The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Animal Cloning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,336 times Debate No: 52246
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




Cloning has been known to cause severe defects at birth along with many failed pregnancies due to the egg not being compatible with the surrogate mother, the egg not dividing properly, implantation of egg my fail, or just a miscarriage itself. According to the book Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning, out of 3156 sheep embryo"s they had tested that year and created in the lab only 50 (1.6 percent) were taken through the full term of pregnancy. After the birth of the 50 individual sheep, 26 percent of the sheep died within the first week due to complications. This leaves about 1 percent that make it past the first week of life, 99% at this point become deceased. 1
Along with a small percentage making it to birth, anywhere from 6-50 percent of these offspring will have a something called large offspring syndrome which typically is fatal according to the American Anti-Vivisection Society. Large offspring syndrome is when an offspring is born larger than the normal which can cause breathing and circulation difficulties. Another more rare condition called hydrops can occur up to 28% of clones can also be fatal. Hydrops is when a large amount of fluid builds up within the offspring"s tissues or organs causing complications with those organs. 2
With more than 95 percent of cloning attempts regularly causing death or severe health problems for cloned animals and their surrogate mothers, there is widespread recognition in the scientific and medical communities that cloning presents serious risks to the animal"s involved.3 Yet the FDA has repeatedly glossed over the animal welfare problems raised by animal cloning. In its risk assessment on cloned foods, the FDA dismisses any concerns by asserting that cloning poses no unique risks to animal health that are not seen with the assisted reproductive technologies already practiced by many large-scale livestock operations.4 In making such a flawed assessment, the FDA has completely ignored the tremendous increase in frequency with which animal health risks occur as a result of cloning.

1.Chavatte-Palmer, P., Remy,D., Cordonnier, N., Richard, C., Issenman, H., Laigre, P., et al. (2004). Health status of cloned cattle at different ages. Cloning and Stem Cells, 6(2), 94-100.

2.Young, L.E., Sinclair, K.D., and Wilmut, I. (1998). Large Offspring Syndrome in cattle and sheep. Review of Reproduction, 3, 155-163.

3.Heyman, Y., Chavatte-Palmer, P.,Berthelot,V., Fromentin, G., Hocquette, J.F.,Martignat, L., and Renard, J.P. (2007). Assessing the quality of products derived from cloned cattle: An integrative approach. Theriogenology, 67(1), 134-141.

4.Food and Drug Administration (2006). Animal Cloning: A Draft Risk Assessment, 107-116


Point 1: Revives Endangered and Extinct Animals
It is very possible for extinct and endangered species to be cloned and come back to life. Though of course extinct animals are harder to find DNA or samples to use, endangered species are more possible to clone than extinct animals. For the fact that extinct animals are able to donate healthy, living cells, it is much easier to go through the process of reviving these species. Some animals such as the mouflon sheep, different types of deer, bison, and coyotes can then be revived and not go extinct.
This can then maintain biodiversity in endangered species by practicing. These methods can keep and avoid the genetic reshuffling when sexual reproduction occurs. For example, the Bucardo was a very limited species. Scientists and other animal workers tried to breed other animals to save the Bucardo from total extinction. The closest thing to the Bucardo was an alpine ibex which is the cousin of the Bucardo. Though it is extinct now, cloning can easily solve this problem, even using the cells of an alpine ibex. Since cloning can choose whichever trait it can use, any cousins of an extinct species can revive an extinct species such as the situation that was used. Any other types of endangered species like bison and other animals shown above can be easier to revive and scientists can then research those animals that have been gone for many years.
Debate Round No. 1


If cloning were to become successful within our society along with mass production of offspring begins as a food source or other various reasons, the diversity of the offspring will decrease opening it up to the possibility of widespread infections. According to research done by Pongsiri "if biodiversity decreases, transmission events rise due to an increase in encounter rates among infected and between infected and susceptible hosts. Assuming that a rodent has a certain amount of aggressive encounters during its life, it transmits the virus in more cases if the small-mammal diversity is low, since aggressive encounters happen more often within the same species. A recent experimental field study conducted on wild rodent populations of different species in southwestern Panama backs this view. It showed that the relative abundance of Hantavirus hosts increases with a decrease in small-mammal species diversity."
Currently we are having major issues within our crop industry with biotechnology creating clones in mass reproduction for food yield. With the lack of diversity within crops a recent bacterial disease has come about called Goss"s Bacterial Wilt which can deteriorate most of a field if susceptible. A representative from Monsanto stated, "We don"t have a clue on the current diversity of corn and soybeans extant in farmers" field, and this is unacceptable."2 If we relate this over to animals and we use them as a food source the same way, major food sources can be affected.
Looking at history and what we have seen with other species and how quickly infections can spread over common organisms, clones become more susceptible due to same DNA. The inability for mutations to occur within germ cells limits the possibility of organism"s population to become immune to a virus and/or bacteria. If for example we do perfect cloning and we begin to clone animals for food or medical testing and one virus affects the entire population of clones, not only is there money wasted, but we will no longer have diversity within the population of animals to potentially create future population immune to this virus.

1.Pongsiri, M., Roman, J., Ezenwa, V.O., Goldberg, T.L., Koren, H.S., Newbold, S.C., Ostfeld, R.S., Pattanayak, S.K. and Salkeld, D.J.. (2009) Biodiversity Loss Affects Global Disease Ecology. Bioscience 59, 945"954

2.University of Vermont. "Biodiversity loss can increase infectious diseases in humans." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 6 December 2009.


Point 2: Agricultural & Drug Production/ Livestock
Farm animals could have a certain trait that codes for medically important proteins. In the research, one of the test subjects named Polly was cloned from a dead lamb. When cloning, the scientists then put a trait call the XI factor, which gives that animal a type of milk that contains rich nutrients and proteins deficient in hemophiliacs. Some of the traits can change a quality of meat or certain proteins needed in the human body for that animal.
Breeding stock, male animals are neutered at a young age. They are never able to reproduce to any other species except their own. Scientist are able to clone the same male without that reproductive organs to have that clone have reproductive organs. This will and can lead to twice as much livestock with or without reproductive organs. The population will double and help scientists with research or with anything else that is needed for the males. The reason for taking those reproductive organs are to keep the desired genes for that animal. With cloning, the clone from the actual male can pass down that desired gene to it's offspring. Then any of the farmers or scientists can have a desired type of cow, sheep, pig or any other type of livestock.
Debate Round No. 2


Cloning is very expense no matter the organism you are wanting to clone. According to Sustainable Table, each clone of a cow costs close to 20,000 dollars with cloning rates success rates at 10%. One average it will take 200,000 dollars to clone one cow successfully when naturally it costs a 20,000 dollars to not only have a cow, but to raise it for 10 years no matter where you are at. Cloned horses have been known to go for as much as 150,000 dollars each and if you are interested in making a clone of your cat there is a private company that will cost 32,000 dollars.1 Even with the draw to some of these animals you may want, they will still have very different manners that any other animal and may still look different. Is cloning worth thousands of dollars or should that government money be spend on something more worthy.
The government currently is not paying for cloning research within the United States, but private sectors are still dishing out the money. The cost to clone a dog typically take 15,000 " 20,000 dollars yet it costs about 100,000 to use for further research to making cloning more successful.1
Dolly one of the first cloned larger animals cost in excess of 750,000 dollars along with 276 failed attempts before one being successful.1

1 Bren, Linda. (2003). Cloning: Revolution or Evolution in Animal in Animal Production?FDA Veterinarian Newsletter 18(5). Washington, DC. - See more at:


Point 3: Stops Hunger in Third World Countries
Many countries in our world today are not able to give their body the basic necessities of vitamins, proteins, and carbohydrates that they need. Some people in those countries do not even eat all, and suffer many of the effects that come to that. Animal cloning is the solution to this and will stop world hunger as soon as possible.
Many of the people that are already skeptical about animal cloning know and are curious on whether the cloned animals are edible enough for humans. If that, if the animal is actually safe to eat. Some of the scientists use different types of chemicals and other bases in cloning that can and will be harmful towards the human body. As said earlier, scientists are able to put any traits or genes necessary for the animal. So the people that are worried about this problem, it is there. But there is still a solution to this. Like Polly in the research, she was made with the XI factor, which was stated earlier that it is defect of hemophiliac. With cloning, many of the people in the third world countries who are suffering from this everyday will be able to eat. This then stop world hunger and then some. Scientist can also add any vitamins, nutrients, or proteins that will keep the human body nourished, so all of the people in those starving countries will be healthy.
Debate Round No. 3


Losing gene diversity is another of the disadvantages of cloning. Gene diversity is what keeps an entire species from being wiped out by a singular virus if none of them have natural immunities. This is due to the lack of gene diversity. Gene mutations happen naturally, and help to explain why some people naturally are taller, shorter, or more athletic than others. Some people and animals naturally have a stronger immune system. If gene diversity is lost due to excessive cloning, there are no mutations to allow some of the cloned group to survive a newly introduced disease.
Another of the disadvantages of cloning is that there are a lot of ethical considerations that would cause most people to protest. One of these ethical concerns is that cloning is unnatural, and considered "playing God." Another concern is the treatment of clones. Clones would have the same needs as non-clones of their species. Humane treatment guidelines would still apply.
There is always a risk of cloning technology being abused. One of the main disadvantages of cloning is that the technology would have to be kept closely monitored. For example, imagine what a corrupt dictator could do with cloning. There will always be someone looking to use cloning for their own personal use, and many feel that the best way to prevent this is to not pursue cloning at all.

1.University of Vermont. "Biodiversity loss can increase infectious diseases in humans." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 6 December 2009.


Point 4: Cloning in Medicine
Stem cells are used repair and replace cells in the body that seemed to be damaged. In cloning, the stem cells from another clone can be transferred into the actual animal's body, helping it to be more healthy and without health defects. Though there are bone marrow surgeries to help problems or defects in the human body, the bone marrow is not very reliable. Most cells will identify the bone marrow cells as "foreign" and can easily fight the cells that are trying to help with the disease or any type of defect that is in the body. It would be an actual clone and is the most reliable of any of the other methods that medical scientists may use.
Debate Round No. 4


The first successful animal cloning in the 1990s has opened doors for bioengineers in what concerns the potential to clone animals in order to preserve species for the other generations to come. Cloning in general is regarded as a highly controversial issue but it may be useful in providing specialists with opportunities they have only dreamed of until now. Read on and find out how animal cloning could be useful in preserving species that are endangered and could become extinct during several years.
Cloning endangered species is an idea that appeals to many scientists enthusiastic about reversing the effects that humans and nature have had on several species around the globe and which could lead to their extinction. One may think that animals cloning might be the solution to all the problems that come around when talking about endangered species, and yet there seems to be a quite strong opposition to this king of practice. Cloning endangered species is an issue for most conservation biologists and environmentalists mostly because they think this operation could deter donations to help preserve the natural habitat in which these wild species live. An unwritten rule in the world of animal conservation is that conserving the natural habitat in which these species live helps in preserving the species itself as it promotes reproduction. This in turn leads to the assumption that reproduction in captivity is therefore no longer needed to protect the species and this is why environmentalists and conservation biologists argue against cloning endangered species.
At the same time, there are several reasons to believe that cloning endangered species may not work in the first place. A specialist had published a review in 2006 where he was explaining that cloning in animal conservation is impossible and if it may happen it will do so only by chance.


Point 5: Research for Human Disease
Using any animal models is the most common way to find cures, treatments, or any possible diseases that scientists may encounter in future reference. take the mouse for example. It is one of the most common animal species that is used for research on human disease. Some scientists need to have a certain type of mouse to continue in their studies. A mouse with a protein or type of disease that may help with further research. Scientist cannot always have one test subject because of the "trial and error" factor. This factor is when a scientist tests on a subject and either becomes successful with it or something drastic happens like death or the occurring of paralyze. This means that many scientists need to have more test subjects with the certain "guidelines" or "requirements" that the animal needs.
This is when animal cloning comes into play. Cloning involves an exact replication, but also any alterations that the "maker" chooses to put into the animal. As said in paragraph one, some research needs the proper requirements for it to be successful. Things like proteins, enzymes, or anything that is needed. Cloning can put anything of that particular category into the animal. Not just that, but the numbers of the test subjects will increase in any amount that is needed for the research. When the maker of the animal is done or satisfied with the animal test subject, then the scientist can then proceed to make how many test subjects they want.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by volleyball3 2 years ago
I agree with the con side of things with animal cloning because it can cause medical problems like a failed pregnancy could occur by miscarriage or it just failing. Also there will be no diversity in the animals so it can not change in different environments if it needs to it will just die off. Another reason i agree with the con side is because it is very expensive it is $200,000 to clone one cow and that is just a lot to put in he budget because how do they even know that it will work. It could fail and then we lose that money. This is why I agree with the con side.
Posted by NateS 2 years ago
Understanding that Pro had a more advanced opponent, Pro did not fail on this debate. I have no idea why Con kept using quotation marks instead of apostrophises. That really made the argument weaker. Pro had better grammar and punctuation. Given this, I still side with Con because I think the risks still out-weigh the benefits.
Posted by aleah_nicole 2 years ago
Both sides of this argument had great points and overall this was a good argument. I think that the con side had a better understanding of the topic and was able to use a lot of strong evidence to prove their point. In the end i agreed mostly with no animal cloning.
Posted by mmariesanchez19 2 years ago
I agree with the con side of this because it is not a good thing for humans to be trying. We have killed many animals that didn't deserve to die because we are trying to clone them and for what reasons? There are many things that can go wrong when cloning anything, as the cons stated. I do not see a reason for trying to clone animals.

We as humans have no point in trying to bring back extinct animals. Something is bound to go wrong. I also don't think we should clone endangered species when could breed them and then release them back into the wild so they are not all the same. Being the same as someone else is not good and frowned upon by many people.
Posted by BLAKEVALENZUELA 2 years ago
Point three by ScottScherbinske is one reason why farmers and livestock breeders are not cloning animals now. Also point one made by ScottScherbinske is one reason I dont think animal cloning should be allowed. 95% of animals that are cloned have defects and problems within a few months. I think human cloning should not be allowed.
Posted by bmattes 2 years ago
Although I agree with the Pro aspect of this debate, the Con side provided sources in the argument. Both sides prevented good, strong arguments such as birth defects and the reviving of endangered and extinct animals. The pro side of this argument did not have sources past the first round, and the sources were needed in the rounds.
Posted by fraustega 2 years ago
(NOTE: Mr.Pro/Mr.con is quicker to type) I agree with Mr.Pro due to the fact that extinct animals can actually be saved, and also because world hunger is a terrible problem that people talk about yet don't/can't do anything about it. In that case with animal cloning some really generous man can come and pay for clones for food in Africa. In fact a REAL generous man, because like Mr.Con said "...each clone of a cow costs close to 20,000 dollars with cloning rates success rates at 10%". To me that sound financially painful. Other than the substantially low success rate and the CRAZY cost, animal cloning is still very helpful within the starving and extinction community.
Posted by SheepBruhScienceGuy123 2 years ago
Based off point 3 by "The greatest of all time," animal cloning can stop world hunger and would be the most sufficient way possible. However, it was never listed how it is superior to other options. Also, the claim was made there are already problems with cloning which deteriorated the argument. Then, the claim was made that the problem could be solved, but it was never listed destroying your point.
Posted by Trevor.Kramer 2 years ago
I agree with Mr. S not only becuase he had great points and a lot of facts, but also because he knew what to say and where to say it. When they try to clone animals it really didn't end up working. Mr. S stated that enough to stop the opposer from being able to fight back very well.
Posted by HergenMergenNergenShergen 2 years ago
Con, your points, especially towards the end, won me over during the argument. There was both ethics problems as well as facts, which complimented your debate nicely. It was, however, a bit hard to tie it in all together because each round seemed a little unorganized. Your sources also seemed very reliable so that helped to convince me of your position on the subject.

Pro, there were a few very good points, but not all of them were strong enough to convince me to change my stance. You were relatively organized, though spacing might have helped. Your debate was clear and to the point, which made it easy to understand. The honesty without the length also helped with that. In the end, the choice to side with con was because all your points were not strong enough together.
No votes have been placed for this debate.