Yay or nay? I have to right a ten minute position speach for pro-cloning in English. I would like to hear what all of you have to say.

I don't really think it's ethical. It could be abused very easily. Like, people could clone armies, only to have them killed and clone more. You can't use clones for testing or anything, because they'd actually be people, too. I really can't see any good side to it...

I wonder what exactly the point of cloning is, unless you include genetic engineering along with it.

I mean, you basically end up with a genetic carbon copy. The only thing that'd be interesting would be that you could go further to prove the importance of nurture in the nature V nurture debate, but cloning and then researching people just to prove one or the other would be pretty unethical...and I don't think anyone goes with the idea that you are your genes anymore anyway. Too many after-birth developements in your body to say they even determine what you are physically.

Cloning armies? As fearsome as real armies. Even if you have cloning, you still need to have the capability to birth children, feed them, guarantee they'll be willing to fight, etc. Sure, you could have all that sci-fi perfect soldier crap going on, but in reality robots and stuff like that are much more of a worry. The perfection of individual soldiers goes beyond birth characteristics anyway, they have to be put through training and stuff to be ready on the field anyway. Unless a country actually managed to create an army and ethically convince the clones, and the rest of the populace, that it was ethical to force them all into the army, a clone army wouldn't even be feasible.

One good thing about it is that we could, with animals, improve researching by having exact genetic copies of the animals we use, so as long as you're ok with animal testing.

Stem cell engineering, which could allow construction of various cells and stuff like that, would be a lot more useful. The only thing I can see cloning being used for is commercial science, you know, "make a perfect clone" kinda stuff. Not worth going into, unless we expect breakthroughs in other fields along with cloning.

Why is this in English, just curious? I mean, I know I'm doing a debate unit in my AP lang. class this time, but doesn't cloning fit more into science and stuff? The only science stuff I've seen in english books are a couple of writings by Aldous Huxley and Matthew Arnold, and I believe the latter was an english teacher anyway (debating against more science in education as far as I remember)!

We had to choose a controvercial topic in current events, and choose a side to argue.

I could care less whether they clone animals, but when you start toward people...that's going places science doens't belong IMO

Why? I mean, first off it's already technically possible, if incredibly improbable to the point where it'll probably never actually happen, for it to happen naturally. Identical twins are also the same genetically, though they're born in the same birth...

I mean, it's more just pointless 'far as I can see. What does it do that actually goes against nature or, if you believe in god as well, god?

Oooh. Cloning debate. *clears throat*

Cloning is a sword that, instead of a hilt, has another blade. A cool concept, but something that should not be used. Cloning has very many good aspects, such as making armies or being used as test subjects for treating diseases. Yet, there are problems with this far beyond ethics, even though ethics is a veery good point.

When you make a clone, it's a copy. A look alike. That's it. It has a completely empty mind. None of the cloned subjects memories, experience, or knowledge pass on. That means, if you want an effective army, you will have to take years to clone them, then teach them for a few years so they have the knowledge needed in warfare.

As for cloning for curing diseases, there is no real downside besides ethics. I mean, if you spare a couple dozen of clones to find a cure for cancer, what's the real problem? Their only clones, right? They were manufactured, not born. This is where ethics come into play. What is the definition of 'born'? Is a clone born, or manufactured? Is it right to create a human, just to inject it with a disease and cause it misery?

I believe that cloning should not be tested with. Some things are best left alone.

Well, there isn't any reason we'd need to clone people to cure diseases. Right now, scientists are looking at ways to clone individual cells, so for instance they could actually grow a human heart or parts of it as a replacement for other things. Genetic engineering, which involves tampering with the basic genome to change the genetic characteristics of an individual, is a different story: we could change genetic makeup to make everyone HIV resistant, for instance (there's a very small population of people who simply cannot get HIV/AIDS). But in that case, you'd be changing the genetic makeup of a fetus, and that's a different discussion of morality from cloning.

The only possible use for birthing an entire person would be organ transfer, a 1-to-1 basis of giver and receiver in terms of life saving (except in organs like kidneys, of course :) ). But again, we're at the point where if we perfect human cloning, we can probably just clone necessary organ cells instead of actually creating a sentient being just to kill it.

As for discussion on use in armies, I'll point out again how the idea of a perfect human soldier is pretty much not important at this point in time, considering how much further we can go in technology in terms of destruction if we're seeking more effective ways to kill in any case (that's another debate). Moreover, if the issue was that there wasn't a sufficient, willing population to go into war, you'd still have to deal with feeding the army and getting all the clones to join (if you're giving them rights), and so on.

Well, cloning individual organs/cells is still cloning, right?

The only two arguments people can provide against cloning are overpopulation and religious consequences. Both are ridiculous, unless for some lackadaisical reason cloning goes public. =.

Yes...but for some reason, people don't really seem to care much. I've never heard anyone complain about stem cell research to grow various groupings of cells and stuff, unless it's about whether it's ethical to use dead fetuses (fetii?) to get the stem cells and such. It's only fully cloned humans that people argue about on religious grounds, far as I know anyway.

...Just a question. Assume that I've lived for perhaps ten years, and then discovered that my liver were failing. Now, assuming that cloning of the said liver was possible within a set amount of time, would the cloned organ fail within ten years, considering that the first set did? Are the same failures simply waiting to happen in the future? After all, they share our same genetic makeup.

Secondly, if you clone the organs of a person immune to HIV, how many people would actually be compatible with the small population's organs? Chances are, the results would be so minimal that it would only be a waste of time and money. Is there really a chance of circulating such an organ around, unless the blood type of the donor was an O? Could we really achieve victory over HIV?

Here's somthing you all didn't know. Cloning humans is illegal

But if humans were cloned and used for genetic experimentation or war there will always be the people who think it's fine, then there will also always be people who will disagree with it (like hippies). But clones made for doing jobs would make life easier.

Robots are no more worrying on the battlefield than a tank. Humans will probaly always have a superiority ove robots in terms of movement over terrain, bumps on the ground, standing up, etc. So if robots were made into the military they would be big, have wheels, fly, have big guns, etc.

Why do you need to an essay now?, You started the topic on Christmas

Well, gee. You make it sound like we were born yesterday. Here we are to discuss what would happen if we could clone humans, and here you are, stating the obvious. Congratulations. Do you want the Nobel Peace Prize for that?

...

Sorry 'bout that. Flew off the handle there, for a moment.

Continuing on...

Clones made for doing jobs? What are you trying to promote, bionic slaves? Every person who is cloned is a living being, and every clone that would be made for doing jobs would be effectively born into a world of servitude. But, then again, that's the society we live in today, isn't it? We're born, with the expectation that we'll endure years of education, just so we can work. And work we do, around forty hours a week, month after month of our lives. We're no better than they would be... no, we're worse; we believe we have some sort of free will in this regard. Well, you can be free from that lifestyle, if you want to live in that cozy cardboard box...

Well, I've gone off topic yet again... let's try again...

Now, do recall the fact that robots are able to learn. Now, take this into consideration for a moment; which would you prefer? A human life, capable of being swayed through positive reinforcement or emotional stimuli, or a machine, incapable of listening to anything but commands while becoming more intelligent over time? Perhaps intelligence in this case may not be considered learning as most people perceive it to be, but observational learning, in this case, is applicable; by acquiring new information as things happen around it, a machine can learn to match stimuli with response. A robot who has played one hundred chess games, for example, will learn which opening moves yielded the best results, and will continue to use them until a better one comes along to replace it. Thus, the robot uses the process of elimination to determine a new course of action. Can this not be used against us?

Take for example the Skinner box, which places a rat within its confines. When it hits a certain switch, food is offered; thus, through positive conditioning, operant learning is reinforced. If no food is offered, the rat ceases to hit the switch. Now, place a robot within the confines, and it matters not what it does; it does not have biological needs, and so will not react positively nor negatively to the presence or absence of food or water. How, then, can you manipulate such a thing? You can order it around through signals, perhaps, but sometimes artificial intelligence is a factor.

What about video games, for example? Enemies that learn will attack you differently, to see where your defenses falter; only then will they focus on that one attack that you cannot defend yourself effectively against, and thus earn your defeat. Can a military machine not do the same? What sense of superiority do we truly have? That we have created intelligence? Humans create new intelligence (or stupidity, in my opinion) every day through procreation, and yet they find themselves unable to control their offspring as time goes on. Will cybernetics one day do the same?

Now, on a final note, you have to wonder... how many mishaps with tanks have occurred that have never been reported? How many innocent men have been trampled beneath its tracks, forgotten save for the smear of blood and entrails left behind for the buzzards to pick at as the others go to wage combat? How many men are safe from the potential misfire of a gun? Everything can kill, and especially those things with intelligence. Artificial intelligence... I do not understand why such an abomination was made, save for the foolhardy pride of men. Do we truly find pride in creating something that will one day escape our hands?

It is better to have nothing at all than to plague the earth with an irreversible error. I find no value in cloning, and also find no value in relying on technology. People say that the old days had barbaric warfare... no, we do today more than ever. We don't even rely on skill or strength anymore, but simply on how many buttons we can push and how many packets of gunpowder we can send into enemy lines. We truly are barbarians, in that regard. Now we rely on an inorganic intelligence to do our fighting for us, as well... it seems that honor, pride, and strength have died, to be replaced with cowardice, slyness, and the cunning nature of vipers.

...

Well, gee. x.x You know what? I don't think I really made much of an impact on the whole cloning issue, but... whatever. I addressed the preceding post well enough.

Yeah, Kurai is right, I'm writing a paper to deduce whether or not cloning is right or wrong. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or not.

Speeches start on the fifth. I have no clue what date I will be presenting on, so I would like to get it done with.

I'm not sure what I think about cloning. Sure it would help the medical field, but genetic engineering is so much better. I wrote an essay on this last year, let me dig it out, okay Karn?

EDIT: Take it as is factwise.

Cloning

On February 23, 1997, several scientists in Edinburgh, Scotland successfully cloned a sheep, Dolly. Dolly lived until February 14, 2003, almost seven years after being ‘born’. This raised debates on the ethics of cloning research and the long term health of clone subjects. I believe that genetic cloning should be allowed to continue its work to improve the world. With genetic cloning, we can cure deadly diseases such as cancers, make certain surgeries safer, and also solve the issue of world hunger.
Through genetic cloning we can cure and prevent cancers, heart disease, and organ failure. With enough funding and time, scientists will learn how to turn cells on and off through cloning. This and studying exactly why cells differentiate into different types of tissue will put us on the track to curing cancer once and for all. One of the first benefits of genetic cloning is that we will be able to clone healthy marrow for people suffering from leukemia from their own bodies, so donors will no longer be needed. Heart disease the number one major killer of Americans; someone dies every 34 seconds from heart disease. We will be able to cure heart disease by cloning healthy heart cells and injecting them into the area of the heart that have been damaged, allowing for the healthy cells to heal the damaged area. Finally, through cloning, we will be able to one day clone entire working kidneys, livers, hearts, and possibly brains. This will virtually end the need for organ donors for people who have experienced organ failure.
Plastic, reconstructive, and cosmetic surgery can be done safer with natural materials in substitution to silicone and other foreign materials. Over 37 chemicals can be found in silicone gel, such as Urethane, Polyvinyl Chloride (Liquid Vinyl), Formaldehyde (used to preserve dead bodies), and many other neurotoxins. With the latest technology, it would be possible to manufacture bone, fat, connective tissues, and cartilage that match the patient perfectly. Anyone will be able to fix their appearance without having to worry about silicone gel leaking into their system or other related problems. Accident victims whose faces or limbs were deformed in the accidents would be able to have their features repaired with a new, safer, and less expensive technology. Finally, people whose limbs that were amputated could have their limbs completely regenerated from cloning tissues in their body.
World hunger can be ended as an epidemic by improving the crops of the world through genetic improvements. Today our world houses 6.39 billion people, and 852 million people across the world are hungry right now. That’s 13.3 percent of the world’s total population without proper food. Chronic undernourishment and vitamin or mineral deficiencies, which result in stunted growth, weakness and heightened susceptibility to illness, are both dilemmas that most poor people who battle hunger deal with. Through genetic modifications, several scientists helped the world with their studies to stop this epidemic. Norman Borlaug created a breed of wheat with strong disease resistance, high yield potential, and the ability to survive poor growing conditions. Surinder Vasal of India developed corn with twice the usable protein of normal corn. Also, genetically modified foods can have extra vitamins and minerals to help the impoverished with vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Finally, potatoes, tomatoes, bananas, and other fruits and vegetables have been genetically improved to contain vaccines to Hepatitis B and other diseases. These inexpensive vaccines, most costing less than a dollar, not only feed these impoverished, but also protect them from a variety of deadly diseases.
In conclusion, through this essay I have hopefully opened your eyes to the positive features of genetic cloning and why it is an almost limitless way to save millions of lives through curing deadly diseases, using safer alternatives to silicone in surgeries, and by helping to solve the problem with world hunger.

I'm not sure if strike covered it, but I have a 'new' (to this topic, to my knowledge) reason against cloning. Clones are more suseptible to mutation/disease and they die of old age earlier. Read something in the news I think about how all cells have something in their DNA that only allows them to multiply a certain number of times. This carries on to all the cells daughter cells, but the count is reduced. When you take a cell to clone, it will have that 'timer' in it and reduce the life span of the clonee. Now, does anyone want to do that to a person? I wouldn't.

That's only a cause of ineffective cloning, though. If the technology is allowed to continue, I'm sure they will eventually overcome that. I think it has something to do with how they make the cloned cells duplicate. I think that in order to make them duplicate, they have to electrically charge the cell. They havn't perfected this technique yet.

Just a few things to note on this. For the liver thing, it depends: first off, if you're taking genes from the ailing liver, I believe it would have the same problems. However, if you had genes from the liver from before it began to fail...well, as an example, if the liver was failing from alcohol abuse or something, I believe it would not undergo the same problems. Of course, you would have to deal with mitotic division issues which cause cell aging and reduce the amount of times cell division can occur.

For anyone familiar with the dolly case, dolly aged more quickly because the cells were taken from an older sheep - the removal of telomeres from DNA strands can eventually cause cells to go into the G0 phase of the cell cycle (I'm sure you all know what that is, since you've been through 9th grade bio...I think). When this happens, they will stop dividing. Of course, there are enzymes which are found within cancer cells that can stop the removal of the telomeres (allowing further division and, theoretically, could lead to a form of immortality in terms of stopping the body from decaying), but that's another subject that I don't really know about anyway.

As for your question about HIV, you would not have to (Karn, this goes into genetic engineering, so I'm not sure if it'd be useable) clone organs. The idea would be that we would sequence nucleic acids in the same part of the chromosomes that in adults causes HIV resistance (I believe they figured out why some people are HIV-Immune), and then, as the gen-engineered fetus matured, the baby that would be born would be HIV immune.
As far as I know, treatments using cloning generally involving using healthy cells and cloning them to take the place of dead ones. Gen-engineering seems to usually be applied, theoretically, to a baby in the womb, and would involve sequencing the chromosomes to make people immune to certain symptoms (note I don't use disorders here) resulting from the genetic code inheireted from their parents during meiosis and gamete fertilization.

Actually, I did know that, but it isn't true everywhere. There are American scientists in other countries researching fields within genetic engineering and cloning that would come into conflict with what's allowed in the US.
---
I see someone already said something about the telomeres, though they didn't name them. Cells would also (forgot this) be more susceptible to mutations due to loss of various mutation fixing enzymes and stuff like that.

EDIT-And Karn, the method to stopping these problems is either using new cells that won't age quickly, or using the enzyme (it's probably something like telomerase) to grow telomeres on cells.

Bucket, do you have any idea why reverse aging cloning would be contradictory?

Hmm, not really. I'm just going on what I've learned in AP Biology for the most part, and it's hard for me to speculate on cutting edge stuff as I'm not really cutting edge. Also, I'm not sure whether it means experiments have been done to test whether cells with longer telomeres live longer, or what. I know I've heard about an experiment, from my book, where a cell culture where they applied telomerase in some fashion went through more cell divisions, lasting longer...but, I know my teacher has pointed out minor mistakes in our book, Campbell Biology 6th edition, so it's always possible there was a mixup with the source. I will try to dig out the experiment tomorrow, if I can, but if I can't find it I'll get ask the 'teach to help me out on Jan. 3rd.

To be honest, I can't really come up with any explanation...my only idea is that they're talking about reverse-aging in developed organisms (humans, cell cultures, whatever the experiment was conducted on), and that they've been unable to find a way to make the telomerase take effect on a grown organism and actually reverse the loss of telomeres in grown organisms...to be honest though, I have no idea at all.

Eh, I wasn't sure how far AP Bio went. I guess that article needs to go a little more in depth.

Cloning entire humans would be interesting yet pointless. You would still have to wait as they develop as children and that takes years and years.

What i am interested in is organs and certain genes. Eventually we will be able to copy certain DNA and genes so that we could genetically engineer our children. You want your child to have brown hair? Here let me swap out its DNA. Want a longer nose? ok let me find that gene. All and all we will wventually be able to create the perfect human beings, ones free of any genes that could cause cancer or any longterm diseases, and people with looks that you decide. The physical appearance changing may sound unethical but think of having organs and genes that will never be prone to diseases such as cancer.

Well, many cancers are caused by mutations and stuff like that, but you're right. An example would be that we could give everyone heterozygous sickle cell genes, which means they'd be resistant to malaria but not be seriously affected by the sickle cell disorder, which causes crescent shaped (caused by a genetic change that causes blood vessels to become hydrophobic and fold in) blood vessels that damage blood channels and cause clotting problems, and carry less oxygen.