The Instigator
hilton16
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
scorpion94
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Clone animals to ensure food security

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
scorpion94
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,598 times Debate No: 31697
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

hilton16

Pro

I believe we should clone animals to ensure food security!

Full Resolution

We need animals cloning to ensure food security for this world of billions of people!

Definitions

Animal Clone: "...one that appears to be a copy of an original form"

Food security: "Food security refers to the availability of food and one's access to it."

Ensure: "Make certain of obtaining or providing (something)."

My stand: I believe that we should clone animals to ensure food security. There are alot of people dying from stravation, having nothing or little to eat, so animal clone is a way we could ensure food security.

Rules


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
-Any rule to the contrary notwithstanding

Voters, stand by your belief. Through this debate i hope you may see a reason for your vote.

Debate Structure


Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguement (rebuttals)
Round 3: Arguement (rebuttals)
Round 4: Arguement (rebuttals)
Round 5: Defending your original arguments and conclusion

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.google.com...

scorpion94

Con

I believe that cloning is not the solution to food security.

As a matter of fact based on the present advancements in the field of cloning and in the nearby future you would still need a donor and a surrogate receptor.This is similar to the natural reproduction.This in no way can guarantee food security.Cloning can be used to get exactly identical donor.It cannot have a multiplier effect

source:

1.http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
hilton16

Pro

Cloning is the solution to food security.

How do you know that this can "in no way guarantee food security" the more of the same thing we make the more of it we have. The more we have the more likely for people acess to it. I'll further my debate after you reply
scorpion94

Con

cloning is not the solution for food security

In the current round of discussion the protagonist defended his/her argument by quoting that 'we make the more of it we have'.I would like to refute this by saying that by cloning we will not have more or even better we might have less

It is proved (refer source) that after so many unsuccessful trails were they scientists able to develop a stable zygote(refer somatic cell nuclear transfer).This means that the probability to produce a replica is actually quite less.And given the factors like inheriting diseases,potential for abuses the value for the species would diminish and would cause an ecological imbalance.

My first question to the protagonist is why are advocating cloning for the sake of food security?

It may be true that we have a rapidly declining flora and fauna and hundreds of species are becoming extinct every year.But the food that we consume that is the livestock(cows,pig,fish,goat,chickens,sheeps,etc) are nowhere near being endangered.Then why is there a necessity to clone them considering the high costs and lower rates of success

My second question is why is the protagonist stressing on livestock for food security?

The world surprisingly is making active transition from 'meat-eating' to 'go greens'.why has vegetarianism been left out.Even the crops that we consume are nowhere near extinction,in fact scientist have discovered many techniques like drip irrigation system,tissue culture etc we are able to actually produce more output and that too a whole lot quicker.

while it may be true that we can produce the same thing drawbacks like high failure rate,high costs,legal bottlenecks and red tapism(remember that it is banned in many countries and those who permit(like us)always have a tab on the research and development) I conclude that it is baseless in terms of food security

source:

1.http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...
2.http://answers.yahoo.com...
3.http://www.indg.in...
Debate Round No. 2
hilton16

Pro

Well you said something about aid and aid will not always been the case. As countries have problems of their own.

With cloning animals we can have: Agriculture and Drug Production:
Not only can the best traits be perpetuated but farm animals could also be used as “machines” for large-scale production of medically important proteins. Polly, a transgenic cloned lamb, is an example. She is able to produce milk containing factor IX — the protein that is deficient in hemophiliacs.

Having Agriculture and Drug Production, more of the food can be clone which can create more the of food.

Now i don't want you to think about animal cloning as not being a normal food or good. So...

According to http://www.fda.gov......
• cloning poses no unique risks to 
animal health, compared to the
risks found with other reproduction
methods, including natural mating

• the composition of food products
from cattle, swine, and goat clones,
or the offspring of any animal
clones, is no different from that of
conventionally bred animals

• because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional
risks to people eating food from
cattle, swine, and goat clones or the
offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food
scorpion94

Con

In this round I am going to take head on the fact kept by the instigator

I to a certain extent agree that that the transgenic cloned lamb named polly is a successful testimonial for why cloning is good.yes with cloning we can make many such polly's.

But an image cannot be seen with a single eye.We need both the eyes to get the perception of depth.
In this case the depth is more to the contender side

Here is the full picture:-

As cells go through their normal rounds of division, the tips of the chromosomes, called telomeres, shrink. Over time, the telomeres become so short that the cell can no longer divide and, consequently, the cell dies. This is part of the natural aging process that seems to happen in all cell types. As a consequence, clones created from a cell taken from an adult might have chromosomes that are already shorter than normal, which may condemn the clones' cells to a shorter life span. Indeed, Polly, who was cloned from the cell of a 6-year-old sheep, had chromosomes that were shorter than those of other sheep her age. Polly died when she was six years old, about half the average sheep's 12-year lifespan.

Although cloning can produce exact copy here are the potential drawbacks:

1.Increase in birth size.

2.Failure of vital organs like the kidney,lungs at the time of birth

3.premature ageing

4.Debilitated immune system.

I do not mean that cloning is all together evil but its drawbacks outweighs the potential advantages.Maybe in future with better techniques,proper guidelines and a supportive society we might be able to make use of cloning in unprecedented ways.

source:
1.http://www.genome.gov...
2.http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
hilton16

Pro

According to http://www.fda.gov......
• cloning poses no unique risks to 
animal health, compared to the
risks found with other reproduction
methods, including natural mating

• the composition of food products
from cattle, swine, and goat clones,
or the offspring of any animal
clones, is no different from that of
conventionally bred animals

• because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional
risks to people eating food from
cattle, swine, and goat clones or the
offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food

"After years of detailed study and analysis, the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine (pigs), and goats, and the offspring of clones from any species traditionally consumed as food, are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals. This conclusion stems from an extensive study of animal cloning and related food safety, culminating in the release of three FDA documents in January 2008: a risk assessment, a risk management plan, and guidance for industry.

Researchers have been cloning livestock species since 1996, starting with the famous sheep named Dolly. When it became apparent in 2001 that cloning could become a commercial venture to help improve the quality of herds, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) asked livestock producers to voluntarily keep food from clones and their offspring out of the food chain until CVM could further evaluate the issue."

*Proponents of livestock cloning see it benefiting consumers, producers, animals and the environment.*

*Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any clones, are as safe as food we eat every day."

Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of safety
-While it may not be exactly guarantee there is still safety. According to...http://www.fda.gov......

• cloning poses no unique risks to 
animal health, compared to the
risks found with other reproduction
methods, including natural mating

• the composition of food products
from cattle, swine, and goat clones,
or the offspring of any animal
clones, is no different from that of
conventionally bred animals

• because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional
risks to people eating food from
cattle, swine, and goat clones or the
offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food

FDA issued the risk assessment, the risk management plan, and guidance for industry in draft form for public comment in December 2006. Since that time, FDA has updated the risk assessment to reflect new scientific information that reinforces the food safety conclusions of the draft.
“Our additional review only serves to strengthen our conclusions on food safety,” says Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “Meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones, and the offspring of any animal clones, are as safe as food we eat every day.” FDA’s concern about animal health
prompted the agency to develop a risk management plan to decrease any risks to animals involved in cloning. FDA also issued guidance to clone
producers and the livestock industry on using clones and their offspring for human food and animal feed.

What Cloning Means to Consumers
• FDA has concluded that cattle,
swine, and goat clones, and the
offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food, are
safe for human and animal consumption.

• Food labels do not have to state
that food is from animal clones
or their offspring. FDA has found
no science-based reason to require
labels to distinguish between products from clones and products from
conventionally produced animals.

• The main use of clones is to produce
breeding stock, not food. These
animal clones—copies of the best
animals in the herd—are then used
for conventional breeding, and the
sexually reproduced offspring of
the animal clones become the foodproducing animals.

• Due to the lack of information on
clone species other than cow, goat,
and pig (for example, sheep), FDA
recommends that other clone species do not enter the human food
 
scorpion94

Con

Dear instigator,

I whole-heartedly agree with you about FDA approving the cloned livestock to be used as human food.

But consider this

You have livestock worth $30,000.Would you rear them,take care of them which would at the maximum cost about $5,000 to $7,000 or would you spend $200,000 on getting them cloned.

As I have mentioned before cloning is not only costly but also more failure prone(refer to my argument in round 2)

Where can cloning be used:suppose you have a rare ox which is extremely delicious and a protein powerhouse worth $100,000,then under such an instance would you go for cloning.

Also cloning is a modern biotechnological concept; though engendered in 1950,it is widely adopted very recently in 2000's and so we don't have a clear picture of what its long term effects could be.

As I had mentioned in the round 3 of the genetic differences between a ordinary and a cloned sheep,let me elucidate further by quoting excerpt from a research article:

In 2002, researchers at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reported that the genomes of cloned mice are compromised. In analyzing more than 10,000 liver and placenta cells of cloned mice, they discovered that about 4% of genes function abnormally. The abnormalities do not arise from mutations in the genes but from changes in the normal activation or expression of certain genes.

Problems also may result from programming errors in the genetic material from a donor cell. When an embryo is created from the union of a sperm and an egg, the embryo receives copies of most genes from both parents. A process called "imprinting" chemically marks the DNA from the mother and father so that only one copy of a gene (either the maternal or paternal gene) is turned on. Defects in the genetic imprint of DNA from a single donor cell may lead to some of the developmental abnormalities of cloned embryos.

ergo,I hope that you imbibe the broader picture and modify your arguments.Cloning may have a bright future but certainly not now..
Debate Round No. 4
hilton16

Pro

This brings us to our conclsion. Our stand by my original arguments by saying...

we hope we get your votes

Agriculture and Drug Production:
Not only can the best traits be perpetuated but farm animals could also be used as “machines” for large-scale production of medically important proteins. Polly, a transgenic cloned lamb, is an example. She is able to produce milk containing factor IX — the protein that is deficient in hemophiliacs.

Having Agriculture and Drug Production, more of the food can be clone which can create more the of food.

• cloning poses no unique risks to 
animal health, compared to the
risks found with other reproduction
methods, including natural mating

• the composition of food products
from cattle, swine, and goat clones,
or the offspring of any animal
clones, is no different from that of
conventionally bred animals

• because of the preceding two conclusions, there are no additional
risks to people eating food from
cattle, swine, and goat clones or the
offspring of any animal clones traditionally consumed as food
scorpion94

Con

I would not like to add anything new but summarize my arguments from round 2,3,4

1.cloning is expensive and failure prone
2.The animals that we consume as food are nowhere near extinction hence cloning is not necessary
3.cloned animals have shown to have genetic differences with that of original and so consuming them can cause pathological and biological problems in the distant future
4.cloning does not have a multiplier effect.It is similar to natural reproduction

I thank hilton for being such a wonderful instigator.
I thank the voters who will exercise sound decision
I thank debate.org for this opportunity
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
Thank you LibertarianWithAVoice for your sound vote. It's interesting that you're in Medical School. I'll like to learn a thing or two about Animal Cloning because i've always stand for it. Maybe you can start a forum on this or simply talk about it on here.
Posted by BrooklynHaze 4 years ago
BrooklynHaze
Is this on the assumption meat food is actually worth preserving?
Posted by hilton16 4 years ago
hilton16
Plus assistance wouldn't always be given.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 4 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
hilton16scorpion94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Not a very good debate. I gave arguments to Con because pro used one resource to back his argument against birth defects. I went through medical school and we learned all about the increase in potential birth defects. Cloning, for one example, can lead to an odd number of chromosomes because of various reasons you would have to read my books for as they do not fit in the 626CR. This can lead to diseases such as down syndrome and other cognitive impairments. Conduct was giving to pro simply because he his whole debate had better structure.