Cloning Survey From USA Today

The following survey results were presented in USA Today on January 14, 1998. Do the results surprise you? Why? Why not? Fill in your comments below to create a class discussion. Remember that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and that we all need to respect that opinion. This discussion can work well if everyone is respectful and civil. Having said that, enjoy the differences of opinion and learn from them. If you find this approach interesting, I can find other articles and post them as well.

Bio 4 Home Page

Name


Comments

Submitted Comments

Mike
Sun Oct 22 23:22:16 PDT 2000
This is mostly in responce to Laura. I think the reason that most people are against human cloning and the reason that it has been banned in many countries is because of the dangers of it. Humans are supposed to be harder to clone than animals. When the sheep Dolly was cloned, there were 277 fertilized eggs. Only one of them made it. I think that most people feel that is too high of a risk.
Gerret hezeleger
Sat Oct 21 13:32:42 Atlantic Daylight Time 2000
Im with ya Aaron
Aaron Rose (Big Gay Al)
Sat Oct 21 13:20:41 Atlantic Daylight Time 2000
I Belive clonig world be cool so i could clone by self and fuck myself
Holly
Tue Oct 17 23:57:39 PDT 2000
I think we are all afraid to do it because nothing like this has been done before. No one likes to be the first car out on a green light because you might get smashed, same thing. The churches are breathing down the back of sciences neck. The roman catholic church set us back 2000 years, if we keep letting them help make these desicions of "If we can play god" they will hold us back even more. Come on give me a break it's going to happen sooner or later so let it happen sooner I am all for it GO FOR IT!
Raven
Tue Oct 17 09:44:06 MDT 2000
I agree with the cloning of organs but not with the cloning of actual humans. I think its morally wrong. Let's stop playing god.
richard cranium
Mon Oct 16 08:50:46 EDT 2000
your qusetions are whack go whack a monkey whack every thig in site retard whack your mama
PIzza
Sun Oct 15 10:14:55 EDT 2000
Hi Jeb2000
Pizaa
Sun Oct 15 10:13:02 EDT 2000
Great
Laura
Fri Oct 13 15:44:16 EDT 2000
I am completely surprised that more people don't agree with cloning. (Specifically human cloning.) Is it because these people aren't well educated? To me it seems like the only logical explanation. If you think cloning is wrong because it is trying to play God then consider this: Have ever had a friend or loved one survive a car accident or a heart attack because of medical technology? If yes, then I can assume you think performing surgery, taking medication, putting someone on a respirator, and artificial fertilization is also playing God. We already do that with no problems. Why draw the line here? If you picture “mad scientists” making clones of Hitler and planning world domination then consider this: “Mad scientist don’t exist.” Also, there would be rules and guidelines for cloning (just like everything else). Hitler was not genetically programmed to kill. He simply grew up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even if we did clone Hitler, his NURTURE (upbringing) would be different. We have developed medical technology to help save human lives. Why stop where we are? If a child with leukemia can have his bone marrow cloned in order to save his/her life then we should do it. What about someone who needs a transplant? Organs can be cloned and the person receiving the transplant won’t have to suffer a rejection by the body. Human cloning can benefit the human race beyond the average person’s comprehension. Please e-mail me at peachberrybabe@hotmail.com if you have any comments as to what I have written.
Fraser Robert Cameron
Tue Oct 3 14:54:05 PDT 2000
I fuck Donkeys!
Fraser Robert Cameron
Tue Oct 3 14:31:54 PDT 2000
I am A pee pee tunger
jakethesnake!!
Tue Oct 3 21:59:10 UTC+0100 2000
gr8 help folks 4 mes devoirs!!!! im from england home of dolly!!!! we luv her here!!! cccclllllllllllloooooooooniiiiiinnnngggg is wicked!! wwwwwaaaaaasssssssuuuuuupppppp!
John Irving
Thu Sep 14 20:42:27 UTC+1000 2000
I once made a clone of myself but he convinced the world that he was me and then went to the school where I worked and raped all the little boys in the art room. Then he called the police and framed me. Now everyone thinks I'm a pedifile. Please believe me..... It wasn't me, it was my evil clone.............really it was..........
HONEY
Wed Sep 13 12:41:51 UTC+0800 2000
I THINK THAT WHATEVER GOD HAS GIVEN US WE SHOULD ACCEPT IT WITH ALL OUR HEARTS.CLONING IS NOT A SOLUTION,IT IS THE BEGINNING OF DISGRACING THE GIFT OF ALMIGHTY GOD.
dick bitch
Fri Sep 08 20:40:54 2000
tou suck
Kenisha Rowe
Wed Sep 06 14:31:54 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) 2000
cloning is not suppose to be done. it is God's will to give life and take it away not mans
jems17@hotmail.com
Tue Sep 05 15:04:16 GMT+0930 (AUS Central Standard Time) 2000
I am interested in clonning 500 (five hundred) boys like me. Could you help me to realise my dreams? Your answer will be apreciated. Thanks and regards. Yours, Jose Evaristo Madeira Soares
precellah
Fri Sep 22 17:03:16 UTC+0530 2000
i'm working on a project on clonning.. please send me more information about clonning in detail... we'll be presenting it as an education talk .. i'm studing in india .. my mail id is.. precellah@usa.net
Dick Smith.
Tue Aug 08 11:35:14 GMT+0930 (Cen. Australia Standard Time) 2000
I believe your articles Are FULL OF SHIT
Jineth Sanchez
Fri Aug 04 09:30:36 GMT-0700 (2000
people say that if God gave us the knowledge of how to clone than it necessarily isn't against his will, well, he also gave us the knowledge to the atomic bomb, guns, and everything else negative in the world. The only problem w/ all that other stuff is that we don't use it in the beneficial way. Personally I'm against cloning because of my faith, but maybe our generation will use it ina good way.
Claudia
Mon Jul 10 22:28:05 GMT-0600 (Hora est‡ndar de MŽxico) 2000
First of all I want to say that I'm not an amercian citizen, but a mexican. So, all that "stuff" or morality is very important to me and I think that humans SHOULD be cloned IF SOCIETY, FAMILY AND THE WORLD will de willing to treat them as one of their own, and not like some kind of machines created to please human desires. They WOULD ALSO BE HUMANS, and so deserve the chance to be treated like one.
joe byrne
Mon Jun 19 10:11:28 AUS Eastern Standard Time 2000
Clonning is good it may save the human race on day.......it can also save extinct animals
hiwot yilma
Thu Jun 08 13:38:25 Pacific Daylight Time 2000
I need information on how unetical human clonning is and what if the clonned child is disfigured, what is the future parents plan? Hopefully they would not try to refuse to take him or her home like a rejected faulty product. The U.S. government is absorbing human medical costs that are herandous as it is without adding the medical cost of a manmade creation that has not yet became a productive member of society.
cjey55
Sun Jun 1 15:23:13 PDT 1997
NOOOOOOOO IM WITH RACHEL
cjey55
Sun Jun 1 15:17:03 PDT 1997
never mind sandy rachel shut urrrrr mouth
Cjey55
Sat May 31 15:07:09 PDT 1997
I think that cloning is just plain wrong and SANDY. shut ur mouth
noor
Thu May 25 20:41:34 West Asia Standard Time 2000
clonning is great but God is greater than all of them who want to become the cloon of god
SANDY.
Mon May 22 09:34:30 UTC+0530 2000
MOTHER FUCKING BITCH RACHEL, GO FUCK YOURSELF AND SHOOT YOUR OWN CUNT, YOU FUCKING WHORES AND A BITCH.
Ralph.
Mon May 22 09:28:23 UTC+0530 2000
Rachel, go FUCK yourself. FUCKING BITCH.
IAN WEST
Sun May 14 21:22:02 UTC 2000
Human cloning should be allowed as long as it stays under control.
Rachel Brust
Mon May 01 12:49:21 GMT-0500 (2000
I hate clonning and anyone that thinks of clonning should be draged out into the street and shot . DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE FUCKING DIE!!!!!!!!
Matt Friedheim
Mon May 01 12:41:42 GMT-0500 (2000
HUMAN CLONING SHOULD BE ALLOWED! (by Lishing Li) Should cloning for human benefits or even human cloning itself be allowed in society today? That is a question we must ask ourselves. Recently, less than two years ago, an event in genetic history changed our perspective of what we know as ãReproductionä and added to our conscience a new element to the study of Biology. This event immediately caught my interest and intrigued me. It was the birth of a unique sheep named Dolly. Dolly was a clone sheep born on February 12th 1997 (Henderson, pg. 2). Dollyâs existence stuck like super glue onto my mind and refused to let go. I started pondering the true potential of cloning and how it could affect mankind. I considered the possibility of human cloning, the advantages and the disadvantages. Ever since the birth of a sheep called Dolly, a question that ceased to exist now lingers in my mind and the mind of many: Should human cloning be a part of our society? In order to debate the potential of human cloning, we must first consider how it ties in to certain aspects of human society. One of these aspects is determining how human cloning will affect scientific research. The continuation of human cloning and its related actions could drastically increase our scientific knowledge of genetics and lead us to new discoveries concerning the human body and related issues. If human cloning were to undergo technological advances, the study of health would also drastically improve. Cloning would provide better research capabilities for finding cures to many present-day diseases. In society today, public opinion about human cloning is divided. The supporters for human cloning argue that human cloning should be allowed, as the research may have to potential to eliminate many of the worldâs problems such as animal extinction and can also benefit mankind in many ways. On the other hand, the opposers of human cloning say that cloning is unethical and that we should not be defying the very foundation of natural creation. As with any new procedure or technology, the effect of human cloning on our futures is not known. However, if legalized, cloning will definitely increase our options in genetic makeover and personal appearance. The first attempts at artificial cloning were started as early as the beginning of this century. The first implantation of a nucleus into an egg cell occurred in 1952 by Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King in Philadelphia. Briggs and King transferred the nuclei of Leopard Frogâs eggs (Eibert, pg.23). However, the cloning attempt was unsuccessful and the egg cells did not develop. Successful nuclear transfer of the embryo cells did not occur until the 1970âs, when a scientist named John Gurdon repeated Briggs/Kingsâs frog implantation. The oocytes of the frogs successfully developed into tadpoles. Major breakthroughs in cloning technology came in the 1980âs and 1990âs. In 1994, Scottish scientists Dr. Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell cloned ãMegan and Moragä, the worldâs first cloned sheep. Soon afterwards, Dolly was also cloned. Presently, scientists who believe that cloning should be allowed are striving to perfect nuclear transfer technology in hope of harnessing its many advantages. There are, of course, other scientists who are against cloning. Public opinion on cloning is still vastly divided. Many religious groups are against cloning because they feel that it is wrong to mimic natural creation. They believe we should not take the work of god into our own hands. Others feel very strongly that human cloning is immoral and unethical because human cloning could destroy our age-old concept of ãfatheräand ãmotherä. If an offspring is cloned from a parent, the offspring would no longer actually share genetic traits, or alleles from both parents. Rather the offspring would be identical to that one parent from which it was cloned (Kass, pg. 12). I, on the other hand, believe that cloning should proceed into the future. I simply think that the advantages of human cloning far outweigh the disadvantages. Some advantages to human cloning include (Hawley, pg. 2): -Providing better research capabilities to find cures to many present diseases - Bringing back friends or relatives who have passed away by cloning an identical copy - Providing children for women who are single and do not wish to have artificial insemination -The choice of physical characteristics (who to look like) Some people say that there are disadvantages such as: -Cloning is unethical - Cloning reduces genetic diversity -Human cloning could produce another ãHitlerä, etc. -Human cloning is not at all ãnaturalä -Some people, such as Lauren Tribe (a constitutional law scholar) say that ãhuman cloning would alter the very meaning of humanityä (Hawley, pg. 5) My view is that human cloning is totally ethical. There is no moral wrong in genetically making a carbon copy of an individual. Some people worry that individuals from the past, such as Adolf Hitler, can be brought back if human cloning is legalized. However, there really isnât any basis for those worries. Individuals from the past such as Hitler can be copied in exact physical form, but not psychological form. Nuclear Transfer is only able to copy Hitlerâs DNA into another twin. However, Hitlerâs way of thinking and his actions are not directly related to his DNA. Instead, I would argue that the time and environment that an individual is in affects his mental functions rather than his genetic information. As for the opinion that human cloning is a fake and unnatural way of birth, I find no justification for that thought. In cloning, a real live being is produced just like in birth. Also, the process of cloning does not involve a machine or any artificial products. The living embryo containing an organismâs DNA is merely placed inside a substitute mother for birth. Should human cloning be allowed in our society today? That question is up to you to answer. However, keep in mind the advantages of human cloning and forget the nonsense of ãmoralityä.
JoN DoE
Mon May 01 12:35:52 GMT-0500 (2000
I think that clonning is crazy and should never happen. I've heard of people talking about it would be ok if the person gives consent and has ababy cloned but if that happens i feel it could get out of hand!!!!!!! Think about this what if we had the capabilitys 50 years ago. They could of made an army of hitlers and they would all be mature now and dangerous to the whole world.
kdruse@ aol.com
Mon May 1 09:28:18 EDT 2000
Please send more information as I amworking on a documentary film on clonning. the last comment did not have my correct email address.
kathleen ruse krruse622@aol.com
Mon May 1 09:26:31 EDT 2000
Please send more information as I am working on a documentary on clonning
You dont need to know this
Fri Feb 25 08:06:01 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) 2000
I for it and agianst it. I don't like the idea of human beings being cloned because I mean how would you treat a cloned person. I like how we use clonig for mediacal uses like transplant I think that is a good idea, but cloning people i dont think is a good idea because if God wanted us to have look alikes he would of done that. So all Im saying is it is a good idea but also a bad.
belle g.
Thu Feb 24 09:01:08 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) 2000
clonning is very dangerous. it shoud futher more be held on heavy regulations before it gets out of hand.
Vanessa Tellez
Thu Feb 24 10:51:47 2000
I think cloning is wrong to do on any living creature. There should only be one of everything.
kat king
Wed Feb 23 18:40:40 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time) 2000
I AM A CLONE
cool man
Sun Jan 2 18:54:23 EST 2000
Your all losers
Ruth P. Pronto
Thu Nov 18 22:05:00 China Standard Time 1999
Human cloning should be allowed as long as it will benefits our society for the purpose of treatment and healing but if not, banned it.....Thats all folks....
Lishing Li
Sun Mar 7 10:14:26 UTC 1999
HUMAN CLONING SHOULD BE ALLOWED! (by Lishing Li) Should cloning for human benefits or even human cloning itself be allowed in society today? That is a question we must ask ourselves. Recently, less than two years ago, an event in genetic history changed our perspective of what we know as ãReproductionä and added to our conscience a new element to the study of Biology. This event immediately caught my interest and intrigued me. It was the birth of a unique sheep named Dolly. Dolly was a clone sheep born on February 12th 1997 (Henderson, pg. 2). Dollyâs existence stuck like super glue onto my mind and refused to let go. I started pondering the true potential of cloning and how it could affect mankind. I considered the possibility of human cloning, the advantages and the disadvantages. Ever since the birth of a sheep called Dolly, a question that ceased to exist now lingers in my mind and the mind of many: Should human cloning be a part of our society? In order to debate the potential of human cloning, we must first consider how it ties in to certain aspects of human society. One of these aspects is determining how human cloning will affect scientific research. The continuation of human cloning and its related actions could drastically increase our scientific knowledge of genetics and lead us to new discoveries concerning the human body and related issues. If human cloning were to undergo technological advances, the study of health would also drastically improve. Cloning would provide better research capabilities for finding cures to many present-day diseases. In society today, public opinion about human cloning is divided. The supporters for human cloning argue that human cloning should be allowed, as the research may have to potential to eliminate many of the worldâs problems such as animal extinction and can also benefit mankind in many ways. On the other hand, the opposers of human cloning say that cloning is unethical and that we should not be defying the very foundation of natural creation. As with any new procedure or technology, the effect of human cloning on our futures is not known. However, if legalized, cloning will definitely increase our options in genetic makeover and personal appearance. The first attempts at artificial cloning were started as early as the beginning of this century. The first implantation of a nucleus into an egg cell occurred in 1952 by Robert Briggs and Thomas J. King in Philadelphia. Briggs and King transferred the nuclei of Leopard Frogâs eggs (Eibert, pg.23). However, the cloning attempt was unsuccessful and the egg cells did not develop. Successful nuclear transfer of the embryo cells did not occur until the 1970âs, when a scientist named John Gurdon repeated Briggs/Kingsâs frog implantation. The oocytes of the frogs successfully developed into tadpoles. Major breakthroughs in cloning technology came in the 1980âs and 1990âs. In 1994, Scottish scientists Dr. Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell cloned ãMegan and Moragä, the worldâs first cloned sheep. Soon afterwards, Dolly was also cloned. Presently, scientists who believe that cloning should be allowed are striving to perfect nuclear transfer technology in hope of harnessing its many advantages. There are, of course, other scientists who are against cloning. Public opinion on cloning is still vastly divided. Many religious groups are against cloning because they feel that it is wrong to mimic natural creation. They believe we should not take the work of god into our own hands. Others feel very strongly that human cloning is immoral and unethical because human cloning could destroy our age-old concept of ãfatheräand ãmotherä. If an offspring is cloned from a parent, the offspring would no longer actually share genetic traits, or alleles from both parents. Rather the offspring would be identical to that one parent from which it was cloned (Kass, pg. 12). I, on the other hand, believe that cloning should proceed into the future. I simply think that the advantages of human cloning far outweigh the disadvantages. Some advantages to human cloning include (Hawley, pg. 2): -Providing better research capabilities to find cures to many present diseases - Bringing back friends or relatives who have passed away by cloning an identical copy -Providing children for women who are single and do not wish to have artificial insemination -The choice of physical characteristics (who to look like) Some people say that there are disadvantages such as: -Cloning is unethical -Cloning reduces genetic diversity -Human cloning could produce another ãHitlerä, etc. -Human cloning is not at all ãnaturalä -Some people, such as Lauren Tribe (a constitutional law scholar) say that ãhuman cloning would alter the very meaning of humanityä (Hawley, pg. 5) My view is that human cloning is totally ethical. There is no moral wrong in genetically making a carbon copy of an individual. Some people worry that individuals from the past, such as Adolf Hitler, can be brought back if human cloning is legalized. However, there really isnât any basis for those worries. Individuals from the past such as Hitler can be copied in exact physical form, but not psychological form. Nuclear Transfer is only able to copy Hitlerâs DNA into another twin. However, Hitlerâs way of thinking and his actions are not directly related to his DNA. Instead, I would argue that the time and environment that an individual is in affects his mental functions rather than his genetic information. As for the opinion that human cloning is a fake and unnatural way of birth, I find no justification for that thought. In cloning, a real live being is produced just like in birth. Also, the process of cloning does not involve a machine or any artificial products. The living embryo containing an organismâs DNA is merely placed inside a substitute mother for birth. Should human cloning be allowed in our society today? That question is up to you to answer. However, keep in mind the advantages of human cloning and forget the nonsense of ãmoralityä. lishingli@yahoo.com
LL
Sun Mar 7 10:14:07 UTC 1999
cloning kicks ass!!
Samuel Barker from Malton
Mon Mar 01 14:51:38 PST 1999
Cloning Stinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sarah Rafiq
Mon Mar 01 14:50:41 PST 1999
I believe in clonning. It's brill!!!!!
Martin Mondschein
Mon Mar 01 11:15:56 PST 1999
These results do not surprise me at all. I have been doing research on cloning and these results support my argument.
Martin Mondschein
Mon Mar 01 11:15:56 PST 1999
These results do not surprise me at all. I have been doing research on cloning and these results support my argument.
Martin Mondschein
Mon Mar 01 11:15:56 PST 1999
These results do not surprise me at all. I have been doing research on cloning and these results support my argument.
Martin Mondschein
Mon Mar 01 11:15:56 PST 1999
These results do not surprise me at all. I have been doing research on cloning and these results support my argument.
clonemaster

I know how to clone people i have a clone of myself it is cool
Chuckie Lee

I am agaist cloning peope it is morrally wrong
Robert Walther
Thu Feb 05 18:20:17 1998
While I find it interesting that men are more in favor of cloning, I don't quite see the relevance to the issue at hand. The fact of the matter is, that we as a society composed of two sexes will have to address the topic of cloning. That is, not one sex will be making the decision therefore I feel this poll is just a technique employed by the above publication to get a rise out of the reader. As for the difference between acceptance of animal and human cloning, I find it makes perfect sense. As a species of a "higher level of thinking" we have reasoned that animals do not have equal "feelings" or the same "rights" as man does. Furthermore, I believe animal testing will ultimately save human lives just as it has with flu vaccines and other diseases. Animal testing, allbeit a gross regard for animal life, is the most rational action a scientific community interested in saving human lives, can take.
danielle S.K. leMond
Thu Jan 22 20:10:44 1998
i resent the comment made regarding the possible verbal reactions of women and men on the cloning issue. i am a woman, i am against cloning of humans or of animals, and this has nothing to do with my conception of a god (or goddess for that matter). these comments are outdated and limited reflections of a presupposition of judeo-christian reference; implying that women are more culturally and spiritually conservative is dangerously close to other sterotypes that have kept women under the professional glass ceiling in this millenium. saying that men are more interested than women in "bettering the human race" is highly suggestive of a lack of reflection on the author's (of these statements) part and is, again, a very limited perspective. this said, i am not surprised by the results of the survey as our society has made it clear that we do not respect animals or the earth. we have established, through our actions, that the exploitation, pollution and abuse of nature is part of our prerogative as men that have 'dominion over the earth and its beasts..." (genesis). don't misunderstand, i am certainly in favor of the improvement of the quality of living, but this to me is clearly not the way.
Stephanie Adamson
Wed Jan 21 11:25:57 1998
Hey Randy, I apologize! Never again will I make that mistake!
Randy Choiniere
Tue Jan 20 02:23:14 1998
Hey Stephanie, I'm not a woman! 99.99% of the time the name Randy with a y at the end means the person is a male. I have never met a female named Randy, only Randi with an i. No offense, I just don't want everyone to think I'm a woman when they see my name.
Rebekka Brooks
Mon Jan 19 22:57:09 1998
I am not terribly surprised about these survey results. I think there is some truth to the generalization that men may view cloning as a scientific project and so may be excited about seeing progress, whereas women may view it as tampering with creatures' lives and so may be worried about damaging effects to these and other creatures. I am interested by this evidence that nearly one-fifth of health professionals are optimistic about the medical benefits of human cloning. I believe that humans WILL be cloned, that this is inevitable. Therefore I believe that a system should be designed to check and balance the power to clone.
Rachel Richardson
Mon Jan 19 22:01:04 1998
no, the results don't really surprise me in general, though I find it odd that health professionals tend to approve of cloning research even as much as they do. Are the majority of health professionals men (just because their approval rate is closer to that of the men)? And wouldn't they see how similar the cloning of animals is to that of humans? Because it seems that if you think doing cloning research on animals is okay, it's a very fine line you walk, and you really can't fairly say that humans are so superior or somehow different that they cannot be subject to the same criteria and therefore the same testing.
Stephanie Adamson
Mon Jan 19 13:17:11 1998
First, I find it very interesting that only women , with the exception of Professor Gross, have resonded to this survey. On another note, women who would carry the clone would go through the same process as any women undergoing currently available IVF procedures, so I do not believe that their lower response would simply be attributable to the need to nourish - they would be nourishing a very alive individual. While I believe that the practice is far too novel at this time to be applied feasibly or ethically in humans currently for reproductive indications, I do not believe that the research surrounding human cloning should be stopped. There are many other uses for the technology which created Dolly than simply producing a genetically similar mammal, whether human or non-human. Because of the nature of the technology which created Dolly, we may be able to learn how a cell can "regress" to a totipotent state, the state at which all embryonic cells are in. If we are able to "reprogram" cells to the totipotent state, we can learn how they differentiate, and this knowledge could be used to produce transplants such as skin cells or bone marrow cells. This technology then could be used to overcome the very real problem of acute rejection which many transplant patients face, as well as the obstacle of the dearth of transplant donors. Most likely scenarios such as these would be the areas of most growth in human cloning research, not producing genetically identical human beings. Thus, while the ethical implications need to be discussed in great deatail and with as many of the population as possible, we must not limit the discussion to "Brave New World."
Tracy M. Davis
Mon Jan 19 11:59:19 1998
I believe that cloning may some day have a place in science but not under the current conditions. Cloning for the affect of producing progeny from one parent instead of another due to thoughts of inferiority or likewise is wrong. Who are we to say what is inferior and what is superior? However, if it turns out that the couple can not have children because of genetic difficulties then it maybe one day useful to clone one of the parents, especially since many people (male and female alike) wish to have progeny that look like they do. Many people question this practice on the grounds that the child would just be a replication of the parent, but these people are missing an important fact. While it is true that genetics determines some of our thought patterns and such, environment has an overwhelming impact. Thus, the belief that the child is just a replication and not an individual is unfounded. We need to look beyond the potential misuses and see the complete picture of cloning when we examine this issue. This is why I feel that such a large percentage of health care workers may agree with cloning humans. Women do tend to be very protective of "birth" but more than likely their high disproval rating is related with the "mothering instinct" and they see human cloning as a possible detriment to their children or future children. And while I love animals as much as anyone else, there are very important future implications involving animal cloning. I know that it is a hard decision to make when one loves animals as to whether a human life or an animal life should be more important. However there are potential uses of cloned animals far exceed their use as body parts (which some people may see as a future use for cloning). If we could make animals that are both productive and serve the needs of the wild and of humans better, then cloning those animals may be a better alternative.
Julie Calderon
Mon Jan 19 11:50:14 1998
The results of this poll do not really surprise me. First of all, I believe that the largest group of individuals supporting human cloning would be men. The historical perspective of men wanting to carry on their legacy still exists in a number of men today. Cloning provides them with the perfect way to live on throughout history. As well, women would be the lowest because they have more of an attachment to an embryo because they have carried one in their womb, thus their support for cloning would be the lowest. Medical professionals support animal cloning for the ways it will help the human species in finding cures for a number of species, but their support drops drasticallly with regards to human cloning because of the moral implications that accompany it.
Prof. Gross
Sun Jan 18 00:32:25 1998
Actually, with human cloning it would be possible for women to have female children without any participation of men. Men cannot do this becuase the woman actually carries the child during development.
Amy Hooper
Sat Jan 17 18:18:37 1998
Perhaps the men and the health professionals who approve of human cloning are interested in making it (potentially) possible for a male to have a child without a "mother" participating. I'm with the women on the issue of human cloning though. Not because I'm trying to protect my exclusive right to bear a child. But the basic moral implications of creating a human life by cloning bother me greatly. This is a can of worms we simply do not want to open. This is certainly one area that "nature" needs to control. My reservations concerning animal cloning basically involve my fear that it would immediately lead to human cloning. I certainly see the moral issue pervading the animal cloning as well. All in all, these results don't really alarm me. Except for the 52% of men approving of animal cloning. I'm surprised that a majority exists in favor of this issue at this time.
Randy Choiniere
Sat Jan 17 16:57:43 1998
I don't find the survey that shocking. The first thing I noticed was that a lot more people approved cloning of animals. I think that there has always been a sort of double standard in that people treat animals much more harshly than they would treat humans. The disparity between men and women also does not shock me. Men are typically much more moved by logic and women more often by emotions. I think a number of men responding to the survey would say, "Cloning could potentially help better the human race" while many women would say, "Cloning is against God's will, or cloning is not right for the family structure." I expected that most people would be against cloning, but I can also understand why people would support it since I, personally, feel that it is ok under certain conditions. Additionally, it makes since that more health professionals would support cloning since they may see more of the positive research and medical prospects of cloning.
Carolyn K. Hall
Fri Jan 16 20:31:46 1998
Though I wish the health professionals had coincided more with the women polled here, since they are more directly involved in the reproductive process, I do find it reassuring that our knowledgable, hopefully more objective "experts" have roughly the same opinion as the average guy. These figures still show that half the population has doubts about cloning research, which is even more reassuring, given the complexity of decisions and responsibility it involves. Also, supporting cloning research does not necessarily mean supporting cloning (of humans or animals). I don't favor ending research in any field simply because we fear its implications.
Amy Salomon
Fri Jan 16 17:24:39 1998
I am somewhat surprised by the results of the cloning survey in that so many people support it (men and health professionals at least). I expect that some supporters are under the impression that cloning will happen like in the movies and produce a full grown human being and support the practice simply because of the novelty of it. It makes sense that people are more supportive of animal cloning, seeing that it is less threatening to our identities, our existence, and our understanding of humanity and what is "natural." Finally, the thought occurred to me that women are less supportive of cloning because they probably spend more time thinking about reproduction, and thus the serious implications of the practice. Question? Why are the male and health care professionals' figures so similar? Could this have something to do with the number of women included in the health care category - i.e. many less than men?
Christine Percheski
Fri Jan 16 17:15:51 1998
It kind of suprised me that there was such a great disparity between the number of men and women who approve of human cloning. It seems clear that most women are opposed to cloning (particularly human) whereas men seem to be far more accepting of cloning with over 50% approving of at least some type of cloning. I wonder if the difference in opinion, especially in reference to human cloning, is related to the very different roles men and women play in the reproductive process. Women seem less inclined to want science interfering with the natural processes of inheritance and birth. The high approval rating of the medical community doesn't suprise me. Well-informed health professionals probably give less consideration to gut feelings and have less fear of "the unknown" of cloning than do their civilian counterparts. They probably are interested in cloning for the pursuit of scientific knowledge whereas the average person will not see as many benefits from cloning. However, it suprises me that health care professional are not worried about the endless possibilities and moral dilemnas that cloning will incite.
emily berkman
Fri Jan 16 17:28:47 1998
i think it is interesting that more women are offended or negative towards the idea of cloning (in any form) than men are. i don't find it surprising that everyone prefers cloning animals to humans. People generally think that because of their "lower" intelligence, it doesnt matter if there is more than one of the same animal. Perhaps men feel the same way about humans.