What is your perspective & point of view of cloning animals and humans?
82403
I think we should approach this with extreme cautio, after seeing that movie the Island, this possibility is allready to close in our reach. Maybe they are allready happening somewhere, who knows. I think this should be remaining illegal and ofcouse for medical use, but it is still to be with extreme caution, where do we draw the line.\nThe future awaits us the answer.
834582
An entire human is cloned, but if you're asking if the brain will be the same in terms of the knowledge that it holds the answer is no.  Cloning makes a copy of genetics--the instructions that are stored as to how to make us physically.  The information our brains hold is all a matter of experiences encountered.  \nThis is a question of nature vs. nurture.  Our genetics do have implications as to how we think, but the way we are brought up, down to very minute details form who we are, and because it's very hard to mimic the same exact conditions that a person had growing up, it would be next to impossible to clone somebody who would think exactly like the original person.
89389
We don't want to have human cloning. That has been made abundantly clear by numerous polls and elections.\n\nI doubt that you personnally know even a single person who wants human cloning.
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.
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
169320
I think he was talking about technologies where they can grow human parts on rats and such using stem cells...like grow ears and human skin on host animals that can be harvested for transplants and such.  Not sure how this is too different from doing transplants with pig hearts and such....
473558
Cloning should not be legal. My reason is because God made each person unique in there own way, because he did not want people to be the same.Cloning makes an exact replica of a person or an animal, and god does not want that.
106747
if you clone organs or whatever in purely medical purposes I`m all for it \nbut when you start talking about cloning people you like \ne.g. I like sting and I want one at home so he can sing to me  \nwell that`s crazy\nor deciding not to give birth but to clone yourself hello\nwhy not make a race of clones who will be superior to us because of their manipulated genetics \nI know tgis sounds like sf but cloning was also sf 15 years ago
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.
618906
There are three types of cloning, 1)DNA cloning 2)Reproductive cloning and 3)Therapeutic cloning.\n\nMost cloning in animals are done with Reproductive cloning.\n\nIn this process, the genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell is transferred to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth. \n\nYou may wish to visit the websites http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml\nhttp://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=5&i_PageID=162
908985
I agree. I believe that animals are equal to people and they should be treated as such. I'm not a vegitarian or anything, but I still think other creatures deserve their rights. After all, humans are animals too. In fact, I don't consider the animals in my family as pets, I think of them as my brothers/sisters. It is unfair to animals and pets, but humans tend to think they're the dominant species.
416224
Therapeutic cloning: \n(a.k.a. Somatic cell nuclear transfer or research cloning): \n\nThis starts with the same procedure as is used in adult DNA cloning. The resultant embryo would be allowed to grow for perhaps 14 days. It's stem cells would then be extracted and encouraged to grow into a piece of human tissue or a complete human organ for transplant. The end result would not be a human being; it would be a replacement organ, or piece of nerve tissue, or quantity of skin. The first successful therapeutic cloning was accomplished in 2001-NOV by Advanced Cell Technology, a biotech company in Worcester, MA.\n\nUnfortunately, although adult DNA cloning and therapeutic cloning are quite different procedures leading to very different goals, both terms contain the word "cloning." This causes a great deal of confusion among the public. Many transfer their disgust at the concept of creating cloned babies to therapeutic cloning whose goal is to create an organ to heal people. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a pro-life senator has suggested the term "somatic cell nuclear transfer" to replace therapeutic cloning. \n\nWhat are its possible benefits?\n\nIf therapeutic cloning using embryos is successful, then perfectly matched, replacement organs could become freely available to sick and dying people. That would save countless numbers of lives, and increase the quality of life of countless others. Three possible examples of therapeutic cloning "might include the use of insulin-secreting cells for diabetes; nerve cells in stroke or Parkinson’s disease; or liver cells to repair a damaged organ." 4 There would probably also be side benefits resulting from the research. "Further advances in understanding of how organs regenerate would increase the range of possible treatments that could be considered." \n\nThis procedure would have a number of advantages, when compared to regular organ transplant donated by a second person: \nbulletThere would be presumably be no danger of rejection of the transplant because the organ's DNA would match the patient's DNA exactly. \nbulletFor transplants involving kidney (or theoretically any other organ that is duplicated in the body), another individual would not have to experience pain, inconvenience, and potentially shortened life span in order to donate the organ.\nbulletThe patient would not have to wait until an unrelated donor dies to obtain a transplant. A new organ could be grown for them as needed.\nbulletThe patient would not have to make-do with a replacement organ that is old and may have reduced functionality; a brand-new organ would be grown specifically for them.\nbulletThe procedure would save lives which would otherwise be lost waiting for a transplant that did not come in time.\nbulletThe potential exists to cure, or at least treat, certain diseases and disorders that cannot be effectively handled today
28455
Disadvantages: People will deem clones to have no souls and use them in immoral ways.\n\nAdvantages: None.\n\nI can see no benefit to the actual cloning of a human being. The benefit comes from the knowledge gained from cloning. Once we have the ability to clone a human being, we can specialize in cloning just the parts that we need.\n\nImagine a person with lungs and a heart damaged from disease or an accident. Doctors can clone just the heart and lungs from the patient's own DNA and transplant them. No waiting for donors and no organ rejection.\n\nHow about cloning gallons of untainted blood as needed? No more need for donors, storage, or disease testing. Even rare blood types can be cloned as needed.
692270
One of the major problems with most transplant procedures is acceptibility. The patient's body recognizes the new organ as an intruder or threat, and attacks it.\nA cloned version of yourself would theoretically be a source of completely acceptable organs, since they are, in essence, your organs, genetically identical. Of course, you'd be killing another sentient being to harvest these organs, so there's the morality issue.\n\nHuman ingenuity has always been directed towards two opposite goals, saving lives, and destroying them. The other likely reason for cloning humans is for war. Identical soldiers, genetically modified to increase their physical prowess, dexterity with their weapon, and willingness to follow orders. Why send thousands of skilled laborers, with families and children, to their deaths when you can have a clone army grown specifically to be cannon fodder?\n\nI'm sure you could think of a few more reasons, if you really thought about it.
143218
Dont mess with nature. \n\nScientists should respect nature more and work within the ethical guidelines.\n\nMany things can go wrong, just like first cloned sheep Dolly. (had immune system problems, and aged faster etc.)
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!
681386
Your "soul"?  What are they teaching in biology class these days? :-)\n\nLook, a person and their clone would be no more alike than two normally occuring identical twins.  In fact, genetically, that's exactly what a clone is ... just an identical twin.  They *look* alike, and may have some similar propensities (they may both be naturally talented at math, say) ... but other than that they are two completely independent human beings.  They will have different experiences ... that makes them different.\n\nAs for your "soul", biologists are happy to leave that to the spiritual folks.  Biologists have no opinion either way.