Animal Cloning Taken Too Far
Animal Cloning Taken Too Far
Technological and medical developments over the last century have allowed scientists to create life through cloning. There has been extensive debate as to whether or not cloning should be legal. Many argue that cloning allows for further scientific research on animal medical innovations, and new opportunities at livestock agriculture (Wells). Although there seems to be benefits to cloning, are these benefits worth the cost? Animals involved in cloning often suffer. Research scientists engaged in animal cloning are pushing boundaries of ethics for arrogant reasons, causing animals to suffer as a result.
The term cloning describes several different processes that can be used to produce genetically identical copies of a biological creature. The copied material, which has the same genetic makeup as the original, is called a clone (“Human genome project information”). Animal cloning, and the ethics around this method are of particular concern. Is it against nature to create life using the same genetic copy for making more or “better” animals (“Cloning”)? Selective breeding in the animal world has had a long history. Crossing individuals with desirable or “better” characteristics to produce offspring that inherit those characteristics is supposed to be bettering the world. People are engineering a stronger breed of animals. For years people have created new breeds of domesticated animals by using selective breeding. But creating a genetically identical copy of an animal that normally reproduces sexually with characteristics from two parents is a more multifaceted task. In the 1950’s scientists achieved their goal to create a better animal by cloning a group of frogs:
They (scientists) took a cell from a tadpole, removed the cell’s nucleus -the part containing chromosomes and genes- and inserted it into a frog egg that had been stripped of its nucleus. The egg developed into an adult frog with the same genetic material as the tadpole
Technological and medical developments over the last century have allowed scientists to create life through cloning. There has been extensive debate as to whether or not cloning should be legal. Many argue that cloning allows for further scientific research on animal medical innovations, and new opportunities at livestock agriculture (Wells). Although there seems to be benefits to cloning, are these benefits worth the cost? Animals involved in cloning often suffer. Research scientists engaged in animal cloning are pushing boundaries of ethics for arrogant reasons, causing animals to suffer as a result.
The term cloning describes several different processes that can be used to produce genetically identical copies of a biological creature. The copied material, which has the same genetic makeup as the original, is called a clone (“Human genome project information”). Animal cloning, and the ethics around this method are of particular concern. Is it against nature to create life using the same genetic copy for making more or “better” animals (“Cloning”)? Selective breeding in the animal world has had a long history. Crossing individuals with desirable or “better” characteristics to produce offspring that inherit those characteristics is supposed to be bettering the world. People are engineering a stronger breed of animals. For years people have created new breeds of domesticated animals by using selective breeding. But creating a genetically identical copy of an animal that normally reproduces sexually with characteristics from two parents is a more multifaceted task. In the 1950’s scientists achieved their goal to create a better animal by cloning a group of frogs:
They (scientists) took a cell from a tadpole, removed the cell’s nucleus -the part containing chromosomes and genes- and inserted it into a frog egg that had been stripped of its nucleus. The egg developed into an adult frog with the same genetic material as the tadpole
Cited: "Animal Welfare : End Animal Cloning." Animal Welfare: End Animal Cloning. Web. 13 May 2012. . “Cloning.” Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. Detroit; Gale. 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. “Cloning Fact Sheet.” Human genome project information. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, 2009. Web. 13 May 2012. . “Creating Embryos for Research Is Wrong.” Stem Cells. Jacqualine Langwith. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from “A Primer on Human Cloning.” Christian Life Resources. 2009. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. Mendelson III, Joseph, and The Center for Food Safety. “Cloned Animals Should Not Be Used for Food. “Genetic Engineering. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from “Initial Comments Concerning the Food and Drug Administration’s Animal Cloning Risk Assessment. “2003. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. Wells, D. N. “Animal cloning: problems and prospects.” Reproductive Technologies Group, 2005. Web. 8 May 2012. .