Saturday, February 6, 2010

Dolly-first successful cloning animal

Throughout the past thirteen years, scientists have tried many tactics to cloning. The first successful cloning of an animal was in Edinburgh, Scotland. They had successfully cloned the sheep known as Dolly. Dolly had been cloned in 1997 and died 2003 from a lung disease. The thing about this is that Dolly had actually died from a natural disease that most lambs’ get. So, is it that there is so much speculation on this topic of if it’s moral or not; if Dolly had actually died from something that is VERY common in most lamb deaths.


It also got me to thinking, what truly is the difference when a doctor “implants” your egg and your husbands’ sperm into you, isn’t in some that too cloning? It too is being done a scientific way to where they still need to “CAREFULLY” do the procedure correctly or it might not be effective. All I know is that these two procedures are quite close when it comes to most of the substances seem to be the same. To create a clone you must need an egg and sperm to create this “clone” of oneself or of someone else. Another question that pops into my head when deciding if this is moral is crossing the line concept. Why is it ethical and moral to have intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) done but cloning is both ethically and morally wrong in most people’s eyes. Could it be that maybe in some ways, ICSI, is just more or less one of things that seem to more typical to the common person as compared to cloning?







http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr03/030415f.asp (Dolly link)

1 comment:

  1. Cloning does not require both a sperm and egg. If I recall correctly, the cloning of Dolly did require an egg, but the genetic material in the egg was replaced with the genetic material from another cell. The result is that cloning yields a genetic copy of the single parent, whereas implantation yields a combination of genetic material from two parents. Does this affect your argument?

    ReplyDelete