Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stone
You say 'genetically modified' but that's 100% incorrect. By definition, clones are ... genetically unmodified. So, if there's nothing new whatsoever introduced during cloning, what's the problem? And, if nothing is changed, it's not an experiment. Cloning is nothing more than copying. This has been done historically in the plant kingdom. Haven't you ever broken a branch off of your prize tomato plant and stuck it in the ground to make a new plant? That is cloning. It's really a whole lot simpler than the uninformed masses are led to believe.
|
Sorry, this would have been more accurately written as "genetically engineered." (i.e. cloning through genetically engineered processes as opposed to selective breeding.) Cloning is in many cases a high-tech form of selective breeding, but it can be much more than that depending on your goals.
The experiment is in bringing a number of lifeforms of invariable genetic traits into being. Sustainable ecosystems are dependent on variability--that is, biodiversity. It is an experiment because we still know far too little about the biology of mammals to be doing this sort of thing. Selective breeding is far safer than cloning for that reason. If you were to mismanage a cloning operation, you could essentially throw a beneficial genetic course off its path. The results could be devastating, for both mammals and plants alike. It is far too early to allow this technology to be used in the marketplace. The least that should be required is heavy regulation on both ends. Let consumers decide if they want to support this practice.