or recently extinct species. A company called Advanced Cell Technology used a cow named Bessie to clone an Asian gaur, an endangered oxlike animal native to India and Burma (the cloned gaur died of an ordinary disease two days after his birth). Scientists also hope to move on to cloning extinct animals, perhaps starting with the cloning of the now-extinct bucardo mountain goat from Spain; scientists froze some tissue from the last living animal before the species became extinct.\n\nCloning endangered and extinct species has raised heated debate in the scientific community and beyond. On the one hand, many say it may offer us an opportunity to protect animals such as the giant panda from extinction so that our descendants will be able to see the beauty of these creatures. Some claim that cloning may help us bring back recently extinct species. Still others just want to have an opportunity to see a mammoth. (By the way, cloning mammoths from tissues frozen in Siberian permafrost is considered impossible with the current techniques because their DNA has become fragmented. In addition, scientists do not think that fossilized species such as dinosaurs can be cloned.) Indeed, if successful cloning of an endangered or recently extinct species is possible, we may be able to boost the populations of these animals.\n\nOn the other hand, cloned populations consist of genetically identical individuals, leading to high susceptibility to many diseases and slow adaptation to the environment. In addition, some argue that introducing extinct species back into the wild may upset the natural balance and have disastrous effects on the populations of other species. Such concerns are probably not as relevant with recently extinct species, where their extinction has usually been caused by human interventions, such as destruction of habitats and hunting. We do have to consider such issues when we start talking about bringing back mammoths, but the cloning of long-extinct species is still only a theoretical possibility. Concerns remain, however, that endangered and recently extinct species could be brought back to a world where their habitats no longer exist, and they will only be able to survive in zoos.\n\nAnother concern voiced by animal conservationists is that cloning endangered species would be viewed by the public (and governments) as an alternative to the breeding and habitat-protection programs already in place. Such possibilities are especially alarming as cloning techniques become cheaper and may be viewed as a less costly alternative to the more traditional means of protecting endangered species. Of course, cloning cannot serve as a substitute for such programs, because cloned animals lack the genetic diversity that is crucial to survival, and they still need habitats to live in.\n\nAs you can see, cloning is far from being able to serve as a Noah's Ark that would save all endangered species from extinction, but together with habitat protection and breeding programs, it may help some endangered and rece
630141
Many people disagree; some on religious grounds (against God's will), some on ethical/moral (somehow cloning is unnatural).  given that clones have same DNA they would have same immune system and thus be vulnerable to diseases that others might resist because of variations.
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.
747471
Firstly the answer depends one whether you are referring to cloning on an individual cell basis or at the organism level (ie Dolly the sheep).\n\nThere are two main types of objection to the first type of cloning, those relating to pro-life arguments and those that are concerned with unethical manipulations of cells. \n\nThe pro-life debate argues that all cells are potential life, the decision of whether or not those cells are allowed to grow or are terminated lies with God, not a scientist. \n\nThe other argument argues that cloning may grow out of control and unethical experiments may be carried out. \n\nOn the organism level...\n\nWell human cloning finds itself facing similar arguments, pro-life is obviously going to find problems here as life is a privilege given only by God. \n\nFrom an ethical view its quite clear that complete human cloning is wrong, refer to the movie The Island!\n\nI think Christians object, not through fear as God will always be infinitely more powerful in their eyes, but purely because they believe the gift of life is precious and from their point of view cloning is a violation of that gift.\n \nPersonally I think the anti-cloning and stem cell research movements are damaging the potential of scientific and medical research.
523636
check this out.\n\nkeep in mind the info is 5 yrs old.\n\nhttp://www.forbes.com/2001/11/26/1126cloning.html
253459
Yes...they say eventually with a single cell, you could produce the world's annual meat supply. And you could do it in a way that's better for the environment and human health. Considering all the  diseases spread by animals ( asian brd flu, mad cow disease, ect. ) it doesn't sound like such a bad idea.  They still have a long way to go though...so far what they have gotten has turned out like mush...and even after they get something that turns out right it will be a long time before the US Food and Drug People get through with all their approval testing were anything can be placed on the market.