Should scientist use cloning to help save endangered species?

July 2, 2009 | By Rose In Biology |
endangered species



Need Biology Help!

Should scientist use cloning to help save endangered species? Give two reasons to support your opinion?

thx!

Other Related Posts:

8 Comments so far

  1. BABY BELL on July 3rd, 2009

    I would say no
    1) because it is my personal belief that its just evolution, we should try and save species by as many natural means as possible but when we turn to science u are messing with the natural order (in my opinion!) of course people may have differing opinions relating to global warming etc and our responsibility.
    2) cloning is just playing god.
    Are you doing this for a project? if so you can probably find lots of official stuff online?

  2. Lara M. on July 6th, 2009

    depends, the ultimate aim is preservation but interfering with the natural course of nature should not be allowed. I cloning should be allowed only if:
    a- there is certain proof that the disappearance of a species is caused by human activity (e.g. hunting, natural habitats invaded by civilization, introduction of another species that caused a reduction or damage in the number of the endangered specie, etc). It might happen that some species just disappear due to natural selection.
    b- the aim of the cloning is ONLY to preserve the species (you might risk to clone species for their fur, etc). I think the aim of such introduction should be ultimately to introduce the species to their natural environment.
    c- if the process of cloning and re-introduction does not damage another species (introduction of a carnivore might affect for example the number of preys).

    dunno, this is what I think.

  3. Stacy R on July 6th, 2009

    Do we have any choice?
    1.) We are destroying our plant, making it impossible for anything to survive.
    2.) We need plants and animals to live ourselves.

  4. eare on July 8th, 2009

    they should not
    1st reason - as people understand, kind of related to evolution…each zone of years there will be certain animals live during that time.Their adaptation are suitable for certain timeframe. For example dinasours; they were created during the years where no people or less people are around.Means that they were suitable during that time only. If they were clone now, the jurrasic park movie will be real.

    2nd reason- Once you clone an animal, it needs monitoring of population growth. Or not, you might disturb the ecosystem or the food chain or life cycle.

    One exeption is- endangered species might can be clone in the intention for the next generation to see them. However, the clone must be put in isolation-this still sounds not a very good idea indeed….

  5. Nolan on July 8th, 2009

    NO,

    1.Extinction is a natural process of evolution and even if the human species cause the extinction of a animal or plant, nature should be allowed to run it’s course.

    2. Cloning a dying species water’s down the overall survival of the fittest concept and promotes less adaptation, the most basic, yet vital aspect of existence of every living organism

  6. btpage0630 on July 10th, 2009

    As a last resort? Yes. Understand that it is unlikely to be successful long term as genetic variation will then not be an aide to that species down the road and any vulnerability/susceptibility in the individual cloned will then apply to the entire species.

    1. We should, because diversity of life is important and we learn from observing the species around us. Preserving the species that exist give us more opportunities to learn from that species. You can bet we’d be trying to save the human race this way, so why not other species?

    2. We should because cloning is no more invasive and “meddling” than captive breeding, or in vitro fertilization, both methods which are largely accepted for helping a species survive. Either way, our “help” is necessary for the continued survival. So why cast cloning in a separate category from in vitro or selective breeding, where our science and our intervention is re-shaping the genetic makeup of that species?

  7. adrian_08 on July 11th, 2009

    I say no cause:

    1) Cloning is a expensive and risky proses. It could probably fail
    and kill the species and cause it to be extinct from this world.

    2) If the species survives the cloning proses, the species may
    be cloned improperly (missing limb etc.). The clonned
    species will also be more likely to fall sick than the non-
    cloned species.

    Conclusion: Cloning just makes matter worse. >:o

  8. secretsauce on July 12th, 2009

    Yes.

    To the extent that humans are *causing* mass extinctions, it is a worthwhile thing to do. It is a little like burning down somebody’s house, and then apologizing by preserving a photograph of it … but it is better than just saying that it’s “natural” for these species go go extinct, after we caused that extinction.

    A second reason is that a lot of these species have valuable functions in medicine or other benefits that we have not yet discovered. For example, many plants have medicinal properties we don’t know of yet, and so preserving these species by cloning would be useful. Or some animals have proteins (like a certain type of insulin) that can be useful to us.

    But to me, thinking of other species only in terms of their usefulnes to us is part of the problem for why we treat the planet like it’s our own personal property to screw up. The real reasons are moral ones.

Leave a reply