Cloning
WHAT IS CLONING?
Have you ever wished you could have a clone of yourself to do homework while you hit the skate park or went out with your friends?
Imagine if you could really do that. Where would you start?
What exactly is cloning?
Cloning is the creation of an organism that is an exact genetic copy of another. This means that every single bit of DNA is the same between the two!
You might not believe it, but there are human clones among us right now. They weren't made in a lab, though: they're identical twins, created naturally. Below, we'll see how natural identical twins relate to modern cloning technologies.
How is cloning done?
You may have first heard of cloning when Dolly the Sheep showed up on the scene in 1997. Cloning technologies have been around for much longer than Dolly, though.
How does one go about making an exact genetic copy of an organism? There are a couple of ways to do this: artificial embryo twinning and somatic cell nuclear transfer. How do these processes differ?
1. Artificial Embryo Twinning
Artificial embryo twinning is the relatively low-tech version of cloning. As the name suggests, this technology mimics the natural process of creating identical twins.
In nature, twins occur just after fertilization of an egg cell by a sperm cell. In rare cases, when the resulting fertilized egg, called a zygote, tries to divide into a two-celled embryo, the two cells separate. Each cell continues dividing on its own, ultimately developing into a separate individual within the mother. Since the two cells came from the same zygote, the resulting individuals are genetically identical.
Artificial embryo twinning uses the same approach, but it occurs in a Petri dish instead of in the mother's body. This is accomplished by manually separating a very early embryo into individual cells, and then allowing each cell to divide and develop on its own. The resulting embryos are placed into a surrogate mother, where they are carried to term and delivered. Again, since all the embryos came from the same zygote, they are genetically identical.
2. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer
Somatic cell nuclear transfer, (SCNT) uses a different approach than artificial embryo twinning, but it produces the same result: an exact clone, or genetic copy, of an individual. This was the method used to create Dolly the Sheep.
What does SCNT mean? Let's take it apart:
Somatic cell: A somatic cell is any cell in the body other than the two types of reproductive cells, sperm and egg. Sperm and egg are also called germ cells. In mammals, every somatic cell has two complete sets of chromosomes, whereas the germ cells only have one complete set.
Nuclear: The nucleus is like the cell's brain. It's an enclosed compartment that contains all the information that cells need to form an organism. This information comes in the form of DNA. It's the differences in our DNA that make each of us unique.
Transfer: Moving an object from one place to another.
To make Dolly, researchers isolated a somatic cell from an adult female sheep. Next, they transferred the nucleus from that cell to an egg cell from which the nucleus had been removed. After a couple of chemical tweaks, the egg cell, with its new nucleus, was behaving just like a freshly fertilized zygote. It developed into an embryo, which was implanted into a surrogate mother and carried to term.
The lamb, Dolly, was an exact genetic replica of the adult female sheep that donated the somatic cell nucleus to the egg. She was the first-ever mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell.
For Cloning
Side Score: 131
|
 |
Against Cloning
Side Score: 132
|
|
|
|
|
Changing the very structure of an ecosystem can have harmful effects on an environment. In the same that killing a population can hurt an ecosystem, creating an excess amount of organisms can have irreversible effects. Nature should be allowed to conduct itself how it wants naturally. Side: Against Cloning
Cloning endangered species creates genetically identical individuals that are all susceptible to the exact same conditions, diseases, have the same immune system capacity... A disease originating in one of the individuals will easily spread between individuals, and that is more likely to lead to extinction. Also, to make such a solution viable, the clones would need to reproduce, possibly passing on recessive alleles, making a genetic condition in the offspring become apparent - which could cause a condition that leads to them being out-competed and, eventual extinction. All roads lead to extinction - it's best, in my opinion, to create safe breeding environments for endangered species, that are protected, enabling numbers to increase, without the 'inbreeding'. Side: Against Cloning
6
points
1
point
1
point
but surrogate mothers have a very negative affect http://www.ehow.com/ Side: Against Cloning
5
points
Although it has a low rate of success, cloning is a new procedure. Who knows what the future will bring? Like any other science, cloning could become incredibly efficient and safer. I feel that the pros to cloning outweigh the drawbacks and issues we face today. Side: For Cloning
3
points
0
points
It is not how I "feel". Look at our world today. So much has changed, in very little time. Scientific procedures develop so quickly today that there are very few procedures that do not make critical progress. You also make it very unclear as to what is "immoral" about this "behavior" (mind you it is not a behavior, it is a procedure). Side: For Cloning
4
points
1
point
But cloning is different from artificial insemiantion in that cloning makes a exact copy of a person with the same genes and artifical insemination is taking genes from two parents and putting it into an egg. Also, since cloning has such a high failure rate, then it may not be good to get a baby that has deformities from cloning. Side: Against Cloning
Cloning also creates diseases and cloned organisms often turn out to have LOS, "Large Offspring Syndrome", where organisms are born with abnormally large organs that lead to breathing and blood flow problems. You might say that LOS is a rare case but it isn't only LOS clones that get illnesses, cloned organisms without it can have kidney or brain malformations and impaired immune systems that cause them serious problems. Side: Against Cloning
3
points
1
point
Focused breeding is dangerous. When you breed to maximize positive traits, you unintentionally maximize negative ones, too. Look at the chickens that can't walk, or the roosters that go on killing sprees. Cloning is just another extremity added to that process. Side: Against Cloning
2
points
"Diseased animals can benefit from cloning" At the moment cloning is very imprecise. The current success rate for cloning is about 0.1 to 3%. This means that for very thousand clones, only about thirty are made, maximum, and of these there is a 1% survival rate. Diseased animals may benefit from cloning but the time that it would take for a single clone to be made would be huge, and then, after that, some time must be reserved for experimenting on the animal and searching for ways to help the diseased animals. - Cloning isn't cost-efficient. To clone a human it may take about 1.7 to 2 million pounds to successfully clone someone. Wouldn't it be easier to just let the diseased animal die? If cloning costs so much then how can you expect people to be able to sustain it so that it actually benefits a race without crashing their stock markets? Side: Against Cloning
3
points
1
point
1
point
2
points
1) Organ Replacement - Organs can be cloned to be used as backups in case someone's organs fail 2) Substitute for Natural Reproduction - Can help in cases of infertility and also some qualities of the children could be controlled 3) Help in Genetic Research - Scientists could understand genes better and also learn how to better fight genetic diseases 4) Obtaining specific traits in organisms - Customized organisms could be created that benefit research Side: For Cloning
Yes, I am for cloning. I think it would be very cool to have an unlimited supply of body parts available as needed...yet, since I am da Christiand and catholic (I guess) I often wonder about the soul issue. Would the clone have one? Are they and individual? Do they have part of my soul? If I die do they retain my soul? Uh Oh, maye messing with cloning is a bad idea? Side: For Cloning
The concept of a soul was invented to explain why we live and have emotions, compared to non-living things. Since we now know how we live (various functions in the body, cells, bacteria) and have emotions (via brain chemicals,) we should be able to let go of this mythical concept... Side: For Cloning
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
Cloning minimizes the gene pool. It lowers genetic variation between humans, decreasing the odds of proper genetic selection. It could lead to increased genetic disease (similar to the products of inbreeding), and interferes with the process of evolution. Side: Against Cloning
3
points
That is true, however, human clones would not be roaming the streets and reproducing. The human clones would be used for medical support. Plants and other animals that have been cloned will have a minimized gene pools, but they would most likely be used for farming and harvesting for food. Inbreeding would not occur if it is the same set of genetic code being repeated Side: For Cloning
3
points
Cloning should not be used to replace the way organisms reproduce, it should be used more as a cure. While I agree that massive cloning would result in less variation, cloning does not have to be used in this way. Instead, we can use cloning to cure individuals, and does not necessarily mean that we will genetically modify people all the time. Side: For Cloning
Cloning is immoral, expensive, and can fall into the wrong hands. The main reason why cloning is unaccepted by many is that it is not right that scientists can "play God" and control the traits of a person. Stem-cell research is expensive, requiring many trials and errors. (Dolly the Sheep was the 276th attempt). Lastly, cloning may fall into the wrong hands. Political leaders, whether good or bad, may be cloned. Murderers and other criminals can be cloned to continuously commit crimes. All in all, cloning is unjust and should stop Side: Against Cloning
Even if political leaders or other unsavory individuals were cloned, that does not necessarily mean that the clone would become the same exact person. This clone would grow up in a different environment. Not all traits are carried in genes, some are nurture, not nature. Side: For Cloning
The risk of cloning for organ farming is immense. Cloning can't legitimately eliminate donations, only the need for human donations. Imagine the emotional turmoil, not to mention the ethical questions raised, of a person created for the purpose of organ donation. As for growing organs separately, that's a stem cell technology that eliminates human life. What right have we to destroy an entire life just to harvest a couple organs? Side: Against Cloning
1
point
My Sister's Keeper was a book about a family whose daughter was diagnosed with cancer. Once the parents found out, they had another child to be used for "parts." If there were clones, a new, original human life would not be used to try to cure those who were granted life. Instead, the clone would be used as a vestibule for parts. Side: For Cloning
Cloning is currently a very imprecise science at this point with only 1 or 2 successful occurrences out of 100. We often argue on the merits of a human life in regards to abortion and that it is cruel, but with cloning we make a life that is often deformed and doomed to die, which many clones do die from infections and unknown causes. Too much cloning would also eliminate natural variation in nature because it would be the same genes being spread around and defying nature. Is it right to farm organs and such for our own profit if it means having to test, and fail greatly, in order to advance the cloning science? Probably not. Side: Against Cloning
2
points
2
points
2
points
If we clone we will be copieing our selfs. Do you realy want someone out there who know all the information you do? Do you want a selected group of people to get the power to be god? The ONLY reason i think cloaning would be good would be in war when we are short on men. Side: Against Cloning
1
point
2
points
2
points
2
points
if you were to clone a human for instense they would not neccaserly look like the original person and they would start off as a baby and you would have to raise them; and it does limit the gene pool as well as in breeding and there would be more genetic diseases in the world. Side: Against Cloning
I strongly believe that there is an issue on religion here in this controversial motion. Have you ever heard of the saying " Is Science Playing God?" ? The whole question suggest that science, as the world become more technologically advanced, is taking over the forces of nature. By then, what revolves around us human is science and nature will no longer play a part in the human society. As for cloning, Is Science taking over God's "job" of creating humans? Most religions, Islam, Christianity etc believe tha God create humans and this iissue of cloning has unquestionably, undeniably raised a controversy that Sience IS playing God. Side: Against Cloning
2
points
2
points
1
point
It's not unethical, it is a new way to preserve species, such as lonely George the last Pinto turtle who recently died. We could have kept the Pinto turtle alive had we had the technology to clone. It could also help the people that cannot have children for various reasons such as infertility. It wouldn't mean that humans would have to be artificially grown, it would only mean that there would be another option. Side: For Cloning
it's not necesssarily going to happen, because we have the right to allow it to happen or not, we are the ones developing the cloning technology, whether or not it's going to be the future, it all depends on us. We should not just say, 'ohh, no matter how it's going to happen, so just accept it.' This really shouldn't be the way of thinking, we should choose what we want or not. Side: Against Cloning
|
