Thread: cloning survey

I'm doing a cloning survey for school and if people can post their answers here, it'd be really helpful.

1. Do you agree that cloning of animals should be made legal? Yes or no

2. Should the government spend more taxpayer’s money on research and refining cloning techniques? Yes or no

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no

4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? If yes why? If no, then why?

5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? If yes, describe the benefits/advantages. If no, then why not?

6. Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage Australian/your country's companies? If yes, why? If no, then why?

1. Do you agree that cloning of animals should be made legal? Yes or no

It's already legal.

2. Should the government spend more taxpayer’s money on research and refining cloning techniques? Yes or no

They already do that.

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no

They already do that.

4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? If yes why? If no, then why?

No, since that would be an expensive piece of meat.

5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? If yes, describe the benefits/advantages. If no, then why
not?
Apparently it could be nice for some of the horse sports. The jumping thingie is done with castrated horses to start with.


6. Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage Australian/your country's companies? If yes, why? If no, then why?

Shouldn't you post this on an australian forum?

Originally Posted by scidude

1. Do you agree that cloning of animals should be made legal? Yes or no

Yes.

2. Should the government spend more taxpayer’s money on research and refining cloning techniques? Yes or no

They should spend more money on Stem cell research and Cloning. Both would be extremely useful. Yes/no just doesn't fit right for an answer.

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no

No. Never. Absolutely not.

4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? If yes why? If no, then why?

No. Cloning for scientific purposes is one thing, but I would rather not have to eat some scientific mishap that kills me. We already have enough of that in food coloring.

5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? If yes, describe the benefits/advantages. If no, then why not?

Yes, and I'm too lazy to write a proper opinion. Go with spurious on this one.

6. Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage Australian/your country's companies? If yes, why? If no, then why?

wug..?

Btw, Animals are cloned all the time in the lab and in nature. I suspect the author of the survey is thinking about a certain group of animals such as mammals and possibly he even limits his view on a small group within that group.

Does anyone care if a mouse is cloned? Or genetically altered?

Originally Posted by scidude

1. Do you agree that cloning of animals should be made legal? Yes or no

Yes. However there needs to be strong regulations because of the potential dangers involved. Not only are there environmental and health concerns, but ethical concerns, too.

Originally Posted by scidude

2. Should the government spend more taxpayer’s money on research and refining cloning techniques? Yes or no

Maybe. It all depends on what they want to do. There has to be a worthwhile purpose to the research expansion.

Originally Posted by scidude

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no

Yes. Private industry is good, but this falls in line with question 1. There needs to be regulations.

Originally Posted by scidude

4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? If yes why? If no, then why?

Yes, sure. It's not mutant meat! As long as the methods were safe and the original was healthy, there shouldn't be a problem.

Originally Posted by scidude

5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? If yes, describe the benefits/advantages. If no, then why not?

Hard to say. All depends on what angle you want to take this. The trouble with cloning is that you rapidly decline the gene pool for the animals you're cloning. So producing a mass-production line of clones could result in the stagnation of an animal's gene pool and development, which gets nasty.

Originally Posted by scidude

6. Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage Australian/your country's companies? If yes, why? If no, then why?

Again, hard to say. It depends on how the public market sways to the tune of cloned-meat. It also depends on the cloning process, since in order to sustain a viable species, there'd need to be a vast number of source originals to maintain the gene pool.

Originally Posted by scidude

1. Do you agree that cloning of animals should be made legal? Yes or no

Yes, why should it be illegal?

2. Should the government spend more taxpayer’s money on research and refining cloning techniques? Yes or no

Yes. If there's legitimate scientific knowledge to be gained from it, it should be funded.

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no

Yes, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? If yes why? If no, then why?

Yes, I would. Cloning techniques don't mysteriously make the meat poisonous or anything. If it's more efficient or there's some benefit to cloning livestock, then go for it.

5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? If yes, describe the benefits/advantages. If no, then why not?

Yes, it would probably benefit society. I don't know the current state of research but I don't think they'd be doing it if there wasn't some benefit, even if that benefit was only knowledge.

Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage Australian/your country's companies? If yes, why? If no, then why?

Not really. Unless there is a tremendous competetive advantage in cloning, and one country does and one country doesn't, I don't see any particular reason why other countries cloning would disadvantage mine.

1. Do you agree that cloning of animals should be made legal? Yes or no

Yes. Isn't it already legal?

2. Should the government spend more taxpayer’s money on research and refining cloning techniques? Yes or no

Yes.

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no

Yes, but there must be certain regulations.

4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? If yes why? If no, then why?

Sure. I don't see why not.

5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? If yes, describe the benefits/advantages. If no, then why not?

Yes, but we must be careful. As Wolf said, mass cloning could rapidly decline the gene pool. If we aren't careful, we could end up in a situation similar to the Irish Potato Famine.

6. Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage Australian/your country's companies? If yes, why? If no, then why?

No, unless they clone an army of elephants to take over Canada. :wink:

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by scidude

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no

No. Never. Absolutely not.

Why not? If a company is allowed to breed an animal, why not allow them to clone one?

That's like saying "since private companies are allowed to grow food, why not let them genetically engineer them to the point where they are toxic to eat?"

Oh, wait, they already are. Private major corporations are nothing but bad news. They'll manage to make cloning into some major profit, and in doing so they'll screw something up by cutting costs (they always do).

The same things go for everything a major company does. Business should never have a place in science. Ever. It's about discovery, not profit.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

That's like saying "since private companies are allowed to grow food, why not let them genetically engineer them to the point where they are toxic to eat?"

Ah the wonders of regulating private industry.

Assuming these "all corporations" are being properly and effectively regulated, we wouldn't have the problems that exist. Unfortunately, our regulations are as flimsy as we allow them to be...which is usually pretty flimsy.

The pivotal focus is money. Forget that, and you've wandered off into hippie land.

For a private corporation, the only concern is to get the owners more money, without going to jail. (That's pretty understandable.) On the public side, the only concern is the price of the stock. No one really cares how the company is making a profit, just so long as the stock price goes up.

That all said and done, private industry can prove to be just as beneficial or destructive as we allow them to be. If cloning becomes a hot topic, and the dowahs in charge of regulating them didn't do their job, well...stay away from the glowing chicken...

i'd like to say thank you to the people who spent time filling out my survey but could i ask for more people to do this survey, i still need quite a few more, it'd be highly appreciated. thanks.

It's too bad you can't create a multi-threaded poll. Or maybe this forum has that ability? Sorry, I'm being lazy. :wink:

multi-threaded poll?

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

That's like saying "since private companies are allowed to grow food, why not let them genetically engineer them to the point where they are toxic to eat?"

No, it's not. Genetic engineering allows you to create whole new animals with new DNA. Cloning simply allows you to copy an animal that already exists. You can't use cloning to create dangerous new things, since by necessity you have to already have an existing specimen to clone. If you’re worried about a company creating dangerous new life forms, there’s actually a lot more danger in allowing them to breed animals naturally since you never know how the DNA of two separate animals will end up combining.

1. Do you agree that cloning of animals should be made legal? Yes or no

Yes, for scientific purposes. (it may already be legal in your country. if so, remove the word "made" from your question)

2. Should the government spend more taxpayer’s money on research and refining cloning techniques? Yes or no

No, it's not very high on my list of priorities. There are far more important things than cloning that desparately need funding (like education and health care).

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no

Yes.

4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? If yes why? If no, then why?

No. I am against highly processed food in general, and cloning animals for food would be insane. Not because it's unhealthy, but because it's insanely unnecessary and much more complex, difficult, and expensive than most people realize. A very low percentage of attempted clonings are successful and it requires extreme care and attention. To go through so much trouble just to multiply farm animals would be idiotic. I would not support this idiocy by buying the product if I can avoid it (if it's labeled as it should be).

5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? If yes, describe the benefits/advantages. If no, then why not?

Yes. It helps increase our ability to perform well defined lab experiments and thus has the potential to increase our understanding of biology and help with the development of new medicine.

6. Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage Australian/your country's companies? If yes, why? If no, then why?

Yes, because if Australia does not allow cloning, it will reject the benefits stated under question 5.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

No, it's not. Genetic engineering allows you to create whole new animals with new DNA. Cloning simply allows you to copy an animal that already exists. You can't use cloning to create dangerous new things, since by necessity you have to already have an existing specimen to clone.

If you believe humans are perfect, okay. Go with that.

If you know the off chance that you will lose/gain genetic data through the process (it can happen), then you'd realize there would be a threat. Not to mention that most clones die due to being cloned improperly. It's obvious the system is imperfect, and also obvious that it could pose some danger due to that imperfection.

Also, if we happen to begin cloning and eating a particular animal that has a defect we don't know about...yeah, you get the picture.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

If you know the off chance that you will lose/gain genetic data through the process (it can happen), then you'd realize there would be a threat. Not to mention that most clones die due to being cloned improperly. It's obvious the system is imperfect, and also obvious that it could pose some danger due to that imperfection.

I'm not saying that there is zero chance of some genetic variation or damage somehow occurring in a clone. I am simply pointing out that there is going to be much less (if any) genetic variation in a clone than you would get if you actually allowed one animal to breed with another, which would result is all sorts of genes being swapped around and combined in new and interesting ways.

Yes, there might be genetic changes in any particular cloned animal. But there are always genetic changes in animals that are produced the old fashioned way, and the changes are likely to be much larger. If you are going to take the position that any genetic change to an animal is bad because it might be harmful, you should be in favor of cloning.

Cloning has a higher chance of producing genes which would be harmful. "natural" methods produce much safer stock if done properly. It's also easier to do it properly than with cloning.

I'm also going to vote for something which evolution has dealt with for hundreds of millions of years. As opposed to something humans just created.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Cloning has a higher chance of producing genes which would be harmful. "natural" methods produce much safer stock if done properly. It's also easier to do it properly than with cloning.

I doubt very much that you could provide evidence to back that assertion - especially since a large percentage of cattle pregnancies (and indeed, all mammal pregnancies) result in spontaneous abortions due to genetic defects.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

I doubt very much that you could provide evidence to back that assertion - especially since a large percentage of cattle pregnancies (and indeed, all mammal pregnancies) result in spontaneous abortions due to genetic defects.

Speaking of doubt, scifor. I doubt very much that you could provide evidence for that assertion.

Speaking of cattle, a large percentage of cattle have been bred down a genetic line for specific traits only. This type of Eugenics is bound to generate more and more flaws due to lack of genetic diversity. Other mammals, however, are fine and dandy.

Speaking of lack of genetic diversity, clones only increase that. Notice how I said "the natural methods, if done properly". properly being the key word. What most corporations do now is very similar to cloning, they cull anything and everything that doesn't give them the most money.

As for my own evidence, one need merely have googled. And yes, I did say "speaking" three times.

http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/1999/990430.htm
(explains how numerous defects show up due to the cloning process)
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/.../cloningrisks/
(explains the high failure rate of cloning)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning#Health_aspects
(more explanations of the low success rate due to loss of genetic data, or mutations)

It's a well-known fact that a very large fraction of mammal pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions. Look in and medical/vet textbook. It's estimated that something like 30% of human pregnancies spontaneously abort before the woman is ever even aware that she is pregnant.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

It's a well-known fact [...] a very large fraction of mammal pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions.

Really now?

Look in and medical/vet textbook. It's estimated [...] something like 30% of human pregnancies spontaneously abort before the woman is ever even aware that she is pregnant.

Emphasis is all mine. Nice to know science is so...well..."something like" and "estimated". Yeah, that's what facts are made of.

I asked for sources, not your off-hand knowledge that "something like 30%" happens. Nor does this rebuke my points, cloning is far more dangerous than evolution. Aside from that, spontaneous abortions ensure that most serious genetic flaws are removed. Cloning doesn't have that safeguard. You merely furthered my point from where I stand.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Nice to know science is so...well..."something like" and "estimated". Yeah, that's what facts are made of.

I asked for sources, not your off-hand knowledge that "something like 30%" happens. Nor does this rebuke my points, cloning is far more dangerous than evolution. Aside from that, spontaneous abortions ensure that most serious genetic flaws are removed. Cloning doesn't have that safeguard. You merely furthered my point from where I stand.

If you can't accept estimates and unsure statements, then you'll have a hard time in science. A lot of science, including medical science, is based on our best estimates. When it comes to complex organisms, it's not always easy to come up with solid numbers. In this example of abortions, probably the main reason why the word "estimated" was used is because, as scifor said, many spontaneous abortions, aka miscarriages, happen long before women are even aware that they are pregnant, and thusly, never get reported. So researchers have to extrapolate from a smaller sample size of reported miscarriages - thus the necessity of saying "estimated." Also, you're just playing with semantics by complaining about "something like." That just means it may be 29 or 31 percent, because it is after all an estimate. By the way, I've also heard about this phenomenon, in my vertebrate anatomy and phylogeny class at college, from my professor. Look it up yourself if you're so determined that it's false. But I think this is beside the point.

I work in a medical research lab, and we purposely introduce foreign genes into animals all the time. Often times we're not entirely sure what that gene does, so of course there may be side effects and interactions that we don't know about - but that's why we're experimenting with it in a controlled setting. To learn about it and understand it before it may be applied in medicine. Now I understand your fears that private companies might not be so careful about testing for side effects before turning out the product for profit, but they do still require testing. And even medicines turned out by non-profit companies can have long term side effects that won't be known or understood for some time.

So if you're going to worry about strange and unnatural gene interactions, you most certainly shouldn't limit yourself to cloning. As said earlier, cloning may generate a certain number of errors, but many other research techniques purposely introduce gross "errors" in order to study them, and many beneficial discoveries have occurred in this way. So don't bash cloning just because it introduces errors. Sure it does. But it can still be worthwhile.

Alright, now it's just ridiculous. I originally intended the last post to be mostly mocking at his own laziness, as well as my own for the obvious unwillingness on my part to spend time studying the subject. For to anyone who has, they'd obviously realize I made a few errs in my above post.

Not meant to be argumentative, of course, but I fully accept any closing statements. As I don't think anything is left to say (hence, for those capable of catching it, why I ended it as I did).

What I did not expect, was a self-righteous asshole thinking he can school me on the "almighty ways of science". Yes, Paralith, do educate me with your all-knowing ways.

Originally Posted by paralith

If you can't accept estimates and unsure statements, then you'll have a hard time in science. A lot of science, including medical science, is based on our best estimates. When it comes to complex organisms, it's not always easy to come up with solid numbers. In this example of abortions, probably the main reason why the word "estimated" was used is because, as scifor said, many spontaneous abortions, aka miscarriages, happen long before women are even aware that they are pregnant, and thusly, never get reported.

Thank you, oh wise and knowing one. For you obviously are so wise you would not miss contradictory statements! The parts I emphasized were surely not missed, after all, someone capable of writing in such mega-paragraphs doesn't miss anything. Apologies for making you type such a lengthy proclamation.

That just means it may be 29 or 31 percent, because it is after all an estimate. By the way, I've also heard about this phenomenon, in my vertebrate anatomy and phylogeny class at college, from my professor. Look it up yourself if you're so determined that it's false. But I think this is beside the point.

For those who are reading impaired, I made it clear I accepted that it happens. I did not, on the other hand, accept the silly attempt at a statistics given to me. Since it wasn't even looked up (a quick google or wiki would have sufficed). I did have fun with semantics, but the point of which was obviously lost to you.

I work in a medical research lab, and we purposely introduce foreign genes into animals all the time.

Do you also write lengthy posts while missing the original writers intended message? I admit it might be tongue-in-cheek, but it was not that hard to decipher. For others got it.

So if you're going to worry about strange and unnatural gene interactions, you most certainly shouldn't limit yourself to cloning. As said earlier, cloning may generate a certain number of errors, but many other research techniques purposely introduce gross "errors" in order to study them, and many beneficial discoveries have occurred in this way. So don't bash cloning just because it introduces errors. Sure it does. But it can still be worthwhile.

why thank you, God. Yes, I call you God. For nobody else is so wise and all-knowing as you. I mean, after all, you obviously know that I didn't know the obvious. Common knowledge is, after all, not very common now is it?

So I thank you, God. For you have enlightened me to the fullest. Now excuse me while I pray at my alter, filled with the hearts of sacraficed children in your honor.

P.S: By the way, God, since you're all-knowing you shouldn't come off like you haven't a clue about what I actually think. Just a tip.

P.P.S: Extreme sarcasm and "lulz" aside, I wouldn't mind you had you not replied as you have. Don't take it personally.

yikes, that's quite a response. I do apologize for my unintentional rudeness. I was merely going off of what I read in this thread, which I apparently read almost entirely incorrectly.

And despite the fact that I'll probably get called an asshole/god again for saying this, I think next time you should spend less time talking about what a dick I am and more time actually addressing the topic, which despite what you seem to think, is what I was trying to do. Again, my apologies.

Yes, I know that it was off topic, but it served its purpose. Unfortunately you might have also missed that if you assume I'll call you a "god/asshole" for saying so. I apparently just can't win.

In either case, I'm withdrawing from further debate.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Emphasis is all mine. Nice to know science is so...well..."something like" and "estimated". Yeah, that's what facts are made of.

I asked for sources, not your off-hand knowledge that "something like 30%" happens. Nor does this rebuke my points, cloning is far more dangerous than evolution.

Look, I don't remember the exact percentages by species and I'm not going to go through the trouble of looking them up just because you apparently want to be spoon-fed information. What are you hoping to get out of this discussion, exactly? If you are here because you are genuinely interested in learning about scientific topics, you can take the time to look it up. If you are only here to debate for sport, I suppose you can continue to demand that other people do your work for you and then declare “victory” in your "debate" when we have better things to do. I don't really care if you believe me or not.

Aside from that, spontaneous abortions ensure that most serious genetic flaws are removed. Cloning doesn't have that safeguard. You merely furthered my point from where I stand.

Of course cloning has that safeguard - a clone fetus with a serious genetic defect will spontaneously abort just like any other fetus. It's not like the mere fact that a fetus is a clone will somehow magically allow it to develop when it otherwise wouldn't.

Guys, can we try to tone down the hostility.

Jeremy, it would be helpful if you could stop calling people assholes every time they disagree with you. (I understand only assholes do that. :wink: )

sciforefugee, on a science forum it is reasonable to expect that statements will be backed up with appropriate citations, or references if required. I certainly aim to either provide sources with my initial post, or I am prepared to fully support it, if my statement is called into question. That approach seems reasonable, and scientific, to me.

Paralith, thank you for responding in good humour, despite the provocation.

Regards,
Ophiolite (wearing moderator hat).

Wow...rampant arguing leading to round-about arguing...this really IS a science forum. All we need now is Hitler and three or four congressmen.

Yes, there are many spontaneous abortions in nature.

Yes, there are only estimates.

In science, how do we know for instance that a mouse is pregnant? We mark down when the mouse was plugged. And then hope she is pregnant. Usually you only notice when you cut her open or if you late her go late-term and her belly region is enlarged.

If she isn't pregnant there can be many reasons, one of which could be a spontaneous abortion. Why don't we know exactly? For the same reason why we still don't know everything about mammalian early development. It occurs in an organ inside the body of the mother. It is very much unaccessible. A problem that has plagued developmental biologists interested in mammalian development for 'centuries'.

as for Jeremy's point:

"Cloning has a higher chance of producing genes which would be harmful. "natural" methods produce much safer stock if done properly. It's also easier to do it properly than with cloning. "

I would also like to see something to back that up. Genes are genes. Cloning doesn't alter the genes themselves in theory. What it can alter is the environment of the genes. Regulatory elements that are covered or uncovered. Methylation differences between clone and original. The genotype should be exactly the same, although it can lead to a different phenotype due to epigenetic environment.

The purpose of cloning is to reproduce a specific genotype. Natural methods cannot do that efficiently. What you will end up doing is to make a shitload of crosses and hope one will turn out rather similar then the one you have in mind. That's not comparable. Hence your suggestion that natural methods are safer is not applicable.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

What it can alter is the environment of the genes. Regulatory elements that are covered or uncovered. Methylation differences between clone and original. The genotype should be exactly the same, although it can lead to a different phenotype due to epigenetic environment.

Proof that you're definitely more familiar with biology lingo than I am. nevertheless, the proof was in itself. Unfortunately not very clearly expressed (My bad writing habits..).

It is, essentially, as you stated. I did give a wikipedia link (and a few others) that also illustrate how genetic loss is possible under cloning conditions.

The purpose of cloning is to reproduce a specific genotype. Natural methods cannot do that efficiently. What you will end up doing is to make a shitload of crosses and hope one will turn out rather similar then the one you have in mind. That's not comparable. Hence your suggestion that natural methods are safer is not applicable.

Safer for the suggested situation, spurious. I thought I would clarify that. The suggested situation, when the debate began, was eating cloned meat. I never argued against anything but that. It might appear that outside observers have become confused about that.

Cloned meat will never be viable of course since cloning is expensive.

I very much doubt though that there will be a difference between cloned meat and 'regular' meat. It's pretty much the same tissue. Muscle, connective tissue, bloodvessels, a bit of nerve tissue.

Alterations in the 'genes' will not really affect this much. It can in theory of course. It could produce a certain molecule in excessive quantities that could be detrimental to humans. But it's a very unlikely scenario. The same could happen in regular animals.

Of course I am now only expressing my opinions in this particular post based on the basic knowledge I have. I would like to emphasize that.

Indeed, your opinions appear sound.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

sciforefugee, on a science forum it is reasonable to expect that statements will be backed up with appropriate citations, or references if required. I certainly aim to either provide sources with my initial post, or I am prepared to fully support it, if my statement is called into question. That approach seems reasonable, and scientific, to me.

I provide citations when I submit articles to journals, or when I give a presentation at a conference. I don’t generally provide citations on message boards when I make statements of widely-known fact that anyone could confirm with a little googling. If someone really wants to know about it, they can check. If someone doesn’t believe me, well, I frankly don’t really care. It's not like I claimed that 23% of Armenians are recessive for hemophilia, or some other bizarre fact that most people would have trouble easily looking up.

A major problem with these boards in general is that people seem to think they're at a highschool debate competition, where the truth doesn't matter so long as they are able to "win" an argument. Refusing to make a tiny bit of effort to look something up simply because the answers that you find might contradict your original position isn't the behavior of a person who is genuinely interested in learning new things. I’m not trying to debate, teach a class, or write journal articles here; I’m trying to have a conversation. If you're going to shout "prove it" any time I tell you that the sky is blue, it's not really worth my time to prove it to you - fixing your erroneous beliefs is your own problem. If you want to take that as proof that I'm simply unable to provide references because I'm wrong, I don't really care.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

sciforefugee, on a science forum it is reasonable to expect that statements will be backed up with appropriate citations, or references if required. I certainly aim to either provide sources with my initial post, or I am prepared to fully support it, if my statement is called into question. That approach seems reasonable, and scientific, to me.

I provide citations when I submit articles to journals, or when I give a presentation at a conference. I don’t generally provide citations on message boards when I make statements of widely-known fact that anyone could confirm with a little googling. If someone really wants to know about it, they can check. If someone doesn’t believe me, well, I frankly don’t really care. It's not like I claimed that 23% of Armenians are recessive for hemophilia, or some other bizarre fact that most people would have trouble easily looking up.

A major problem with these boards in general is that people seem to think they're at a highschool debate competition, where the truth doesn't matter so long as they are able to "win" an argument. Refusing to make a tiny bit of effort to look something up simply because the answers that you find might contradict your original position isn't the behavior of a person who is genuinely interested in learning new things. I’m not trying to debate, teach a class, or write journal articles here; I’m trying to have a conversation. If you're going to shout "prove it" any time I tell you that the sky is blue, it's not really worth my time to prove it to you - fixing your erroneous beliefs is your own problem. If you want to take that as proof that I'm simply unable to provide references because I'm wrong, I don't really care.

I think in some cases it's appropriate to ask for references and in others, like Scifor said, it's a waste of time. If I'm in a discussion with someone who isn't being hostile, and who is approaching the topic with an open mind I'm more than happy to do a little grunt work digging up references. Even if only to make sure what I'm saying is accurate. But for people who aren't discussing - but are arguing - I'll be damned if I waste my time doing their homework for them because they aren't particularly interested in the actual link anyway. They just want to get to the next post without appearing to be the "loser".
Sorry for the opinion, I realize this isn't on topic.

What would be the benefit of cloning animals anyway ?

You can't start an Empire and take over the galaxy without clones!

And lasers. Don't forget lasers.

and growth accelerant. who wants to wait 20 years for your army to grow up?

Ahh yes, two day old, fully grown chickens with lasers cellotaped to their heads.... It obvious now i think of it......

You silly. You want frickin sharks with laser beams on their heads.

Let's clone Republicans and Democrats and put them in rooms together. We can sell tickets.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

What would be the benefit of cloning animals anyway ?

cloning is only beneficial if the genotype of the original is valuable.

That could be because it is genetically modified. That could be because that particular genotype has created a superior phenotype, for instance a horse of superior racing qualities.

Breeding it will not reproduce this form. Cloning might.

Thanks. So it would only be necessary to clone an animal if the particular quality you were looking for was brought about by environmental factors ?

Of course, what happens when the clones eventually replace the natural original species?

You could perpetuate cloning to the point where there only exists clones.

Originally Posted by Wolf

Of course, what happens when the clones eventually replace the natural original species?

You could perpetuate cloning to the point where there only exists clones.

Since the clone is a member of the original species, the original species cannot disappear.

What can disappear is genetic diversity. A sure way to extinction.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

What can disappear is genetic diversity. A sure way to extinction.

I guess that's what I was trying to say. I fumbled it. :wink:

I don't claim to be a genetics expert, but it seems to me that erasing an entire species with clones is a bad idea. (I see the potential for this happening with farm animals as high.)

In a probably unrelated viewpoint, farmers are having similar issues with their crops. Hundreds of years of breeding and boosting have produced crops which are inferior to natural plants. Although they produce good harvests and resist certain problems (like bugs or chemicals), when the wild plants around them encroach they are quickly under threat. In other words, the farm plants had become so specialized at growing in the ideal conditions of the farm field, that when they had to deal with the natural world, they no longer had as strong an ability to survive.

I guess I could Google-fu some articles about that...but I'm not even sure that's relevant.

Originally Posted by scidude

I'm doing a cloning survey for school and if people can post their answers here, it'd be really helpful.

1. Do you agree that cloning of animals should be made legal? Yes or no

No
Because they are just going t go crazy with it, too much of a good thing

2. Should the government spend more taxpayer’s money on research and refining cloning techniques? Yes or no

No
There is better things to be spending money on

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no
half yes half no
Perhaps as a way of gaining knowledge for the future

4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? If yes why? If no, then why?
Depends on if it is quality meat or tastes like the same old crap we eat now.

5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? If yes, describe the benefits/advantages. If no, then why not?
In the long run probably yes, perhaps the extinct will no longer be extinct

6. Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage Australian/your country's companies? If yes, why? If no, then why?
Money wise probably yes

Originally Posted by scidude

I'm doing a cloning survey for school and if people can post their answers here, it'd be really helpful.

1. Do you agree that cloning of animals should be made legal? Yes or no

2. Should the government spend more taxpayer’s money on research and refining cloning techniques? Yes or no

3. Do you think that we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes or no

4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? If yes why? If no, then why?

5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? If yes, describe the benefits/advantages. If no, then why not?

6. Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage Australian/your country's companies? If yes, why? If no, then why?

I would suggest that it is important to acknowledge that the people on this forum are, for the most part, interested in science, and possibly biology in particular. The only conclusions you will be able to draw will be in regards to that 'type' of person. If you went onto a religious forum and asked the same question I can't expect you would get the same result. So it must be said that there is some bias in the survey. Now I know, this is possibly not an issue, and if it's just for interest sake then I guess it doesn't really matter. But as you said it was for school, I would give the idea of bias in your survey a thought. It is of course possible that you are asking lots of other people, from different walks of life, to answer your survey, which of course would minimize this bias.

thanks for your opinion orbit, i never did thought of the bias but this is not only the source of answers i am getting. i have already finished my survey so thank you for all the people who helped.

Originally Posted by scidude

thanks for your opinion orbit, i never did thought of the bias but this is not only the source of answers i am getting. i have already finished my survey so thank you for all the people who helped.

I thought that you may already have other sources but thought I'd mention it just in case. I hope that you got some interesting results.