DNA Mapping and Genetic Cloning.

Ric · 02-22-2002, 07:12 PM

I was just thinking about the matter of cloning when I started to think, scientists are mapping or have mapped the entire human dna strand, this may one day lead to cloning. I then read a post about exotic animals, this made the topic of endangered species enter my mind, something which concerns me a lot.

Then an idea came-

now while some of you believe cloning is wrong I am sure you will agree with what I am about to say.

Why do we need to map the human dna strand. Whats the point, we dont want to clone humans, theres too many of us already.

So why dont we do somethin worthwile. Map the entire DNA strand of all the endangered species on our planet, Great White Sharks, Tigers, Blue Whales that way we will be able to clone them and perhaps start to make amends for the way humans have purged them during our existance on this planet which when yo think about the fact that Earth is around 4500 million years old is mearly a blink in its history.

Anyway what do you think, do you agree with me or what.

The_Dunadan · 02-22-2002, 07:24 PM

cloning endangered species sounds like a good idea, but i'm no scientist, yet.

Gamer · 02-22-2002, 07:30 PM

i dont really see a problem with it, i mean, what if your pet dog got hit by a car, with cloning you could have a new one...the same one!

Happydude · 02-22-2002, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gamer
i dont really see a problem with it, i mean, what if your pet dog got hit by a car, with cloning you could have a new one...the same one!

you've seen "The Sixth Day" to many times

Ginkasa · 02-22-2002, 08:03 PM

If we do clone a bunch of animals to save an endangered species, we'll have to keep cloning them because they'll be the same animal that they cloned so theyn won't be able to mate with each other or anything.

Xantar · 02-22-2002, 08:32 PM

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.

The_Dunadan · 02-22-2002, 08:37 PM

it sounded like a good idea..................

LoudHowardZERO · 02-22-2002, 08:50 PM

I was a clone gone wrong

Actually I still am...

One Winged Angel · 02-22-2002, 09:35 PM

It's not a great idea to screw with mother nature. If the earth thinks it's time for an animal to be extinct, let it do it's thing. You never know what could happen in we cloned an animal that is supposed to be extinct.

azazela31 · 02-23-2002, 04:59 AM

Disagree...

What if they start clone perfect humans, whats going to happen to us??

What if the clone a NEW race or SPECIES!! F@CK THAT!!

Kitana85 · 02-23-2002, 06:35 AM

After reading Xantar's post, I tempted to change my answer. But anyhow, everyone has made really interesting points. Back to what the genetic code was found for... all the people we have now, do we really want to find genetic predispositions to illnesses and thereby causing another population boom?

Revival · 02-23-2002, 11:11 AM

Heh.. I've gotten so programmed to these topics. I click on the topic, and scroll down to read Xantar's post -- then I read the rest.. heh.. that's weird

GameMaster · 02-23-2002, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gamer
i dont really see a problem with it, i mean, what if your pet dog got hit by a car, with cloning you could have a new one...the same one!

It would not be the same dog. Physically and chemically identical but it wouldn't have the original dogs memory. So, it would be kinda weird...

Ric · 02-23-2002, 02:13 PM

But by mapping the DNA chain you can change things so that in breeding does not ocurr, you can also change it to determine weather it is male or female, also more than one chain from more than one of that species can be mapped.

I am against cloning of humans it is wrong and I am uneasy on the topic as a whole but as was pointed out by someone in an earlier post, when mother nature says its time for a species to go its time for a species to go. I am not talking about the reintroduction of those already extinct animals but the ones on the verge of extinction because of human beings, we are not mother nature but we can make amends. Perhaps in 20 years there will be no tigers left because of us. If we map their DNA now in 20 years when the sciences have imperoved (they will continue weather you like it or not you see) then mabey it can be done more humanely, I was not aware of the destruction of so many embryos and realise now how bad it is, as far as I am concerned it is a life the second the spearm makes contact with the egg. However I am gonna stick to my guns, we are killing them we should help them out, or kill ourselves and lets face it, logic would dictate that that isnt going to happen. I for one would not take my own life and the powers that be are afraid of a WW3 ocurring.

Xantar · 02-23-2002, 05:06 PM

Aha. So for these extinct species, we're not just mapping their genome. We're interpreting their DNA as well. The problem is that entire process takes a lot of time. We've mapped the human genome, but we're not expected to get really useful information out of it for another 5 years because we don't know what the long string of letters means. We're not even sure what all the important parts are (some parts aren't important).

It would be even worse if we did the same thing for all the endangered animals. If we genetically engineer them so that the problems of inbreeding don't occur, we'd have to know exactly which parts of their genome means what. Otherwise, our tampering may produce pandas with five arms (or something similarly undesirable).

The number of endangered species is, what, 70 or so? I don't recall exactly, but there are a lot of them. None of them has a genome as long as humans', but it's plenty long enough that it would take a few years just to map each one. And then to interpret each one would take another few years. And then to develop genetic engineering techniques for each one would take perhaps another year or two (you have to use a different technique for each animals because all their eggs look different, for one thing). All of this costs money. It would cost several billion dollars at least. Billions that could be put to much better use such as stopping the cutting of rainforests, curbing pollution or stopping whatever other activities we are engaging in that make animals endangered or extinct.

By the way, did I mention that during those years when we're researching the genome of animals, they're still dying off from the things humans do? The fact is, Ric, your solution only treats the symptoms without dealing with the disease. Artificially keeping pandas alive isn't going to help them if we keep destroying the bamboo plants that they eat. It's possible to save pandas, for example, if we would stop destroying their habitat, but doing so requires money, and I think it's far better to spend money on preserving panda habitats than throwing it away cloning them.