This is why the government doesn't listen to the public on genetic matters. No offense to you guys, but you clearly don't understand the science behind DNA mapping and cloning (except perhaps Link1130). So let me give you a quick lesson.
Why did we map the human genome? Well, it does make human cloning easier, but the Human Genome Project wouldn't have gotten nearly as much funding as it did if that was its only purpose. Nobody in the government thought human cloning was a good idea. They all recognized that we produce quite enough humans all by ourselves (plus there's the fact that producing a human clone would involve the destruction of hundreds of embryos which some people consider living).
Not only did we not map the human genome for the purpose of cloning humans, it wasn't even really necessary to do that in order to clone humans. The sheep genome hasn't been mapped, but scientists were able to create Dolly. The reasons we mapped the human genome was because our genes determine our predispositions for certain diseases or even give us diseases outright. We all have problems with our DNA. Some of us may be susceptible to lung cancer (no big deal—just don't smoke) while others may be born with the gene for cystic fibrosis built into their genetic code (I believe cystic fibrosis is fatal in all infants born with it). If we map out the human genome and then determine which sections are related to which traits, we can do a DNA test on a baby as soon as he or she is born and figure out which diseases he or she is susceptible to. Then doctors can direct parents on the things they should do to prevent their kid from developing major health problems. Now, this raises privacy issues, but on the whole, it will help people live much better.
What would mapping the genome of, say, a zebra do? Not much. It wouldn't help all that much in the area of cloning. We'd just be able to determine what traits the zebra will have, and if we do some fancy engineering, we may be able to create pink-striped zebras. Mapping the genome of animals is not all that useful for cloning purposes (it's useful for other things, so it's not a waste of time. It's just not all that useful for cloning).
So why don't we just clone endangered animals? I can think of a few reasons:
1. The process is very expensive and wastes lots of embryos. Something like a hundred embryos are created and destroyed before one of them survives to become viable.
2. Thus far, clones have aging problems. Dolly, for example, shows signs of senescence much earlier than she should be.
3. Even if these obstacles are overcome, the species is going to be in big trouble a few generations down the line. What do you get when you create a bunch of clones and those clones subsequently mate with each other? That's right: inbreeding. This causes a huge decrease in genetic variability (which decreases the survivability of the entire species) as well as raises the rate of genetic diseases (this is why inbred families look so gross). So as Link1130 pointed out, you'd just have to keep cloning the clones or else they would all be destroyed by their lack of genetic variability.
Sorry, Ric, but cloning endangered animals to keep the species alive is a bad idea.
|