The ethics of cloning extinct animals

[Anomalocaris]

I understand where people are coming from with their uncertainty regarding cloning.
"Think about how you would feel if you were placed in a world thousands and thousands of years beyond your time period, think about that terrifying feeling". It seems to me today that society has separated into ignorant common people, and scientists. I mean, why do scientists - that are many times smarter than you - have to listen to your moral claptrap. We are halted by these morally correct people that feel it is "wrong" to clone animals.

The same counts for stem cell research and rejuvenating aging, the same case. People are spewing moral lines of wisdom to scientists. When did we start getting so afraid of being immoral. What about guns, the atomic bomb, biological weapons, GM food etc.
If we are so afraid of doing wrong, how are ever going to improve?

The more I hear about random people in society having such a big influence on science, the more pissed I get. Especially when religious people get involved.

I think trying to restrict other people's options and freedom in the name of morality is often a compensation mechanism for being unwilling to allow conventional morality to infringe upon one's own wealth and perogatives.

[max-greece]

Well before we get all excited at the prospect of a slew of dinosaurs and marine reptiles tearing up the place I don't think its likely we will see those cloned any time soon.

More likely are recently extinct creatures or particularly well preserved ones. Personally I'd love to see a Tasmanian Tiger and we might find a sufficiently well preserved Mammoth in the Tundra but I'd be really surprised if we managed to get enough viable DNA to restore any creature more than about 10,000 years old - and precious few of those.

Would love to see a ground sloth too - they were enormous and all but bullet-proof but it doesn't look like they lived in areas where soft-tissue would be well enough preserved.

I imagine Dire Wolves would be popular too for some reason....

[Anomalocaris]

Well before we get all excited at the prospect of a slew of dinosaurs and marine reptiles tearing up the place I don't think its likely we will see those cloned any time soon.

More likely are recently extinct creatures or particularly well preserved ones. Personally I'd love to see a Tasmanian Tiger and we might find a sufficiently well preserved Mammoth in the Tundra but I'd be really surprised if we managed to get enough viable DNA to restore any creature more than about 10,000 years old - and precious few of those.

Would love to see a ground sloth too - they were enormous and all but bullet-proof but it doesn't look like they lived in areas where soft-tissue would be well enough preserved.

I imagine Dire Wolves would be popular too for some reason....

I suspect there is a big gap between DNA that is well enough preserved to unambigiously establish relationship with living animals, and having DNA well preserved enough so it is simple to make a viable clone of the original animal.

I am guessing even with DNA of animals that have died just a few thousand years ago, resurrection would not involve cloning so much as trying to compare degraded DNA from many different cells, guessing what the degraded sections might have originally looked like, trying to arificially rebuild these sections, and then crossing your fingers and hoping the resulting animal would be viable.

[max-greece]

Well before we get all excited at the prospect of a slew of dinosaurs and marine reptiles tearing up the place I don't think its likely we will see those cloned any time soon.

More likely are recently extinct creatures or particularly well preserved ones. Personally I'd love to see a Tasmanian Tiger and we might find a sufficiently well preserved Mammoth in the Tundra but I'd be really surprised if we managed to get enough viable DNA to restore any creature more than about 10,000 years old - and precious few of those.

Would love to see a ground sloth too - they were enormous and all but bullet-proof but it doesn't look like they lived in areas where soft-tissue would be well enough preserved.

I imagine Dire Wolves would be popular too for some reason....

I suspect there is a big gap between DNA that is well enough preserved to unambigiously establish relationship with living animals, and having DNA well preserved enough so it is simple to make a viable clone of the original animal.

I am guessing even with DNA of animals that have died just a few thousand years ago, resurrection would not involve cloning so much as trying to compare degraded DNA from many different cells, guessing what the degraded sections might have originally looked like, trying to arificially rebuild these sections, and then crossing your fingers and hoping the resulting animal would be viable.

Agreed. I'd suggest on this basis, therefore, that only those examples well preserved enough which also have close living relatives would be good candidates as you could borrow existing DNA to fill in the gaps.

Mammoth/Elephant might be. Dire Wolf/ Grey wolf should be.

The result wouldn't be exactly like the original species - more a "close enough" facsimile.

[salamenfuckyou]

I think that making mistakes within science is a part of improving and advancing. If people are all the time afraid of trying out new ideas because of moral standpoints, then I think those morals should be discarded.

[BrokenQuill92]

I think that making mistakes within science is a part of improving and advancing. If people are all the time afraid of trying out new ideas because of moral standpoints, then I think those morals should be discarded.

It's well enough to speak of mistakes for progress but what of the mistakes that make our fellow humans suffer? And just because we have the ability do something doesn't mean it it's ethical or will advance us as a race. Progress for progress' sake should be prohibited, we should weigh our ability to do against the well being of all. That being said I'm still pro-cloning.

[Elskidor]

I've never thought about it before, but I don't see a problem with it.

[MJ the Skeptical]

I don't think it is but a lot people seem to think we'll pull a Frakenstine or Jurassic Park if we're not careful. I was wondering about the thoughts of other non - believers on the topic!

I'm in favor of cloning to save a species, it's the ethical imperative. As for extinct animals, it wouldn't be unethical to the extinct animals. I seriously doubt we would mass clone large dinosaurs that could easily repopulate themself within in generation.

[*Deidre*]

Now that I'm no longer religious, I'm not against cloning. However, I don't believe in being ethically reckless. We may not answer to a higher power, but we answer to each other. Everything we do or don't, in this life, leaves a foot print for the next generation.

We still need to be prudent about how far we take cloning.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Now that I'm no longer religious, I'm not against cloning. However, I don't believe in being ethically reckless. We may not answer to a higher power, but we answer to each other. Everything we do or don't, in this life, leaves a foot print for the next generation.

We still need to be prudent about how far we take cloning.

Meh, that will likely never be a problem because we don't take cloning far enough in the first place, people still think it's evil or unnatural.