DescentBB

I'm doing a debate in English class about cloning and you all seem pretty smart so i want to know what you think about cloning. cloning will be defined as the artificial replication of DNA outside of a human body or by other \"unnatural\" means (this would include the use of adult stem cells which are not from embryos). So, what do you think?

If a doctor can take a stem cell and grow a bit-for-bit replica kidney that is in all respects, your tissue, and implant it with no need for immunosuppressants and other heavy-hitting anti-rejection drugs..well, then color me a cloning fanboi.

Cloning and genetic manupulation techniques have gotten a bad rap recently, for reasons ranging from from fear of the unknown (both rational and irrational) through to the moral debate about manipulating viable embryos - both animal and human.

Ultimately, genetic manipulation is nothing new (the selective breeding of animals and crops is technically genetic manipulation - and that has been going on for thousands of years across almost all cultures).

The *technology* that is currently within our reach is where the potential for harm lies. Selective breeding of edible grasses created the food crop Maize we know today. It took thousands of years and people and the natural environment had time to react, with genetic dead-ends and harmful/undesireable traits being eliminated over time.

But now technology speeds up the whole process so much, the natural environment has little time to react. We could conceivably permantly damage ourselves or the food web itself with genetic manipulation very quickly - and this particular genie won't go back in the bottle easy.

Ultimately, the practise of genetic manipulation is inevitable - cloning is simply the most powerful way we have to do it. What is most important is the international regulation of the technology, relentless monitoring of the results and effective quarantining of the missteps and wrong turns (like killer bees or new super-viruses for example). Make it a controlled technology - like nuclear warhead manufacturing. This is the only way we can protect ourselves and future generations while we get the hang of manipulating mother nature's tool set for our own ends.

I'm all for cloning COWS, SWINE, CHICKENS, GOATS, etc. On a planet with a growing population we need all the food we can get.

I'm all for cloning for medical reasons as well. There is really no reason not to.

I am however opposed to cloning with genetic manipulation. That reeks of creationism, and of course we know how science feels about that.

^^^ Why use cloning of cattle when breeding them works just as well?

A cow has but one offspring, cloning offers the opportunity to mass produce cattle.

I'm with all of them ^^^^^^^^^ but probably not with all of them vvvvvvvv

Bee

AlphaDoG wrote:A cow has but one offspring, cloning offers the opportunity to mass produce cattle.

No it doesn't. Unlike in the movies, it can not instantly produce a perfect and fully grown copy of the original. Other than conception, everything else for a clone has to be done the old fashioned way and takes just as long.

Krom wrote:No it doesn't. Unlike in the movies, it can not instantly produce a perfect and fully grown copy of the original.

Besides its cruel to the bull.

Yea but the feminist cow is digging it.

I don't see the mass production of animals by cloning happening any time soon. nature has fine tuned the art of growing a living being without any defects (mostly) and if people are going to do it the science will most likely take a long time to perfect to a safe enough level where we can actually eat the cloned animals without something going wrong.

The old fashion way works fine. why clone? Why open a moral and legal can of worms?

If you're talking about food production (e.g. cattle), it's because it helps in maintaining higher quality animals.

Bessie is your best milk-producing cow? Clone her, your next generation of cattle could have a number of Bessies!

Cloning animals has the same risk cloning agriculture has, one little bug comes along that they have no immunity to, and…you know the rest.

Foil wrote:If you're talking about food production (e.g. cattle), it's because it helps in maintaining higher quality animals.

Bessie is your best milk-producing cow? Clone her, your next generation of cattle could have a number of Bessies!

Selective breeding can produce the same or even superior results, although quite often it comes with the same risks Spidey mentioned.

An example of what can be done with selective breeding: http://www.toygers.org/about.html

not a whole lot of negative comments...I was hoping for some arguments the other way so I might know what the group I'm debating against would say (my group is for cloning).

sniper725 wrote:not a whole lot of negative comments...I was hoping for some arguments the other way so I might know what the group I'm debating against would say (my group is for cloning).

what was stated here is pretty much it.

Unless its sci-fi cloning you are debating.

Negatives could be that it's expensive and reduces genetic diversity if heavily used. Oh, and there were some problems with that sheep they cloned as well - from my understanding it aged early or something.

And of course there's the issue of \"why do it\" - does it produce results that are actually significantly better than they otherwise could be, enough to outweigh the downsides?

Finally, there's a chance you may run into \"emotional\" arguments... or stuff that plays on morality/religion/whatever. They aren't particularly valid, of course, but people do argue based on them.

the aged early thing was that anything that is cloned is already the age of the \"donor\". So if you cloned a sheep or a cat or whatever that was 3 years old, you would get a specimen that was already 3 years old when it took it's first breath (plus whatever time it took in gestation)

Sirus, you've been here long enough to know that saying \"a moral premise for arguing a case is not valid\" here is ... not valid. Slavery is an excellent example of that. BTW, did you know that it was the life's work of a devout Christian that got slavery banned? It started in England long before the notion caught on here. quik info for teh L4zE

I know of Wilberforce, yes. Saw the film, et cetera. All I'm saying is that in this particular case (cloning), arguing moral issues is like playing tug-of-war on ice; there isn't much of a foundation there for the argument to gain traction.

Religious texts are usually very hard to use as ammunition because they pre-date and do not generally anticipate cloning. They can merely provide weight on peripheral issues.

Basically if people try to pull moral arguments on cloning it'll come down to wishy-washy \"frankenstein\" or \"it's not natural\" talk. I mean, sure it isn't, but it raises the question of why that's a bad thing.

Do NOT turn this into a religious debate

Sirius wrote:Negatives could be that it's expensive and reduces genetic diversity if heavily used. Oh, and there were some problems with that sheep they cloned as well - from my understanding it aged early or something.

You are correct Sirius. Dolly the sheep died from old age after only 6 years of life, which at the time confused the researchers enormously. However, Dolly was cloned from the mitochondrial DNA of a middle-aged sheep. When she became fully grown, her mitochondrial DNA - being middle aged - was already half-way degraded, which explains her short life

(EDIT: ...Duper raised this point earlier - sorry Duper, missed that part of your post.)

This raises the interesting possibility of DNA rejuvination in humans. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited directly and solely from our mother, (and hers from her mother etc) it doesn't change very much at all between generations. What this means is that theoretically we could implant the mitochondiral DNA from a younger relative into an older relative and give them a longer lifespan (assuming of course it follows the motherhood blood line) - they could even possibly grow younger - but right now that's just speculation. No-one to my knowledge has achieved this yet.

There could be other complications with aging, though, which makes it difficult to say whether such a procedure would work.

Bubbalou - there is no danger of it turning into a religious debate unless someone who wants to comes along...

bubba, my point is merely that \"science\" has distanced itself from anything moral. And that is what this topic is for most. The discussion is an old one. a VERY old one.

Sirus, i understand. and in today's world, i'm afraid you are right. Few want to stand on absolutes. people have become soft and frightened on that front.

lol i won my debate

Cool, congratulations!