|
|
 |
|
Maybe instead of cloning endangered species we could just try and preserve the ones we have?!
Cloning shouldn't even be used as the last resort! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm on this side, for all the reason stated below. Plus it's just like "playing God." creating a
clone creates a freak of nature. You disrespect mother nature by saying "i can do your job for you,
and better." and that's exactly what you do when you create a clone. If an animal is endangered then
it's usually for a reason. (although if it is man's fault they are endangered then my view can be
swayed a bit) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If we cloned them they would be genetically identical therefore no variation in the species
therefore they will all be vulnerable to the same things!! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As Hidell said below, cloning would not produce a net increase in the number of endangered species,
it merely copies the genetic make up of an existing living species. So if a particular endangered
species are reluctant to mate (such as Pandas), we could use IVF (if encouragement fails). Although
encouragement can only be taken so far, as can IVF. They need to be able to reproduce in the wild
(to state the obvious!). |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
According to my way of thinking I really do not feel that it’s not at all important to clone the
endangered species. There would be several problems may arise after the cloning. First of all, this
technological weapon has not become a big giant as it is not at all fully approved scientifically.
It has lots of drawbacks. The biggest problem is that on a basis of large scale, cloning declines
the genetic assortment. The procedures of doing cloning are facing lots of problems as it is in its
very early stage. The nuclear transfer has not got its complete development. So before going to make
any application on an extinct species, scientists are not getting their full confidence if they kill
the last females which are the integral part of the survival of a species. These endangered species
should be conserved avoiding the cloning. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Perhaps not to be cloned but to be helped with fertilisation like IVF. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
My understanding is that cloning works by substituting the genetic material of one animal into the
eggs of another animal of the same species. In other words, it requires another animal to be already
pregnant and then the genetic material used in the pregnancy is simply switched. So you wouldn't
have any net addition to the number of endangered animals in existence. The cloned animal would
simply be born instead of the child of the natural pregnancy.
Cloning also often doesn't work out. I believe for Dolly the Sheep to be born successfully dozens of
failures were required. Cloning techniques may have improved since then but presumably the chances
of a failed pregnancy are still greater with clones than with a natural pregnancy. Therefore your
idea would probably result in fewer births of the endangered animals rather than more. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
01 Feb 2008 16:46
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
