Should People Clone Endangered Species of Animals? Why or why not?

Question

should endangered species be cloned?

Answer 1

I agree with saving habitat and doing things right.  When it comes to things like that I have mixed emotions.  On one hand I think that we shouldn't be tampering with that sort of things.  I think it shouldn't be used for luxury or any other frivolous reason.  I also think that if there is a true benefit from using it to help prevent the total extinction of a species, then I don't think I could say it's bad.  It's so difficult to see that things like that are kept in safe and capable hands, there to me lies the problem.

Answer 2

To the best of my understanding of the cloning process.

You would accomplish nothing by "Cloning" endangered species, since cloning is reproducing the same individual over.  You would wind up with two animals the same, no way of propagating the species (Like marrying yourself)

Answer 3

first you should try to preserve their environment and try to get them to make it on their own. If u clone them they wont live very long and as far as i no they wont be able to bread and the clones well have the same DNA as the host they were cloned from and that can also cause some problems.

Answer 4

absolutely. no problem with that. same animals, but more of them.

Answer 5

Nature should be left the way it is. Plus there is no proof that genes wont *mutate* causing the animals to inhabit new and possibly dangerous charestics.

**mutate-- error in coding of DNA.

All this was on a video my class was watching for a case study.

Answer 6

Yes! or let them die off naturally

Answer 7

i don't see why not. we are GOD after all aren't we? whether you believe in God or not IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO INTERFERE WITH NATURE! our government has ignorantly decided that it is safe for us to eat cloned meat. how many years of research did they do before the F.D.A.gave them the STAMP OF APPROVAL. 0 or less?

p.s. yahoo censored my answer to a global warming question.

HAVE-A-LOVING-DAY!

Answer 8

gee, i see that "no, there shouldn't be any endangered species." is popular.

but it would seem to me, that misses the point.

i don't have a problem with it.

(unless, of course, it's a flu virus, or a small pox germ.)

cloning will not increase the gene pool.

it will, however, increase the odds that the gene pool that exists will be able to reproduce.

generally, that's a good thing.

Edit:  concerning genes mutating, i've not heard any evidence at all that cloned animals are any more subject to mutation that animals resulting from normal reproduction, so i think that's not an issue.

Answer 9

I really don't think they should. It's unatural. Also, think about this; we are chopping down trees everywhere, destroying animals habitats, and we're polluting, also demolishing these animals natural resources, but then we just walk right away thinking that it's no big deal. We don't care how much paper we use, and our president obviously doesn't care either. WE are destroying the land. WE are ruining these animals lives and entire species. WE are causing all this and now we want to start cloning animals? We killed them in the first place, so what are we doing, addmitting that it was wrong and trying to bring back the species? It may seem like that but it isn't like that because we still do it, we still chop and pollute and waste. So, no, I don't think people should clone animals. They should make a choice, either be with the animals, or not.

Answer 10

if cloning was a perfect science than I would say go for it but at present I really don't think it is a safe science.We would be better of trying to protect and save the natural environment that these animals are living in now and hope they can do it on there own.

Answer 11

No we should just preserve their natural habitats and stop being a reason for their endangerment.

Answer 12

Environment for wildlife is the key issue.  Buy a hunting license, because it is one of the most efficient ways to support wildlife and habitat.  You can just buy a regular license or a special stamp (i.e. a "duck stamp") to support certain species.

Cloning won't work because it is worse than inbreeding (like first cousins marrying cause defective kids).  Clones are all one individual so any genetic defects will come out in a generation or two.  The key is habitat and maintaining genetic diversity.

Here's how genetic diversity works in humans.  Some people are born with resistance to smallpox.  Starting the early middle ages and until the 20th century, there's been smallpox which is a highly contagious, killer disease.  That means that those who survived those centuries all have some measure of resistance to smallpox.  All others died off, unable to reproduce their non-resistant young.

So let's say there's a tiny island in the Caribbean (theorectical example only) which was originally populated by one couple, neither individual having immunity to smallpox.  Then Christophero Colombu comes along to take some coconuts and infects this island.  What would happen?

This is an issue in case a new virus mutates, such as the bird flu, which might mutate again.  Right now it's killing birds, tomorrow it might kill humans.  Genetic diversity is the only way to prevent the entire population (birds or human) from getting wiped out.

Aside: in fact, the genocide in the Americas happened to use germ warfare in part and killing off all the buffalo as the other part.  Blankets infected with smallpox were given or traded to friendly Indians by the army.  Federal bounties were paid for buffalo tongues to "market hunters" who used everything short of cannons to kill buffalo.  Another atrocity wrongfully pegged on sport hunters who are Americas largest group of active conservationists.

Answer 13

No, god only put so many on earth for a reason.