Funston Science

Topic 3: Cloning

Filed under: Cloning — tfunston at 4:14 pm on Wednesday, March 9, 2011


 Cloning of organisms such as mammals has been done for decades, but still with varying success. So far, most cloned animals die just before or after birth.  Nonetheless, cloning has the potential to lead to some exciting (yet controversial) benefits:

  • Agriculture and Drug Production – for example Polly, a transgenic cloned lamb, is able to produce milk containing factor IX — the protein that is deficient in haemophiliacs.
  • Maintaining biodiversity – endangered species could be preserved if currently practiced methods fail.
  • Treatment for Human Disease – cells could be harvested from early embryos to provide cell and tissue replacement without the hazards of transplantation rejection.

 Statement: Cloning for beneficial reasons such as the ones above, far outweigh the risks.


  1.    Cameron Millsap — April 9, 2014 @ 12:21 pm   

    Cloning humans for beneficial reasons have many risks involved that outweigh the benefits. The human cells that need to be harvested from the already living human are old. Since they have this age already imprinted onto them, there is a large risk of premature aging and premature death. This provides increased health complications for the clone like tumors (, 2013). As the clones grow older, they lose their sense of individuality. Whether they are raised as a child to their parent or a twin sibling, the clone may have great expectations to live up to. While they could grow up with different preferences than the human, they still have the exact same genetic make-up, meaning the clone could feel not good enough for their parent. Thirdly, different societal classes could be developed so that the clones are treated worse than humans, i.e. second class of clones. Cloning is very unpredictable and inefficient in the creation of humans. In the case of Dolly the sheep, only one out of 277 attempts was successful (Dolly was the only successful one). In the case of humans, it would be very similar. Finally, the fear of people cloning for a “super human” or a prime soldier could be traumatic for soldiers in war. It is clear that the risks far outweigh the benefits of cloning.

  2.    Maddy Evans — April 9, 2014 @ 12:49 pm   

    Cloning is a controversial topic that describes numerous processes that can produce genetically identical copies of biological entities. Although cloning has many ethical issues about whether it should be practiced, cloning has many beneficial factors such as in the medical field and in agriculture. Cloning can happen naturally such as in identical twins or artificially such as in animals. There are three types of artificial cloning; gene cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. In the past, researchers have tested these types of cloning on biological materials like genes, cells and even organisms. One example of a way cloning is practiced is in Genetic Manipulation. Genetic manipulation is the manipulation of a fertilized egg to have the same genes as a relative. This is beneficial in curing hereditary diseases, donation of organs and correcting abnormal genes. Cloning also allows the propagation of animals facing extinction and thus maintains ecological balance. Cloning can also bring life back to the organisms that are dead as long as their DNA is conserved. If we are able to successfully clone endangered species, we could take them from being close to extinction to being fully replenished. A final example on how cloning can be used is by a type of therapeutic cloning where human organs are replicated. This type of cloning may be able to genetically provide identical cells for transplantation of tissues and cells. The major benefit with this process is that after new embryonic stem cells are harvested from extracting DNA from a person receiving a transplant, the new cells can develop into any form of cells therefore being used to grow a completely new organ or set of tissue. If this theory proves to be a success, the use of anti-rejection drugs would be unnecessary because the new cells would not trigger a response from the use of the drugs. Although, there are many obstacles to face when addressing the advantages of Cloning, in the near future if scientists are able to find successful ways of practicing this method, there will be multiple ways of helping to fix genetic defaults, save lives and improving the rate of extinction in many animals.

  3.    Rebecca Redpath — April 14, 2014 @ 5:11 pm   

    Cameron Millsap, April 9
    In rebuttal to the statement “cloning is very unpredictable and inefficient in the creation of humans”. The future does not entail cloning humans as a main focus. Our population is already far too great and there is no need to add more cloned humans or else the earth will have greater difficulty sustaining all of us. The point of cloning is beneficial when it comes to medical discoveries, animals and agriculture. By cloning cells in the medical field it is possible to find out what will work when treating certain diseases, such as cancer. This is called gene therapy and it has proven to be successful (Marchione, 2013). At the moment, cloning animals has not been very successful, but will time there is confidence that scientists will overcome the present difficulties and it will become successful as well. Benefits of cloning animals include producing transgenic farm animals, which help with food supply and income for farmers by reducing the poor quality livestock (which mean money loss) and increasing the high quality livestock which have proven themselves successful. The same goes for agriculture. Cloning will also hopefully be able to preserve endangered species, which-as a side note- are usually endangered due to human activity, so that is another reason why cloning humans is not a bright idea. By saving endangered animals, or even recreating already extinct species, humans have the chance to give back to nature and increase biodiversity (Smith, 2000). The phrase “cloning can increase biodiversity” may represent an oxymoron to readers however, this statement, although very ironic, is accurate. By cloning plants and animals (whom might be rare), it gives the ecosystems a chance to breed with the cloned organisms and produce more genetically diverse offspring as the cycle continues. Cloning is not a matter of developing more humans; it is a way to preserve organisms that have, in the past, proven to be beneficial for the human population and the Earth.

    Marchione, M. (2013, December 7). Blood cancer breakthrough: Doctors see success using gene therapy. CTVNews. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from

    Smith, L., Bordignon, V., Babkine, M., Fecteau, G., & Keefer, C. (2000, May 21). Abstract. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from

  4.    Chanel — April 14, 2014 @ 7:41 pm   

    Re: Maddy Evans
    While cloning does have beneficial purposes it is not to be taken lightly and it actually not all that beneficial to invest in the cloning of extinct species and altering common animals. First off cloning extinct species like the woolly mammoth or even dinosaurs is not going to solve anything. Have you ever cared to wonder why these creatures became extinct in the first place? Many of these animals perished because they couldn’t with stand the environmental conditions (Four reasons why…). If we were to bring these animals and actually have success with cloning them and ensuring there were no deformities there is still a slight chance they will actually survive in their new environment, even if they do survive it’s still uncertain as if it will be a predator towards us (Four reasons why…). In addition to this if the new clone happens to survive there would be no predator of these creatures and then they’re about as use full as an invasive species (Four reasons why…). In addition to this if society as a whole starts believing that cloning is an answer to all of their endangered species problems scientists may consider putting less money towards the already existing endangered species and their habitats and invest more into cloning them (Four reasons why…). While cloning other animals such as sheep, goats, and other animals in the agricultural business doesn’t have as many issues it’s still not a good idea. If cloning livestock became a common thing it could introduce so many problems. If several clones of the same sheep were to cloned they would be identical in every including the structure of their cells and how they deal with infections, because of this if one of these sheep come down with a serious illness then it is very likely that all the other clones will also catch this disease (Fast facts). This is all because cloning eliminates biodiversity and eliminates and differences.

    “Four Reasons Why Cloning Extinct Animals Is Wrong.” Earth in Transition. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. .
    “Fast Facts About Animal Cloning : End Animal Cloning.” Fast Facts About Animal Cloning : End Animal Cloning. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. .

  5.    Jordan Charles — April 15, 2014 @ 7:43 pm   

    Re: Maddy Evans April 9, 2014
    Addressing the statement, “in the near future if scientists are able to find successful ways of practicing this method,” it should lead to the question: should cloning become a practiced method. Not only is cloning full of risks and unpredictable, but it is unfair and immoral to the clone.
    Procedures involving cloning have caused many people to die. Cloning does not only risk the clone’s life but it also risks the donor’s life as well. The entire procedure is an experiment, and on the off chance that cloning will work, the clone now has a shorter life expectancy because they were born with adult cells. This is a violation against the clone’s right to life a long healthy life (CONS). Also as a side note, cloning will take away the respect humans have for life as they will then see life as replaceable (CONS). Ethical issues should not be ignored when it comes to procedures like this.
    CONS. (n.d.). CONS. Retrieved April 14, 2014, from

  6.    Tianna — April 16, 2014 @ 4:16 pm   

    Re: Jordan Charles — April 15,
    “Not only is cloning full of risks and unpredictable, but it is unfair and immoral to the clone.”

    Cloning is full of risks and unpredictable just as many other undiscovered treatments and operations. The only way to fully understand its benefits or faults is to carry it out. Cloning of ORGANS could be very important in futures time as organ transplants are difficult undertakings for two major reasons. Finding a donor, and second, there’s no guarantee that your body will accept the new organ. Although it is agreed cloning HUMANS would not be in favour of the earth sustaining mass amounts of life. The desire to have a complete clone would be unethical. Experts say it is likely biologically possible to clone a human being. But even putting ethics aside, the sheer amount of resources needed to do it is a significant barrier.

  7.    Tianna — April 16, 2014 @ 4:18 pm   


  8.    Jordyn MacDonald — April 16, 2014 @ 5:22 pm   

    In rebuttal to Maddy on the statement that, cloning has more beneficial factors than risk, pushes me to address that the risks are far to serious to ignore. Cloning of plants, animals, cells, organs and humans is a huge step up for technology as it continuous to advance. Some say that cloning is a possible new era, but with cloning there are many risks. Regarding animals and cloning, there has been many attempts on animals to clone and many of them have resulted in death of the animals. Some however have been successful like the most famous one of Dolly the sheep, although shown that cloning can work it also showed that many sheep before Dolly had died from the attempt of cloning. Cloning could be seen as a good thing if certain species are endangered but what if cloning that certain species doesn’t work in the long run and just more of that species is killed off.
    With humans there are some huge risk factors involved such as the possibility of faster aging because that clone they are making is likely an older cell being used, therefore an imprinted age on the growing embryo and also potentially premature death(HSF). There is also the issue of reduced sense of individuality, even though it is considered a brand new life the clone is just a twin of something or someone else.(HSF). The big question about cloning though is; will it reduce our overall value of human life? Some can question if cloning of humans itself questions the role of God and even the quality of life.
    Therefore; cloning has too many risks and “what ifs” that need to be weighed out before proceeding any further.

    Heath Research Funding. (December 6. 2013).Retrieved April 16th 2014. ” Pros and Cons of Human Cloning”.

  9.    Orion Kemp — April 16, 2014 @ 5:24 pm   

    In rebuttal to Cam Millsaps statement “cloning is very unpredictable and inefficient in the creation of humans.” People now a days are not looking to clone humans but more look to clone medical disoveries, agriculture and animals. If we keep trying to find a way to clone humans, it will result in death, being injured or being succesful. Our world is already overpopulated, so adding more people will lead to the effects of greenhouse gases or other abusive ways people treat the earth. Focusing our cloning more on medical issues will result in ways to find cures for cancer or other diseases that spread to our earth. As more people come into the world, the more animals become extinct as we can use cloning to restock our wildlife. This can benefit us by providing more food to fill our needs and let animals live to their full potential as they belong on this earth as much as we do. Cloning helps with our agriculture as it can be used to improve the quality of the crops that we eat. It makes the plants resistant to herbicides, pest damage, infections and diseases. Cloned plants such as wheat, rice, maize, soybean, potato and others have been produced and are ready to be introduced into agriculture in the new future. (genetic engineering) Therefore Cloning should be used to our needs as we do not need more people on this earth.
    Portions © 2002-2010 Bootstrike.Com. G.Ganesh, Dennis, Nathaniel, Cai Peng –

  10.    Tianna — April 16, 2014 @ 5:52 pm   

    Wait no..

    Conger, C. (2008, September 16). Could we clone our organs to be used in a transplant?. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from

    Rettner, R. (2013, May 16). Could Humans Be Cloned?. LiveScience. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from

    (Sorry for so many posts)

  11.    Sam Featherstone — April 16, 2014 @ 6:32 pm   

    In rebuttal to the statement: “by saving endangered animals, or even recreating already extinct species, humans have the chance to give back to nature and increase biodiversity”.
    Cloning endangered or extinct species is only a short term solution to the decrease in biodiversity that the world is experiencing. As with other species that have been bred in captivity, it is extremely doubtful that cloned animals will be able to be released into their natural habitats. Animals rely on other members of their species to teach them the necessary survival skills and instincts that other animals or surrogate mothers are unable to (AAVS, 2014). Cloning is an extremely difficult process that is inconsistent and not very successful at this time; this makes it unlikely that a small number of cloned animals could create a sustainable breeding population. Cloning endangered or extinct animals is not going to entirely rebuild their populations; it is the reasons for their depletion in numbers that need to be addressed. One of the main reasons for the endangerment of species is that humans are destroying their habitats at extremely fast rates. Protecting endangered species and their habitats is the most important and efficient way to effectively save a species. There is a reason for the extinction of species. The fact that a species was once alive on earth does not mean that we should recreate them as they may pose threats to the organisms and ecosystems that are active today. Cloning is scientific procedure that should not change what has happened in the past. Scientists should continue to study cloning and the effects it has before we advance further in this field.

    Cloning Endangered Species and Undermining Conservation. (2007). The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS). Retrieved April 16, 2014, from

  12.    Aleeshia Carman — April 16, 2014 @ 7:02 pm   

    In rebuttal to the statement “[n]ot only is cloning full of risks and unpredictable, but it is unfair and immoral to the clone, “it has lead me to address the fact that although cloning is a controversial topic it is beneficial in the medical field: the cloning of disease.

    It is beneficial for humans to understand how diseases work, how they function and how to cure them (GSLC). Without cloning, scientists are creating genetically engineered animals with any specific disease. Although, creating these trans-genetic animals are time-consuming, the process is trial-and-error (which is always efficient in finding data), it takes several generations of breeding and there are possible mistakes that can be made with cloning the exact DNA of the animals (GSLC). Overall, cloning “could help reduce the time needed to make a transgenic animal model, and the result would be a population of genetically identical animals for study” (GSLC). This is a breakthrough for humans. It is absolutely beneficial so scientists can save time and learn efficiently about diseases and how to cure them. In conclusion, cloning is absolutely beneficial to scientists and humans for medical purposes: the cloning of disease.
    Genetic Science Learning Center. (2014). Retrieved April 16th, 2014. “Why Clone?”

  13.    kian0160 — April 16, 2014 @ 7:10 pm   

    Re:Jordan Charles — April 15, 2014
    Addressing the statement “Procedures involving cloning have caused many people to die. Cloning does not only risk the clone’s life but it also risks the donor’s life as well.” Who said we have to clone humans? There are many other valuable objects we could clone that would not harm humans.
    Cloning can be used to improve the crops that humans eat. It makes the plants resistant to herbicides, pest damage, infections and diseases. Cloned plants such as wheat, rice, maize, soybean, potato and others have been produced and are ready to be introduced into agriculture in the new future(BOOTSTRIKE.COM). One must also remember that cloning is a still a young topic and has room to grow. The more people look into cloning and experiment, the less risky it becomes because scientist are learning more. We can also using cloning for identification purposes when it comes to policing and such. The procedure they use is called genetic fingerprinting. It is done by extracting the DNA from blood, or any body fluid, such as saliva or blood, and cutting the DNA with restriction enzymes.Each individual has many unique pieces of the cut DNA; you can match the person’s bodily fluid with the police sample you have examined(BOOTSTRIKE.COM). We do not need to jump right into cloning humans and major animals until we are comfortable cloning minor organisms and objects.In conclusion, cloning for beneficial reasons such as the ones I have mentioned, far outweigh the risks.

    BOOTSTRIKE.COM – PC SHOW 2014, Bittorrent Guides Tutorials, Windows FAQs, Laughter HELL Jokes. (n.d.). BOOTSTRIKE.COM – PC SHOW 2014, Bittorrent Guides Tutorials, Windows FAQs, Laughter HELL Jokes. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from

  14.    Emilee Newhouse — April 16, 2014 @ 8:09 pm   

    Re: Maddy Evans April 9, 2014

    The statement, “cloning has many beneficial factors such as in the medical field” is more false than true as the negative impacts some of these medical experiments can have, effect the human body itself and seem only have very little success. In the medical field, cloning humans many lead to “short lives, high rates of tumor growth and other infections” and there only is a “1%- 10% chance that there may be a success” which seems far too little when working with something healthy and living. There may also be issues of fast aging as it is often an older cell being placed on the growing embryo. This could create premature issues and possible premature death.

    Cloning in humans also is something I don’t agree with, other than the natural way, as it reduces a person’s individuality. For example, there would be another person exactly like you who could end up smarter or more polite etc, therefore perfecting what you did not. Cloning may also take over the value of human life, as the perfected clones would be treated differently than regular, naturally made humans, which would change society completely. Therefore, not only does cloning have many negative health effects, it also lacks the ability for an individual to be unique.

    Pros and Cons of Human Cloning – HealthRF. (n.d.). HealthRF. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from

  15.    Kyra Grams — April 16, 2014 @ 9:12 pm   

    Though is seems as though cloning could provide biodiversity by bringing the numbers or endangered species up, it could quite as easily go in the opposite direction. These species became endangered for a reason, most likely due to the fact that their habitat was lacking in the resources they need to survive. If these species were to be preserved, chances are other species would become endangered in order for the now endangered species to be able to survive. Reviving endangered species – although it would be a good idea in theory – could easily disrupt the balance of an ecosystem resulting in less biodiversity than expected.
    Also, even though cloning has the potential to introduce a wider variety of species, if cloned, each organism of that species would be exactly identical. This would in no way be contributing to biodiversity and would defeat the purpose of the cloning in the first place. Along with that, if environmental conditions were to change the species would not able as easily able to adjust to these changes resulting in the possibility of it becoming endangered once again.

  16.    Charlotte Hammill Re: Jordan Charles — April 16, 2014 @ 10:24 pm   

    In regards to your statement of people dying due to cloning, as stated above in the description of the cloning topic; agriculture and drug production, maintaining biodiversity, and treatment for human disease would be the main intentions of cloning. As Rebecca has said as well, the planet is populated enough, and the purpose of cloning is not directed at humans. Scientists believe that cloning “could be used to reverse heart attacks.” There are roughly 16000 deaths a year in Canada due to heart attacks (Heart and Stroke). Scientists believe that they could clone “healthy heart cells and inject them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged” (Smith, 2012). Cloning has many medical benefits, and treating heart attacks, is just one of the major things that it could help improve in the world of medicine. The agricultural uses of cloning are also very beneficial. Cloning plants and crops makes them “resistant to herbicides, pest damage, infections and diseases. Cloned plants such as wheat, rice, maize, soybean, potato and others have been produced and are ready to be introduced into agriculture in the future” (G.Ganesh, 2010). Also in response to your statement “ethical issues should not be ignored when it comes to procedures like this” it is merely a matter of do the ethical issues severely out way the benefits of cloning. Preventing even just a few people from death, is a benefit, and out ways the ethical controversy. Cloning is extremely useful when used for medical treatments and agricultural benefits.

    Smith, Simon. (2012). The Benefits of Human Cloning. Retrieved from

    G.Ganesh. (2010). Pros and Benefits of Cloning. Retrieved from:

  17.    Ashley Stephenson — April 17, 2014 @ 5:44 am   

    In response to Jordyn MacDonald, my opinion on cloning had always been a positive one prior to reading your response. The fact you bring up about “the issue of reduced sense of individuality”, reminded me of the cons to asexual reproduction we learn about in class. When an organism reproduces asexually it is essentially creating a clone of itself, and reduces biodiversity in an ecosystem. If a virus comes along that has the potential to maim one organism, it is unlikely any of them will be able to combat it, considering they all possess the same genetic material and produce the same antibodies. Whereas if an organism reproduces sexually, there is increased diversity and a higher likelihood that at least one organism would have the ability to survive the biological attack. This is what happens on a microscopic scale, but it definitely raises concerns about how if we move forward with scientific cloning, will we be setting ourselves up for failure years into the future.

  18.    Chanel — April 21, 2014 @ 10:22 am   

    RE: Rebecca Redpath
    In rebuttable to the statement, some of the Benefits of cloning animals include a larger food supply. While cloning can increase our food production and feed several starving people in the world, lack of food is not the problem here, thus we shouldn’t need to clone animals to solve a non-existing problem. In the past many of us have believed that the root of many of our problems lies with world hunger and have come up with various ways to prevent this problem, cloning livestock and crops has been one of those ideas. However in since world hunger isn’t the real problem cloning will have no effect in stopping the problem. The real problem lies within investing our money to find safer ways to sustain our selves that is environmentally friendly which will also bring the poorest nations out of poverty (TED Talks). Instead of investing all of our time and money into cloning and other various ways to stop global hunger, we should be investing this into environmentally friendly alternatives so we are able to rise developing countries from poverty (TED Talks). If we can raise these nations out of poverty we will also be solving our population problem due to the fact that if a larger percent of their children are living the less motivated they will be to have as many children as possible (Ted Talks). In conclusion cloning is not the solution and we should not be investing our time and money into developing our understanding of cloning organisms but rather in more useful areas of science.
    TED Talks. “Global population growth, box by box.” Hans Rosling:. TED Talks, n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2014. .

  19.    Chanel — April 21, 2014 @ 5:16 pm   

    RE: Orion Kemp- April 16, 2014
    In reply to the statement, cloning could allow “animals live to their full potential as they belong on this earth as much as we do”. In the current state of cloning, the organisms we do clone have an incredibly short life span and require a large amount of time and effort to even produce these creatures. On top only a small percent of artificial clones actually survive long to produce anything that would be somewhat useful to our current society, let alone live longer than naturally born livestock (What are the Risks of Cloning). In addition to this the chance of even obtaining a clone that survives without any deformities is slim (What are the Risks of Cloning). If we start cloning a large majority of our live stock into identical twins of themselves we are denying them to have their own genetic diversity (What are the Risks of Cloning). On top of this these clones could happen to be vulnerable to certain diseases because the one goat of sheep they got the original DNA from could have been vulnerable to that particular diseases as well (What are the Risks of Cloning). This problem would wipe away a large portion of our food source and cause several more problems (What are the Risks of Cloning). In conclusion although cloning does have its benefits in the medical field it has no right in the agriculture side of things, especially when the money we are currently spending on research for cloning could be used on more useful things.
    “What are the Risks of Cloning?.” What are the Risks of Cloning?. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. .

  20.    carmen alonso — April 22, 2014 @ 11:19 am   

    RE:Chanel — April 21, 2014 5.16 pm
    You have said that “only a small percent of artificial clones actually survive long to produce anything that would be somewhat useful to our current society” and that this means that this research is not beneficial to the development of modern medicine or live stock production.However, cloning is technology that is new and could be on the verge of something very great for our agricultural economy and situation. In your statement, you are also assuming all the clones being created are genetic copies of one another. However “Cloning is typically thought of as the production of genetically identical individuals. The primary biomedical benefits of cloning stem more from the use of this technology in the genetic modification of animals rather than from making identical copies” (What are the potential medical benefits of animal cloning? So far I have mostly read about the social problems cloning could create if applied to humans.) It is this technology that will help eliminate the risk of disease that you are concerned about.


    “Animal cloning”Manataka® American Indian Council. NP, Nd. Web. 22 Apr.2014
    “What are the potential medical benefits of animal cloning? So far I have mostly read about the social problems cloning could create if applied to humans.”SCientific ASmerican. NP.ND. web. 22 Apr.2014

  21.    Corel McMahon — April 23, 2014 @ 8:40 pm   

    RE: Jordan Charles April 23rd/14

    In rebuttal to Jordan’s statement, “not only is cloning full of risks and unpredictable, but it is unfair and immoral to the clone”, I disagree. I believe that this statement refers to as if all clones would be conceived as being similar to humans with emotions and the ability to feel. However, on a larger scale, I am directed towards cloning in a medical sense where cells would be cloned which would be considered more of a benefit than a risk. Specifically, in transplants, I strongly believe cloning is beneficial to those in treatment, in need of repaired or new organs. The dysfunctional or damaged cells of a bodypart, such as an organ, may be replaced by cloned cells illuminating the risk of “immunological rejection… because the patient’s own genetic material is used” (Murnaghan). If another individual’s cells were used to treat a patient, for example, an organ donation, “the patient’s body would be more likely to recognize the foreign proteins and then wage an attack on the transplanted cells” (Murnaghan). Weighing this huge benefit that would create a large positive impact on the numerous patients in need, specifically those waiting for organ donations, I strongly valid that I am in favour of cloning to benefit many throughout the medical field.


    Cloning for Medical Purposes. (n.d.). Cloning for Medical Purposes. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from

    Murnaghan, I. (n.d.). Therapeutic Cloning. Therapeutic Cloning. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from

  22.    Kyra Grams — April 24, 2014 @ 5:40 am   

    Rebecca Redpath: April 14
    In response to the statement “cloning animals… which will help with food supply and income for farmers by reducing the poor quality livestock”, food supply is not a current issue and also, the chances of having poor quality livestock will increase if cloning is used on the animals. It is a fact that “there is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life” (United Nations World Food Programme). Therefore, any extra food produced by cloning would most likely be going to waste, or, would be distributed in places like North America where there is already an overabundance of food and would be completely unnecessary.
    Also, you bring up the point of cloning being beneficial to the quality of livestock. Farmers already have techniques that allow them to produce high quality animals without having to spend extremely large amounts of money which would be what cloning would entail. Not only that, but also if all the animals are genetically identical, if they were to be an outbreak of some sort of illness, it would have a greater chance of affecting all the animals as opposed to some having a resistance to it. Another point is that the clone itself tends to have far more health problems later in life than the naturally produced organism would. This is mainly due to a problem called Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS) where the clone is significantly larger than the natural counterparts (Genetic Science Learning Centre). LOS causes abnormally shaped and sized organs which in turn can result in a variety of different respiratory, blood flow, brain function and immune system problems. I believe this proves that cloning farm animals will not result in higher quality animals and might actually produce just the opposite.

    What are the Risks of Cloning?. (n.d.).What are the Risks of Cloning?. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from

    World Food Programme Fighting Hunger Worldwide. (n.d.). FAQs. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from

  23.    Caleb Stephens — April 24, 2014 @ 10:54 am   

    In reply to Aleeshia Carmen April 16th.
    I agree that cloning has the potential to be very benefitial to health care and finding cures for diseases.Unfortunately there are just to many risks to consider. Yes cloning could eliminate defective genes, help with traumatic injury recoivery time and infertility could be eliminated but there are also cons that go along with it and ethical concerns as well. Some potential cons of cloning are faster aging leading to premature death, reduced sense of individuality and it may reduce the overall value of life. The biggest con that stands out to me is reducing the value of life. Why would us humans attemot to clone more knowing that it could potentially wreck our value of life. For example lets say that we begin to clone more and more then theres this group of “perfect” clones who may be seen as superior to natural made humnans. How could we ethically clone people knowing that the clones may die premature due to old cells infused into their embryo. what kind of a life would the clones have? I feel there is still a lot more issues that need to be worked out before we take the cloning anmy further.

  24.    Caleb Stephens — April 24, 2014 @ 10:58 am   

    •Pros and Cons of Human Cloning – HealthRF. (n.d.). HealthRF. Retrieved April 23, 2014, from

  25.    Kiana Seitz — April 24, 2014 @ 1:19 pm   

    Re:Jordan Charles — April 15, 2014
    You said “not only is cloning full of risks and unpredictable, but it is unfair and immoral to the clone,” but i disagree. Yes, there are risks but thats when cloning mammals. We do not need to clone complete animlas and humans. It is not immoral because if we clone cells or organs that would not harm a person anymore then a transplant or transfusion.

    Using a cloned organs is actually safer than using a donated one becuase a person is less likely to regect the cloned organ. states that cloning is an “easy replacement of internal organs and tissues for patients in need of transplants instead of waiting for suitable organ donors, alive or dead. Since the transplanted organ contains most of the recipient’s genes, there is a lesser chance for rejection as well.” So therefore cloning is a better option and would not be anymore risking then donation. Cloning can also be a solution to the infertility issue among couples. Theoretically speaking, parents can choose the desirable qualities in their genes to be passed on to their children(“Organ Cloning”, 2011). Cloning can link with stem cell research and together they could cure so many, at this time, uncurable diseases. However, cloning is still a new field but sooner or later it will not be considered new because of how much our knowledge or cloning will expand. Cloning can also be done to much simpler organisms, like plants. Cloning can also be applied to plants to remove or alter defective genes, which end up making them resistant to diseases(“Pros and Cons of Cloning”, 2014).

    In conlusion, there are far to many pros to cloning. The pros far outweigh the risks. Cloning organs makes transplants happen fast because you do not have to wait years to recieve an organ you needed a year ago, you could have it in a very short period of time. Cloning in human beings can also to be a solution to infertility. Cloning can help with genetic research anbd can help contain specific traits in organisms.

  26.    Kiana Seitz — April 24, 2014 @ 1:21 pm   

    Organ Cloning. (n.d.). Organ Cloning RSS. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from
    Pros and Cons of Cloning. (n.d.). Buzzle. Retrieved April 22, 2014, from

  27.    Abby Ruppert — April 24, 2014 @ 4:38 pm   

    Re: Cameron April 9th
    “cloning is very unpredictable and inefficient in the creation of humans.”, it has been decided by scientists and most of society that cloning of humans is not a path in which we would like to travel down. Instead, we are looking to clone organisms such as plants and animals to further potential agriculture opportunities.

    Cloning in my opinion is something that we as the human race should just stay away from. Although people do attempt to clone their pets in hopes of replacing a lost animal or cloning advanced farm animals for further agricultural success, it has a high failure rate and isn’t a reliable tool for us. In Japan, mice and calves were studied while being cloned. They discovered that the mice would die early or were born with very poor health and the calves were the same. The animals are born with weak immune systems and do not live a long and successful life. It isn’t reliable or a smart way of reproducing.


  28.    Emma Percy — April 24, 2014 @ 5:01 pm   

    Re: Orion Kemp – April 16 2014
    Although using cloning to de-extinct animals and essentially “restock our wildlife” sounds beneficial and an answer to our biodiversity problems it comes with many questions and problems that must be answered and solved first. Theoretically, it is possible to de-extinct animals such as the woolly mammoth or dire wolf; however, in order for the procedure to be successful scientists must be able to collect hundreds to thousands of cells from the extinct animal and these cells must contain enough DNA that has not been degraded over the years since the animal’s extinction (FDA). Scientists also need a very closely related species to the extinct species to use their nucleus removed egg and use as a host for the fetus growth and birth. There is a chance that the surrogate mother will reject the embryo because it is too foreign to the body (FDA). Furthermore, even if scientists can bring back an extinct animal, how will they survive in today’s environment (National Geographic)? For example, bringing back the saber toothed tiger may seem like a good idea but how will they survive without the ecological conditions of the Pleistocene plains from 100 000 years ago in which they inhabited, what will they eat and what impact will they have on the existing mammal population (Strauss)? Cloning extinct animals may seem like the answer to undoing humanity’s past mistakes but it’s partnered with many more problems that science today may not have the answer to.

    Animal & Veterinary: Myths about cloning . (2009, October 28). . Retrieved , from
    Strauss, B. (n.d.). De-Extinction – The Resurrection of Extinct Animals. Dinosuars. Retrieved , from
    Pimm, S. (2013, March 12). Opinion: The case against species revival. . Retrieved , from

  29.    Suyrea — April 24, 2014 @ 7:36 pm   

    I agree with Percy (April 24) that recreating species that have gone extinct is unwise. One popular fictionalized account of such undertaking would be the movie Jurassic Park. whether to recreate a species based on scientific curiosity or to remedy some human contribution to a species’ extinction such as Percy suggests, it is hubris to play God in such a way. Species become extinct for a reason, while humans can play a negative role by fouling natural habitat or over harvesting the oceans, conservation is a more viable solution for species at risk. To waste money and resources to “fix” a problem we have created rather than safeguard the future well being of a species still possible to save, is an exercise in scientific one-up man-ship.

  30.    Carmen Alonso — April 24, 2014 @ 9:27 pm   

    RE:Suyrea — April 24, 2014 @ 7:36 pm
    You say that the attempt to recreate an extinct species is “hubris to play God in such a way”.This statement suggests the idea that anything challenging or going against the course of history, as nature or “god” had intended, is a negative and dangerous action. This is an incredibly radical statement to make. One must be prepared to reflect on the advancements in science that would not have been possible if someone had not “played god”. You say that “species go extinct for a reason” and that we should only look forward. This is a true, but fairly weightless statement. People get diseases and die everyday, for a reason. This isn’t to say that funding medical care and treatment for the sick, to cure disease and lessen ailments, should be taken and placed instead, into research for new vaccines. There is benefit in looking forward and obviously, you are not wrong to say that it is important to take accountability for humanities mistakes and work towards a progressive future, where humans are kinder to the earth. However, “If we’re talking about species we drove extinct, then I think we have an obligation to try to do this,” (Archer)

    Michael Archer “bringing extinct species back to life”, National Geographic,Apr 24th 2014

  31.    Sam Featherstone — April 26, 2014 @ 9:38 pm   

    Re: Orion Kemp, April 9th
    In rebuttal to the statement “cloning can be used to improve the crops that humans eat. It makes the plants resistant to … infections and diseases.” The cloning of plants eliminates diversity and leads to an increase in exposure to natural occurrences such as disease. Cloning causes all of the crops to be genetically identical to each other and therefore if one contracts a disease then the entire crop yield will be harmed. Cloning crops alters the genes of the original crop and causes lower genetic variation and therefore a smaller chance of survival. Crops that have been cloned have the ability to surpass similar species and eventually lead other plant species to extinction. Cloned crops have less resistance to infections and diseases and cause a loss of diversity in both artificial (farm) and natural settings. DNA diversity in plant species is extremely important to help the survivability rates in the future for any unexpected occurrences that may occur such as an increase in infectious disease (Peya). If a disease or virus attacks the cloned crop it will be destroyed and the world will no longer have this crop available to them.
    The risks of cloning such as loss of diversity and decreased resistance to disease outweigh the benefits of cloning.

    Peya, D. (2013, March 8). Cloning: The Pros and Cons. Biotech Articles. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from

    What are the Risks of Cloning?.Learn Genetics. Retrieved April 26, 2014, from

  32.    Taigan Dance — April 28, 2014 @ 8:05 pm   

    Re: Kyra April 16
    “Also, even though cloning has the potential to introduce a wider variety of species, if cloned, each organism of that species would be exactly identical”

    Similar to that of natural cloning in humans; identical twins for example, just by meeting one; it is obvious that they are not identical in every way. The same would be true for other species, with different experiences and interactions; it is close to impossible for two of a species to be “exactly identical”.
    The artificial cloning that takes place when cloning animals and other organisms besides humans can negatively impact the organisms’ natural habitat. The introduction of a cloned animal into a new habitat could endanger that clone, needing to become accustomed to new surroundings and have the DNA of another creature. The DNA of the clone would suit it for the “mother’s” previous habitat, and it would have to learn from its new surroundings, because it is true that animals learn from watching and doing.


    “Cloning.” – News. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2014. .

    “Human cloning.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2014. .

  33.    Siarra O — April 29, 2014 @ 4:46 pm   

    RE: Cameron
    Although with cloning comes many risk factors, the benefits seem to over power the cons of the cloning process. Cloning can be beneficial to eliminating defective genes, which in the near future could be a leading killer cause by the DNA lines continuously reproducing. Cloning can also faster recovery from previous traumatic injuries, including injuries in which cause quadriplegics, and if some what reversible/healable the time frame can be shortened with the use of cloning. Along with recovery and eliminating defective genes, cloning can be useful to eliminate infertility, allowing infertile couples the chance to have a biological child. The risks in which could POSSIBLY come along during the cloning process do not overweigh the benefits considering that cloning can be used to create and make current living animals/people healthier, where as losing individuality is just an assumption.

  34.    jack nattress — April 29, 2014 @ 8:05 pm   

    In rebuttal to Cam’s statement: I disagree with your statement ” In the case of Dolly the sheep, only one out of 277 attempts was successful (Dolly was the only successful one)” because that isn’t just what cloning is about. Cloning can be much simpler than cloning an entire organism. I believe that cloning an entire humans, animal or plant can have many successful outcomes in the medical and agricultural world but is rather unnecessary. Firstly for these benefits to occur you wouldn’t have to clone the entire organism, just particular cells or genes of an organism. Which could later be put back into the organism after the cloning process to solve defects in the body. this would ensure that there are no clones being left out or treated differently in society.
    This cloning of specific cells can be beneficial to the medical world. In some cases “scientists believe that they could help heart attack victims by cloning healthy hearts cells and injecting them into the damaged part of the cells”(PositivesBehindCloning) which seems quite beneficial to future heart disease patients.

  35.    jack nattress — April 29, 2014 @ 8:38 pm   

    In rebuttal to Tianna’s statement: “Cloning is full of risks and unpredictable just as many other undiscovered treatments and operations”.
    Your statement is technically true and in the past a “Massive animal cloning research project ended due to 90 percent death rate and ‘unnecessary suffering”(NaturalNews). However this research project and your statement both refer to cloning entire organisms when the most efficient and controllable way of cloning is through genes and cells. It is also the most beneficially way of cloning because you are able to clone healthy cells and replace them with the unhealthy cells without having to deal with an entirely new organism.
    Scientists are able to “remove/replace defective genes”(PositivesBehindCloning) which is truly a break through and much safer and controlled than cloning entire organisms. Which tends to end in a lot of death and suffering.

  36.    Maddy Evans — April 29, 2014 @ 11:17 pm   

    In reply to Tianna’s statement regarding the fact that the “Cloning of ORGANS could be very important in futures time as organ transplants are difficult undertakings”, although this method is hypothesized as being very beneficial and helpful in the medical world, there have been many controversial factors about the limitations concerning the cloning of organs. I do believe that organ cloning will be important in the future but before it goes further in the direction it has taken already, some factors should be addressed.
    The potential for this type of cloning is vast and complicated, but is still a hopeful source of research in many medical facilities. However, even though this is true, there are multiple factors in regards to the medical aspect of cloning that leave scientists worried (What are the Pros…). There have been various cloning practises that have not flourished and in reality, many of the experimentally cloned cells include deficiencies (What are the Pros…). With this being mentioned, if multiple accounts of these practises have not worked, how do we know that this type of cloning should be continued until we are sure every patient will survive, as well as remaining healthy. For example “according to the journal of the Society for Reproduction and Fertility…some success in animals…found that stem cells are more easily isolated…not true for humans unfortunately” (Organs…). Consequently, scientists have discovered that for an awfully small quantity of successful results will mean a large amount of stem cells and with the controversy over embryonic stem cells, the process becomes more difficult (Organs…). Although there has been progression on therapeutic cloning, the success rate for humans is not at a rate it should be for this process to become a reality just yet.
    Although this type of cloning may become an extraordinarily beneficial type of cloning in the future, the percentage of cases where this cloning has worked is not viable for constant use until more research has been made. Not without saying, however, that the progression in organ cloning has come far and will continue to grow as long as we go about it the correct and safe way, especially when human life is at stake.

    Organs, Therapeutic Cloning, and Ethical Solutions. (n.d.). theraputiccloning. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from

    What Are the Pros and Cons of Therapeutic Cloning?. (n.d.). wiseGEEK. Retrieved April 30, 2014, from

  37.    Rebecca Redpath — May 1, 2014 @ 10:00 am   

    RE: Chanel, April 21
    In rebuttal to Chanel’s statement, “While cloning can increase our food production and feed several starving people in the world, lack of food is not the problem here, thus we shouldn’t need to clone animals to solve a non-existing problem”. World is hunger is actually a very extreme problem. In 2010-2012, 870 million people (out of the 7.1 billion world population) were suffering from undernourishment. That is one in eight (, 2013). Living in Canada means that we do not have a hunger issue because we live in a developed, first-world country. This shelters others from knowing the real struggles elsewhere in the world. It is a true fact, as you stated, that there is a sufficient amount of food on the planet to contribute to the hungry people. However it doesn’t quite work that way because the main problem is that many people in the world do not have land to grow or raise animals or income to purchase enough food (, 2013). Since poverty is the principle cause of hunger, cloning livestock will lower the demand for meat and therefore make it more affordable for the poorer people. When cloning becomes successful, it will be beneficial to invest money in cloning animals used for slaughter because nowadays there are many other reasons, such as diseases and birth defects, that result in the loss of many livestock every year which results in a loss of money. By creating “perfect” (for lack of a better word) livestock by cloning, we can reduce the amount of unnecessary livestock death/loss because they can clone the most successful breeds and stock.

  38.    Rebecca Redpath — May 1, 2014 @ 10:02 am   

    2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts. (n.d.). Hunger Notes. Retrieved April 28, 2014, from

  39.    Alex MacDougall — May 2, 2014 @ 12:13 am   

    RE: Rebecca Redpath April 1st

    In rebuttal to the statement “When cloning becomes successful, it will be beneficial to invest money in cloning animals used for slaughter because nowadays there are many other reasons, such as diseases and birth defects, that result in the loss of many livestock every year which results in a loss of money”.

    Although cloning animals may improve the problem of world hunger 88% of american consumers disapprove with the cloning of animals for food production. There are many ethical issues that arise with the idea of cloning animals.

    Ending world hunger is a goal that everyone wants to stride for but with cloning animals problems may arise. The world is meant to have genetic variation and if the cloning of animals does proceed and genetic variation falls the evolution of that species will not proceed, that species could fall to disease all together.The cons of animal cloning completely outweighs the pros if cloning could risk endangerment of multiple species.

    Low Genetic Variation. (n.d.). Relevance of Evolution: p. 1. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from

  40.    Sabrina — May 3, 2014 @ 1:49 pm   

    RE Maddy, April 29
    “The percentage of cases where this cloning has worked is not viable for constant use until more research has been made.”
    In rebuttal to this statement, the main benefit of therapeutic cloning would actually be for research. It is possible to gain a better understanding of birth defects and cancer from better understanding all the details of therapeutic cloning. Treating serious conditions can be made more effective by simply gaining more research that comes from this type of medical cloning. (Therapeutic Cloning Pros and Cons)
    Research shows that cells taken from the body can be replicated or changed into a new type of cell for example, to replace red blood cells or repair or “regrow” vital organs in chronically or incurably ill patients. (Cloning Debate)
    Maddy did state that “it is obvious organ cloning will continue to grow as long as we go about it the correct and safe way, especially when human life is at stake”, however the risk of someone’s life being at stake is decreased because with cloning there is no longer a second person that would have to go through surgery to donate organs. Cloning could save many lives because it stops the wait time for patience loosing their life waiting for an organ to be donated and cloning means the organs would have an exact match of the patient’s DNA. When organs are made out of a patient’s own cell, doctors do not have to worry about organ or tissue rejection by the immune system of the patient. (Human Cloning) In the end cloning could save more lives then risk them because cloning has great potential for curing a variety of diseases and conditions.

    Cloning Debate. (n.d.). Cloning Debate – History, Facts & Information.
    Retrieved May 3, 2014, from

    The pros and Cons of Therapeutic Cloning. (n.d.). Human Cloning. Retrieved
    May 3, 2014, from

    Therapeutic Cloning Pros and Cons. (2014, February 19). HealthRF. Retrieved
    May 3, 2014, from

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

© 2014 Funston Science   Provided by WPMU DEV -The WordPress Experts   Hosted by Edublogs