Should fossil animals be cloned?
I count about 55 no's, 18 yes's or maybe's, and 2 undetermined. RMR
I have highlighted 11 opinions that were frequently cited by other students in the class as either especially well expressed or as giving new insights. RMR 9/17/02
I realize that I may have been ambiguous about when this assignment is due. This one will be due next Tuesday (9/17) by classtime, to make sure you've got some time and we have the logistics finished, but in the future I'll try to avoid "crossover" between working on different questions.
The "global warming" opinion is due by classtime this Thursday (9/12).
Please read through the directions first before starting to read the opinions.
Instead of asking everyone to read all the responses, which I think might be overwhelming, I will divide it up as follows:
· If your name begins with the letters A to D, please read responses 1 to 19.
· If your name begins with the letters E to K, please read responses 20 to 38.
· If your name begins with the letters L to N, please read responses 39 to 57.
· If your name begins with the letters O to Z, please read responses 58 to the end (currently 75).
[PS- My sincere apologies if anyone started this exercise before I divided up the groups.]
The order of the responses is random. Chances being what they are, the 4 sets will probably differ somewhat. You are welcome, of course, to read responses outside your own set if you have time and interest.
If you do not see your response below, do not planic, but please do let me know. There are 89 people registered for the course and 75 responses, so I am missing 14.
If it were possible, should prehistoric animals be cloned?
1. I think that fossil animals should not be cloned because I think that cloning is a dangerous thing to play around with. Scientist get to "play God" when they can create (an identical) life. I'm afraid if fossil animals were cloned, then what would be next? Humans? While I think it would be amazing to see what these fossil creatures looked like and their behaviors, I think that over-all cloning is a bad idea and is unethical.
2. I think that fossil animals should be cloned. So much could be learned if we discovered what these animals actually looked like, how they really lived. It is important not exploit the creatures or the science. There should be no theme parks. But it would be hard to remain ethical: cloning creatures and poking them with needles is not the nicest thing to do to a confused animal.
3. I do not believe that extinct animals should be cloned because it causes to many problems and the negatives out way any possible knowledge gained by the study. The problems one would occur in cloning an extinct animal would be first after you clone it where will it stay, what would be its home. Secondly, for example if a plant eater was cloned what are the odds todays plant would provide it with the correct nutrients it needs for survival? Also whose to say that it can survive all the new bacterias and diseases today's world has.
4. My opinion on cloning fossil animals is a mixed one. If I had to choose a side though, I would have say that I would be against it. Although it would be fantastic to be able to learn completely about a species that has scratched our minds for a some time, it is still the basic morality of the concept that negates the whole purpose. Life is complex to say the least and to toy with it and to just bring back a species that has been extinct for millions of years would just be wrong. There is no telling how the species would react after being brought into a new world. There is no saying what the limits would be to cloning after that. Also the sole purpose of the animal would be to be tested and that is not typically fair. All in all the pros do not out weigh the cons of cloning fossil animals. I am a little mixed in this opinion though. I would have to have more information to make a more precise opinion. (Frequently cited as an especially well expressed opinion.)
5. Everyone seems to be against the idea of cloning in general, I happen to disagree however. We could learn so much by cloning the DNA of fossil animals, people have this belief that we would use the clones just to rip its organs, in order to save themselves.
If we were to selectively try and clone fossil animals we could find out the truth about dinosaurs, which could lead to alot of unanswered questions about how our current day situation came to be.
This cloning process should be a very limited event, because it would not be benefitial if the cloning grew to astronomical proportions. I am curious to see if scientist could actually successfully clone a fossil animal.
6. Fossil animals should not be cloned. I am not an expert on this issue, but I think that animals from such long ago would not be able to survive in today's world. Prehistoric animals were huge. The largest modern animal I can think of is an elephant. Most animals of our time have evolved to be smaller and more efficient beings. This is for good and simple reason. There is far less resources, such as food, water, and land, available for a huge animal in today's world. I would imagine that larger animals would require more food and water than smaller animals.
7. No, I do not feel that anything in any way shape or form should be cloned. This stems from a sense of discontent and misunderstanding about the society that we live in, we are not ready to clone things. There is a significant amount of learning that could be done, should in some way scientists be able to clone fossils, but cloning is the first step, then well be reproducing them. In a society where we have nuclear capabilities and those are misused all the time, I think opening the possibility for cloning is much more then we can handle.
8. I think that it is important to experiment to see if it is possible to clone extinct animals. However, there must be strict rules limiting the types of animals cloned and the ethic treatment of these animals. Cloning should never be used to recreate an extinct species that has been gone for a long period of time. Dinosaurs should defiantly not be cloned because they could be dangerous. Neither should saber toothed tigers, mammoths or giant ground sloths. I think it might be a good way to support populations of animals that are currently degrading into possibly extinction if absolutely necessary.
9. I think that fossil animals should be cloned because then we will finally know for sure how these animals behaved, and how they lived thousands of years ago. But we must also be careful not to abuse this technology, as we have in the past with nuclear weapons, and several other items that when in the wrong hands can be devastating. We must regulate the creation of these animals and set up their own private living space such as an island and only scientists and specialists should be allowed to study and experiment with these animals. This means that the general public should not be allowed to view or live with these animals until the proper precautions, and all options have been weighed. The other aspect of allowing cloning on these fossil animals is that possible the air conditions have changed drastically since they roamed the Earth and they might not be able to adapt to these new surroundings as they did in the past. These animals will no doubt be confused if they are simply created, and nestled in a city environment or as an amusement attraction. So it is vital to surround them with plants and other forms of life that were around in the periods where they were prevalent and also they have never seen humans before and it might be a bad mix. So, overall I believe cloning fossil animals should be allowed as long as the proper precautions and steps are taken to create a World that is nearly indentical to the one they lived in thousands of years ago. This means we must contain and regulate the use of cloning and avoid human contact with these animals as much as possible unless they are professionals and desire to study these animals. (Cited 5 times as an especially well expressed opinion and 4 times as a new insight.)
10. Scientific advances in the fields of genetics over the past few years has lead to many possibilities and choices which were once thought to exist purely in the realm of science fiction. The cloning of extinct species from fossils has many implications, but I do not support such work because, although it provides possibility for study of long extinct species, it is possible that this new species (or old depending on how you look at it) could contaminate and devistate the ecosystem in which we currently live.
11. Fossil animals should not be cloned. It is understandable that scientists may want to clone animals from fossils purely for reasons of study. They can learn much more about the physical features and the behavior of that animal by studying a living specimen as opposed to the animalâ¬"s bones, but bringing an animal back to life when nature has selected it for extinction is wrong. Things die for a reason and people have no right to meddle in the affairs of fate. Not only do people have no business "playing God" so to speak, but also the cruel intention of raising an animal back from the dead just to imprison it, poke it, fool around with it and then discard it is cruel. Even extinct animals brought back to life have rights to happiness, freedom and peace in death.
12. In my opinion, fossil animals should not be cloned. If those animals that lived so long ago were living on Earth today many problems would occur. One trouble would be that the food that they lived on back when they were alive might not be around today. If these animals could not find their food, they would suffer and starve. Another dilemma brought up would be that this world is already overpopulated as it is, and to add more living beings to it may cause a great problem. These are just a few of the many reasons why we should not clone fossil animals.
13. I do not think that fossil animals should be cloned. It goes against everything natural in the lifecycle. Once something dies, it does not need to be reborn again, even if it as a species, rather than a single being. Although there are some advantages to cloning something that no longer exists, like being able to study it and learn more about it, it could get out of hand and become dangerous. Look at Jurassic Park, 1,2, and 3! That couldn't have gone more wrong. If life was created to be cloned, then we would have been doing it all along, but that was not our intention. Our intention was to be born, live, and die. Our life on earth ends there. It messes with too many things if it were to continue. Cloning fossils is a dangerous thing to get into and should be avoided. Just ask John Hammond
14. I am opposed to the idea of cloning fossil animals. The procedure has a great potential to be dangerous. True, scientists have an extreme amount of knowledge about fossils. However, if humans bring animals back, there are bound to be several surprises. Perhaps the animals behavioral habits are different than expected, creating unnecessary danger. Additionally, cloning fossils is likely to spark hundreds of religious and moral conflicts. Even when scientists used a harmless sheep, thousands of people frowned on cloning. The general population would probably view fossil cloning as immoral and inhuman. Therefore, I believe cloning fossil animals is not an option.
15. Fossil animals should not be cloned just because they are well preserved. Just because scientists can clone them, it doesnt mean they have to. What would happen if they did clone a Mastodon or a Mammoth, where would they put them? Animals can not be in captivity their entire life, it isnt right. There would be too much controversy going on to even consider cloning animals.
16. If there was a way to clone fossil animals, I think that it would be a very worthwhile experiment. If we could learn more about dinosaurs by cloning them then what would be holding us back? Assuming that we would be ethical, it would be a huge step forward in figuring out the ways of our past. However, if we were to make a theme park/zoo that would hold live dinosaurs, of course I would disagree with the idea of cloning fossil animals. Besides, I don't think it would be that possible for dinosaurs to live in many of our modern day environments.
17. Fossils are fossils for a reason. They are dead and have been for a long time. Unlike some recent species, most fossil species were not killed because of human interference. Thusly, I dont think it is in our place to clone fossils since nature as already taken its course. With technology and advancement comes responsibility. Just because we can clone organisms, doesnt necessarily mean that we should clone them. I would consider it overstepping our bounds.
18. I suppose that some good could come out of cloning fossil animals. Scientists learn more about animals when they have live specimens instead of skeletons stuck in a rock. However, it is probably a bad idea. The only real reason for anyone to do it would be to see if it is possible. Nobody really needs to know exactly how dinosaurs behaved, since a great deal is known already and, anyway, we have no real use for dinosaurs, or even much smaller fossil animals, on this planet. People would exploit them. We all saw "Jurassic Park." It wouldn't be as bad as that, but at the least, the animals would end up in a laboratory for their whole lives, and that would not be fair. We should let them stay dead.
19. I think fossil animals should be cloned. In many cases, new technology is feared. This new technology should be embraced and utilized to its fullest extent. If the cloning is regulated and only allowed to be exercised for research, I don't see a problem. If responsible individuals do the research, there could be many new discoveries which could benefit everyone.
20. I do not believe that fossil animals should be cloned. There are to many risks with bringing back a species that was once extinct into the present day environment. No one could predict what the effects might be. Bringing back a fossilized animal could upset todays ecosystem. It could possibly whip out our present animal species. By bringing this animal back it might bring new diseases that we as humans may not be prepared to fight. There are to many risks with cloning these fossils and bringing them back to earth, we dont need another thing to worry about.
21. No, fossil animals should't be cloned, for many reasons. To start when these animals begin to develope where will they live? Our enviroment today is totally different than the enviroment that they once lived in. Given this, the cloned animal may not even survive. If it so happens that the animal does survive, it will have no known predators. To add there is a risk that the fossil clone will have a disease that is harmful to either other animals or humans. I believe that there are to many risks and no particular reasons for cloning fossil animals.
22. I do not think fossil animals should be cloned. Let's take the dinosaurs for example- would people want enormous animals walking the Earth capable of killing hundreds if not thousands of people at one time? Sure, there are some large animals out there- like Elephants- but they don't eat people on a regular basis. Who would want a T-Rex walking around in their own backyard or would want to walk along a Track and Field with a raptor by your side? Dinosaurs were killed for a reason, and that reason is they just don't get along.
23. I'm leaning more towards no because as our current society and civilization stand we're a very productive world. I don't feel we'll gain any knowledge that is that necessary at this point. Our necessities to live are already in existence so I don't see the point in doing all of that research and experiments at this time. I also think this specific topic intermingles with your own belief systems with what should and shouldn't be played with. If cloned a black market would obviously arise and the abuse and misuse of the animals would be exploited and in turn be very dangerous. In a situation like this someone with power always wants to go above and beyond the intended purpose. Personally I feel my opinion is to swayed by the Jurassic Park movies. (Frequently cited as a new insight.)
24. I do not think that fossil animals should be cloned. Many animals that are fossils have become extinct and lived in a different time period. To bring those animals into this world would be like mixing two different worlds. There could be very bad outcomes from doing something like that. Who can say whether or not the animal can coexist with others in this world. The fossilized animal is extinct for a reason, it couldn't live in the world that it was in so why bring it back to once again live in a world that it can't.
25. The chance to see a dinosaur in the flesh would be once in a lifetime. It would mean so many new scientific breakthroughs. However it could also be a fatal mistake. There are millions of different creatures that have become fossils. Their lifetime on earth has come to an end which is exactly why they are now fossils. If humans were to recreate these lifeforms there would be no way to predict how the situation would turn out. We could provide the most controlled environment possible and something could still go wrong. The whole thing could easily become out of hand. I would love the chance to see a live dinosaur. However, only if that dinosaur is a plant eater. By bringing the past back to life we are messing with the timeline of how life on earth is supposed to play out. So no matter how exciting it would be for scientists to clone fossil animals, I would have to say that my opinon is no, they should not be cloned.
26. No, I do not think they should be cloned. I believe the same principles that make people hesitant of human and other animal cloning apply to fossil animals as well. While cloning the animal would provide valuable insight into the functions and systems of the body as well as behavioral patterns, I think scientists can determine and surmise fairly well from the information provided by the fossil itself. Those animals were not meant to exist today, and allowing cloning to further the knowledge of prehistoric life could lead to more dangerous rationalizations for tampering with life.
27. I think that people should be able to clone fossil animals if the technology is available. It would be a great insite into the animals that roamed the earth millions of years ago. It would help scientists greatly understand how these animals lived and to see behaviors of these creatures that they did not know because of their inability to see them in action. It would be a great scientific and intellectual aid if we were able to see these creatures with our own eyes and not just from their remains. I do not think that it breaks any moral code. If God did not want us to clone he wouldn't have given us the brain power to do it. (Frequently cited as a new insight.)
28. I dont believe that fossil animals should be cloned by scientists. The natural ecology of the earth is very delicate and animals have been extinct for a reason. They probably had maladaptive traits that made then unsuccessful in their evironment. Not only may they not survive, but their impact on the environment and current life may be detrimental. Perhaps this cloned animal preys on certain organisms and therefore cause a substantial problem in the natural balance of predator and prey. This clone may also consume too much of a certain type of plant or other source of food or push native species out of their habitats. We also cant be sure of what conditions the organism would have lived in and they might simply reach extinction shortly after cloning (if the temperatures are not the same now for instance).
29. In my opinion it would be quite unethical to clone fossil animals. Personally I feel that those animals became extinct for a reason-whether that reason is a result of a higher power, natural evolution, disease, or natural disaster that particular species is not supposed to roam the earth any longer. While the research would certainly be extensive and educational (as well as interesting) I feel there are more current issues plaguing our society that deserve priority research attention. These issues include cancer and aids research, and environmental studies to prevent our species from extinction. The final reason I feel that fossil cloning is not a good idea is that I dont agree with any type of cloning. I find it unethical and risky. A prime example of this is Dolly the sheep that is! aging at a much more rapid rate than a normal sheep. If a clone of an existing species is suffering&what can be expected from bringing back a fossilized one?
30. The act of cloning has been becoming more apparent in the world today. At this point just about anyhting can be cloned, and becasue of this new phenomena, it is no wonder that people become curious as to what else can be cloned. The idea of bringing someting back to life through science is a concept many people, not just scientists are curious about.It is an intriguing idea to think of bringing back what we now know as some of the earliest life on our planet. It would most definatly bring life back to the mystery of that ancient world.
31. Cloning is one of the worlds greatest scientific achievements. However, this technological advance has caused much debate. A question of ethics has been raised, whether it is moral to clone animals and humans. Many people feel that if we are able to clone, it is like playing God, in that we are choosing what gets to live and be born. The fossil animals that are found should not be cloned because it is ethically wrong.
32. I see no reason to clone animals that have been extinct for thousands, if not millions of years. Surely todays environment is far different from the ones that they originally lived in, and would only cause problems. Would they be able to adapt to our current climate, or to todays available food source? Along with cloning animals, also comes the risk of new bacteria, which could potentially be hazardous to humans or other living species.
33. In response to the question of whether or not fossil animals should be cloned I would have to say no they should not. I think that cloning these creatures in laboratories uncertain results. Also, due to the fact that researchers today have no physical proof of the behavior of these creatures, the animals could end up being extremely dangerous and difficult to control. Another problem is that there is no place in which these creatures could live, except for perhaps in a lab which is not a useful method of research, for scientists would never view the creatures in their natural state. I think that the dinosaurs passed on for a reason, and to bring them back would simply cause more trouble then understanding.
34. Fossil animals should be cloned. The wealth and accuracy of information that could be obtained from studying real, life animals interacting with their environments would be invaluable. Instead of the guesswork and assumptions associated with fossils, we would have the creatures there at our disposal. Our records, research, and textbooks would be infinitely more accurate. We would know exactly how the creatures lived, their habits, and mannerisms. Cloning extinct animals would also give everyone an opportunity to view these creatures as they truly appeared, rather than leaving it up to an artist's rendering in a drawing in a book. (Frequently cited as an especially well expressed opinion and as a new insight.)
35. I think that the cloning of fossils, while being incredibly useful in helping us understand the past, would not be practical. They would be outstanding as a teaching tool, but I don't think it would be practical to actually bring an entire mastadon or mammoth back into existence. Simply having their DNA should be able to teach us an extrordinary amount about them without having to recreate them, and also be much safer and more practical. True, it would be really cool to go to the zoo and be able to see a mammoth or mastadon, but there was a specific reason they became extinct. Bringing them into today's world may not be good for them, or for us.
36. The second that I read this question, my thoughts turned to the movie Jurassic Park. When I was little, I considered Jurassic Park to be quite a scary movie, and I remember having to close my eyes for some parts. Even though this movie is fictitious, it is the story of what happened when dinosaur fossils were cloned, and the outcome was disastrous. My point here is that if we cloned animal fossils, we have no idea what the outcome would be. Maybe they wouldnt necessarily run around killing people, but they might not be able to survive in our modern world. These animals are extinct for a reason, and if they were meant to still be alive, then they would be.
37. I don't believe that fossil animals should be cloned. First of all, I think that finding a fossil animal is something great, and since it isn't all that common, it should be looked at as some sort of small miracle, almost like finding a pot of gold, in a paleontologists' world. If fossil animals were to be cloned they would lose all their glory and wonder and would just become common, unlike they are now. The fact that fossil animals are rare makes them all the more exciting, but by cloning them, this would be taken away. I think that we should leave them as they are, pieces of wonder, from the past, and not try to mess with what nature has given us.
38. When asked about whether fossil animals should be cloned, I concluded that there were too many dangers in cloning these fossils then the knowledge that could be gained from them. They animals could bring back diseases, which could kill humans, they could put our ecosystem out of wack, because in order to keep an animal alive you would have to feed it, put them in correct surroundings, and it all would get out of control, and the last point is it just wouldnt be right to bring them back to be poked and examined, it would be cruel.
39. I believe that cloning a fossil is wrong. Between global warming and pollution the environments the animal lived in are gone. And who knows if they can coexist with animals alive now. In short, it would be cruel to introduce the animals to present day.
40. Simply being able to entertain the thought of cloning fossil animals is an exciting situation. While intriguing it wouldn't be in the best interest for our global community to tinker in such experiments. The project, like anything else, would be launched with the best moral intentions. In today's world it is highly likely that good intentions would not be shared by all. It is very likely that outside agencies with there own interests in mind would taint the project in some manner. How fossils are currently studied gives us adequate information, and cloning is not necessary.
41. Fossils, as well as other historic artifacts from ancient civilizations, contain the keys to understanding our past, as well as portraying lessons to learn from to shape our future. The cloning of fossils, and any object or life form for that matter, contain information that I believe will help our civilization to grow and prosper. In taking a look at the world as we know it, we will find disease, mental illnesses, death, and great mysteries of past civilizations. Through genetic cloning, scientists are unlocking the mysteries of our bodies, so isn't it possible to also discover the secrets of our past? Fossils of dinosaurs have been discovered, and scientists are yet to come up with an explanation for their disappearances. I believe that through cloning, it would be possible to discover the answers to some much asked questions... What happened to the dinosaurs? What happened to the civilizations before ours? I believe that cloning fossils will help the human race discover the mysteries of our past, as well as protect the fate of the dinosaurs from happening to us.
42. Fossil animals being cloned have been sort of a myth ever since the movie Jurassic Park was released in the 1990's. Even though this may be considered a myth it may be possible considering many advances that science makes everyday. Personally I believe that fossil animals should not be cloned basically because scientist should not play the role of God. Scientists have no right to create life or for that matter destroy life. If ancient life was cloned I only see these creatures being abused and exploited for financial gain. Besides the moral reasoning behind my anti-cloning stance, truthfully these animals would be out of place and dangerous to the habitat it is placed in. These animals are not adapted to our earth and environment. (Frequently cited as an especially well expressed opinion.)
43. I think fossil animals should absolutely be cloned. The information we could gather from these extinct animals would be invaluable the world of science, and just the world in general.
44. Cloning is a new form of technology that can bring old things the life as well as make a live replica of a living source. I believe that cloning of fossil animals should be allowed, but under high tech laboratories. The thing I would worry most about would be the abuse of cloning and the possibility that it could get out of hand. Other than that I think that cloning would help us to look at past creatures the way they were and how they operate under modern day conditions. Cloning not only is a new technology, but a very helpful form as well.
45. The Cloning of fossil animals has serious implications that stem from the direct interaction of science and life. If cloning trials on fossils were to take place, what if any reason would there be to have these trials? Is it imperative to the progress of science to have a living speciman from the past? If cloning fossils would help expediate our progress in any worthwhile area then it should be allowed for practical and potentially postive progressions of life. If the trials were to only satisfy a thirst for correct historical representations, then questions should arise. Is the risk worth taking, and do the beneits outweigh the time and money that would be spent on resurrecting the dead. I don't think that bringing back fossil life should be a high priority if we are going to try and capitalize from it, or try to satisfy our human desire for hindsight. If there are scientific breakthroughs to be made from the cloning trials of fossil life, then I think that it should be a possibility, but only after all sides of the coin have been studied and weighed for negative and positive repercussions.
46. The question of fossil animals being cloned poses a great threat to man kind, but at the same time, can offer new and intriguing information about the prehistoric creatures. Re-creating these animals may be risky and even deadly. Researchers do not know how these animals will react once created or how to prevent them from causing serious damage. This could lead to wide spread destruction. On the other hand, it would serve as an amazing learning experience for researchers and enable them to study certain aspects of the animals that they were never able to before. However, I feel that the safety of mankind is more important than research. So, unless researches can come up with a way to ensure the safety of the environment, I do not think that these animals should be cloned.
47. Yes. Fossil animals should be cloned. Because I believe that the purpose of life is to fully grasp and understand our own individual self, it is necessary to study the things that we can, animals being one of the many medians that humans use to strive for full closure. Because of animals and archaeological evidence and research, we have come closer and closer to understanding the human race, namely itâ¬"s origin. In the last century alone, great headway has been made has been made by the human race through the study of nature and wildlife, and wildlife that we cannot study in depth (namely fossilized, non existent lifeform), only hinders the process. Although cloning animals is inevitable, and necessary, we know little about our earth as it stands now. This is something that we can leave alone for a long time to come. Cloning has become a gret controversy over the past few years with the idea of cloning humans in the minds of many. Cloning fossil animals, now that is a different question and I am torn between the answer. I would love to see the magnificient site of these beasts, yet at the same time, the mystery that they bring to history should be left as is. I think that cloning them would be a good thing as well as a bad thing so for me, it wouldn't make much of a difference cause I feel both ways.
48. Fossil animals should not be cloned. No one should try and duplicate anything that is so old and interesting, especially if we can learn about its origins just by studying and observing it. We would never think of cloning a dead human, unless we are Ted Williams' son, and a fossil is obviously no longer a living organism so why would we do that to something that we may not learn that much from.
49. while i think that it would be fascinating to see live versions of animals whose remains i have seen i don't think that they should be cloned. i believe that they went extinct for a reason and that we should let it be. also, even if we did clone a fossil animal, what would we do with it? well, obviously we would study it and im sure gain invaluable information from it, but the quaility of the life of the animal surely would have to be compromised. one must consider as well the possibility of something going wrong. should that happen how would that be dealt with? even if all went well and a fossil animal was successfully cloned there would be the temptation to clone others and then more still. where would it stop? i think that in light of all of these unknowns humans should let well enough alone and not attempt to clone a fossil animal.
50. As technology moves ahead quicker and quicker, many think that we should experiment on whatever we think we know how to do. However, there are lines that simply should not be crossed. Scientists have been studying fossils for numerous years, and are always learning more. While the benefits of actually reproducing a fossil are quite obvious, the dangers are what should be heavily considered. These species are extinct for many reasons, some of which we will never know. Once a creature is produced, the scientists only option would be to kill it, something that the animal rights organizations would become very upset over. The way scientists have been studying fossils in the past has always worked, people do not need to push the limits on something that should not be crossed.
51. I believe that fossil animals should be cloned, but only for the right reasons. They should be cloned to study them and see how they lived and moved, not to attract tourists or put them in a zoo. I think that having dinosaurs around or even mamoths would be fascinating and would solve of the gray areas in our knowledge of prehistoric beasts. I think this would be a great idea to clone these animals, but I am quite sure that they will be taken advantage of and used to make money. I think it would be very cool if they were brought to life for the right reasons and not the wrong ones. So I would support the idea of bringing these prehistoric beasts to life one day. (Frequently cited as a new insight.)
52. Ever since Jurassic Park came out in 1993, interest in cloning fossils (especially dinosaur fossils) has been widespread. I think it might be kind of interesting if scientists managed to clone dinosaurs from DNA extracted from a mosquito trapped in amber. However, not only is it not practical, but its very improbable. Dr. Jeremy Austin of the Natural History Museum in London has been doing on-going DNA research. Dr. Austins efforts thus far have proved that the extraction of ancient DNA is highly prone to contamination, meaning that the extracted DNA doesnt necessarily date back to the time of dinosaurs. He states that the likelihood of finding dinosaur DNA is not imminent.
53. I do not think fossil animals should be cloned...mainly because there is just no reason for it. What good would it do to have mammoths around again? I dont even really believe in cloning at all. Scientists should not mess with nature like that. It was just ment to be that some species went extinct. Everything happens for a reason.
54. The second that I read this question, my thoughts turned to the movie Jurassic Park. When I was little, I considered Jurassic Park to be quite a scary movie, and I remember having to close my eyes for some parts. Even though this movie is fictitious, it is the story of what happened when dinosaur fossils were cloned, and the outcome was disastrous. My point here is that if we cloned animal fossils, we have no idea what the outcome would be. Maybe they wouldnt necessarily run around killing people, but they might not be able to survive in our modern world. These animals are extinct for a reason, and if they were meant to still be alive, then they would be.
55. I personally feel that cloning in general is immoral and should not be done; whether cloning a person or an animal. Although this technology is already in existence, I think that there is too much room for the abuse of this technology, and that it should not be researched further. There is a reason why the animals in question are no longer living, and I don't feel that we have the right to meddle in this type of affair. We are not God, Mother Nature, or any higher being that people may believe in, it is simply not our place. Yes, there may be advantages, but these do not outweigh the inevitable negatives in my mind.
56. Fossils are one of our only links to the past. It is true that they give us much insight to what life use to be like, however they do not tell us everything. I believe that cloning fossil animals would be a bad thing to do. The animals are extinct for a reason and bringing them back into the world today, where everything that they knew of has changed, would only lead to problems. Cloning fossils would lead to serious repercussions both for the animals and for human beings alike. So, I believe that it is better to just preserve the fossils and study them as they are.
57. When debating whether or not fossils should be cloned, it should fall under the same argument as whether humans should be cloned or not. While cloning fossils would benefit scientific research, the ethical problems it would create would be massive. The bottom line is, humans abuse power, and we cannot be trusted to refrain from exploiting the benefits that fossil cloning would produce. Darwinism also has to be considered in this debate. Evolution wiped out the dinosaurs, and who are we to mess with god/evolution? The bottom line is, once humans show enough self-control to not abuse power, than maybe cloning fossils should come under consideration.
58. I do not believe animal fossils should be cloned. My main concern is that these animals are extinct, and extinct for a reason. Nautre whiped out such animals as the dinosaurs and the mastadon to make room for the human race to prospour. Another reason i believe cloning fossil animals is a bad idea is that maybe the mastadon, for example, has an appetite for humans. Don't forget the carnivorous dinasours also. Also, for all we know these extinct animals carry diseases that humans do not hold immunities for. This also could lead to worlwide pandamonium. Even if the cloning of animal fossils would help us learn vast amounts of these animals, the risk is just not worth it. I honestly am content with not having huge hairy elephants and nasty dinosaurs "playing" in my backyard.
59. I do not believe in cloning fossil mammals, such as the mammoth. I will agree with cloning things like sheep or cattle, but cloning an extinct species such as mammoths or dinosaurs seems morally wrong to me. First of all I dont believe that the scientists working on the project would know what to do with the mammoth. They probably wouldnt know the exact environment it needs, and the kind of food it can and cannot eat. Also the planet is vastly different then it was the last time a mammoth was around, so I think it would be very difficult for a mammoth to survive.
60. I believe that cloning fossil animals could cause problems and should, therefore, probably not be attempted. It is one thing to clone sheep, an animal which already exists in todays world. However, to clone a species which became extinct for one purpose or another could be harmful to the environment in which we live. For example, if a species occupies a certain niche while it is alive and then becomes extinct, that niche may be filled by another species. However, if the extinct species is cloned and let back out into the environment it may be difficult, if not impossible, for the two species to coexist, as two species can not occupy the same niche. Now a species, which has been living naturally in our environment, may become endangered because it is competing with the formerly extinct species. This is one among many reasons why fossil animals should not be cloned.
61. I am completely against cloning any animal, be it still living or extinct. Regardless of the scientific benefits, once the cloning barrier has been lowered, then what happens to society? In the hands of a generally good scientist, who only has research in mind it may be harmless, but the technology can always get to someone with less then pure motives, and frankly a horde of ferocious, huge and rather unpredictable creatures doesnt fill me with glee.
62. In todays society it feels like there are just as many people that are for cloning as there are against. Cloning is simply the making or duplication of somethings exact genetic makeup to create one or more of the same thing. The opinions that are reached about cloning will always be different, for when it comes to science one has to ask, What exactly is it that is being cloned? When the question, Should fossil animals be cloned? was asked, I took some time to think but strongly felt that they should not be cloned. Cloning on the whole is a scary piece of science. In a way it seems safe and scientifically secure to accomplish but no one can account for the many malfunctions or mutations that can occur. If a malfunction or mutation in the genetic makeup were to occur in the cloning of a fossil animal the results would only provide us with a changed species that is the only of its kind that exists and might not possibly be able to survive on its own. Cloning of anything in my mind is also messing with the works of God and his creations. So therefore the cloning of a fossil animal is also viewed negatively just as anything else would because I truly feel that if you exist on this earth there is a reason and not because of some scientific project done in research.
63. The last thing I want to see running through my back yard is a Mastodon. Or maybe a Tyrannosaurus Rex. As much fun as it would be to give out Stegosaurus rides at the New York State Fair, cloning fossil animals would be wrong. Animal species that now appear as fossils disappeared due to natural causes such as changes in climate. If man had been responsible for their extinction, I would say scientists could consider it as a sort of remuneration, or at least a kind of second chance. But bringing back an extinct, fossilized species now would do no more than satisfy our curiosity. Universities would conduct all sorts of unethical experiments on the creatures, and people at zoos would ogle them in their prisons of ceramic tile and truck tire swings. Let sleeping dinos (or bugs, or mollusks) lie. (Frequently cited as an especially well expressed opinion.)
64. The potential cloning of dinosaurs bears ethical and scientific considerations. On the one hand, cloned dinosaurs could be studied and used in an effort to help cure human diseases. Each year the destruction of rainforest causes the extinction of many plants and animals that could possibly hold the cure for diseases such as cancer, what if dinosaurs also held that potential. Although dealing with the ethical side, we must ask which dinosaurs are cloned. Should scientists play the role of God and decide which animals and plants live and die? The decision would have to weigh issues such as religious beliefs, medical advances, implications on the life cycle, and moral consequences. Only once the benefits and detriments to society as a whole are determined could a decision be made.
65. The cloning of prehistoric animals from fossilized DNA is a risk that should not be taken in todays environment. While it would possibly provide a chance to better study creatures that we may only speculate about today, the danger to the ecosystems they would inhabit far outweighs any benefits. Whole new species and environments have arisen since these creatures extinctions, and it would greatly endanger these habitats if these essentially alien creatures were suddenly introduced. They could threaten already-endangered species or other animal populations in a manner that could cause a domino effect of irreparable harm.
66. Yes I do believe fossils should be cloned. It would be so scientifically groundbreaking. An immense amount of knowledge could be obtained from studying living prehistoric animals and dinosaurs. Question that have forever plagued mans mind could be answered and so many mysteries could be unfolded. It just seems right to have the desire to learn about the past. Learning from the past can often teach us very useful things. Although this cloning could be very productive and prove to be very useful it is important that some moral and ethical values are kept. A creation such as Jurassic park would probably not be the best idea and should be avoided. Along with any unusually cruel treatments to the life that is created.
67. There are good reasons why fossil animals should and should not be cloned. The intrigue of being able to replicate, and actually create an animal that was extinct before the creation of man is an astounding feat and would answer many more questions about the structure of the world, past and present. But I am torn between the repercussions of this process, because I am thoroughly against the cloning of humans, and I feel that the ability and legal precedence to clone fossil animals would open the door for human replication. Although I have no substantial argument as to what the difference is between the two, human cloning would change the course of human nature far more than the cloning of fossil animals just because of the simple fact that fossil animals would be cloned into a world where they naturally no longer existed, they would be distinctly recognizable. Where as creating clones "cut from the same cloth" as its creators can have economical, medical, and religious implications that would effect mankind much more than the replication of Dinosaurs and other pre-historic animals. (Frequently cited as an especially well expressed opinion.)
68. Approximately 10,000 years ago, mastodons roamed all of North America. Now in the 21st century, scientists may soon have the technology to clone these fossil animals. I do not think these animals should be cloned for a number of reasons. One reason would be is that they are extinct because they are meant to be extinct and if scientists do clone these animals they would be tampering with fate. Also another reason if these animals got out of captivity there would be a new species to the environment which can throw off the food chain of the ecosystem. One final reason why they should not clone fossil animals is that animal activists would not approve because these animals would be kept in captivity and containment.
69. Although it would be fascinating to see extinct creatures, to reincarnate prehistoric animals from their D.N.A. found in fossils is morally and ethically wrong. Everything on Earth is taking or has taken their natural cycle through life and into extinction already or will sometime in the near future. Mother nature decides when it is time for an animal to become extinct and there is a reason for it. To manipulate nature in such a way as to bring back the long since dead could have extreme consequences. Prehistoric animals in general would definitely pose a hazard for the well being of the citizens in the world because they dont belong in our time period.
70. This may sound a little too "Jurassic Park"ish, but I believe that they should definitely try and clone these fossil animals. Ever since I was a little boy, I was amazed with dinosaurs and I think I would give up anything to see one in person. Dinosaurs as a whole have been a mystery to mankind ever since the first fossil was found. I think if scientists are able to create these prehistoric creatures, we could learn more than we have ever dreamed of. We could study them as thoroughly as we study every other animal on the planet. Think about how much scientists have learned about chimps; from basic eating habits to things as detailed as their social tendencies. Also, the amount of attraction to see dinosaurs would create an economic marvel. The amount of knowledge that can be discovered is infallible and should not be denied.
71. Should fossils be cloned? I think not. If fossils were intended to be alive today, they would be. Species come and go and the extinct species had their opportunity to be alive. It also isn't our place to bring back a species that isn't suited for survival in the current world. Yes, it would be nice to have a "living fossil" for scientists to study, but it wouldn't be natural. How would you like it after so many billions of years after you died, someone cloned you just to study your body?
72. If the cloning of fossils became a widespread phenomenon, then we would soon encounter the difficulty of introducing the revived species into our current ecosystems. Much like new species of flora and fauna introduced to new regions by international transportation, the introduction of fossil animals would unbalance and possibly destroy their new environs. All this aside, one wonders how society could benefit from the cloning of fossil animals. Admittedly, the possibility of studying living specimens would greatly advance biological fields, what would we do with the specimens after their scientific use have ended? (Frequently cited as a new insight.)
73. Extinct organisms should only be cloned under the most intense scrutiny. If there is some possible benefit to cloning an extinct animal, the animal should only be cloned in a laboratory and not released into the natural environment. Such a release could result in an upset of the natural balance in the local food web. If a T rex were introduced into update New York, I'm sure it would flourish and produce many more T rexes with little trouble. After all, what eats a T rex? Not a house cat or deer that's for sure. But if the organism produces a beneficial enzyme or can in some way help mankind, then the organism should be manipulated for that purpose. (But only under the most intense scrutiny.)
74. The availability of technology to clone once extinct animals from their fossil remains brings up many controversial issues. Bringing back the extinct animals could prove to be a potential food source or labor force for humans, but then again could upset the way life is as we know it today. I believe that we should not clone extinct animals from their fossil remains because of the consequences which could follow. We could ultimately see a world dominated by the once extinct organism, as it could potentially out-compete other organisms in its environment for food and living space. This could then lead to the extinction of another kind of species.
75. Fossil animals should not be cloned because it would throw off the ecosystem. To reintroduce an organism into a world that it is not familiar with would either kill the animal or kill other organisms. In this instance science should not clone any organism that became extinct. The fossil animal became extinct because it could not adapt to its surroundings and died naturally. To bring this organism back by unnatural means would be wrong. Science should look to the future and use cloning technology to make organisms for transplant or stem cell research. An effort to clone a fossil animal would be futile and unnecessary and would be abusing the power of science. (Frequently cited as an especially well expressed opinion.)