Lpez 1 Carlos Lpez Fionualla Griffin English Composition 2 August 11/ 2011 Cloning is the way to fight against

animal extinction Part1: What I already know In the past, the idea of creating living beings from copying another organism was the result of the daring imagination of filmmakers and usually this idea was related to science fiction or some kind of animated television series. In the year 1996, all those crazy theories and ideas became true with the creation of the first cloned living being. It was a sheep called Dolly which resulted from the complex process of extracting the cells of an adult sheep, isolating them and transferring to a coreless egg cell. Because of this process, the egg cells started to behave like a normal fertilized egg cell and grew until it became the cloned living being. . Since Dolly was created; the cloning issue was no longer a crazy and aberrant idea and became one of the biggest controversies around the world which involve different areas of life such as religion, society, and science enclosing it within a framework of negativity based on the opinions and beliefs of people. In most cases, cloning is regarded as something unacceptable. For example in the case of religion; it threatens to destroy the very foundations of Christianity because no priest would want Jesus to be cloned and the fact that he wasnt as divine as it was believed to be revealed. Because of these negative opinions, we ignore to the many uses that cloning may have for the benefit of mankind. In my opinion, we should not only focus our minds on negative and often baseless comments. We have to consider the cloning itself not only a threat to our beliefs but to an

Lpez 2 opportunity to resolve many problems that are affecting life in our planet. For example, the Cloning process could be used to fight against the animal extinction and once for all eradicate this problem from the Earth. Thats the reason why I picked this topic. I want to provide the necessary information and sources that could be used as a proof of the benefits of cloning animals suffering from endangering or that has been extinct from our planet. Besides, I want to encourage people to reflect on their use of cloning in the field mentioned before, not because of playing God but to be fair and reciprocal to the things he created and which we unconsciously destroyed among the years. Part 2: What I want to find out There are many questions I would like to answer about cloning an its progress over the years. First of all I am interested in how many of animal species are endangered? What are the foundations that protect animals doing to fight against animal extinction? Secondly, I would like to know: When the idea of cloning was developed scientifically? What cloning actually is? Who first applied the cloning concept? Was dolly really a clone? What problems caused Dollys early death? And if its possible get the personal opinion of someone involved in Dollys creation; to inform the audience about what cloning specifically is and leave open the possibility of its use in other fields. Also, some information I would like to find is: What uses can be made of cloning? How could cloning change life of mankind? What countries are leading investigations in cloning? Why they are doing it for? As well as: Could the cloning idea destroy religion? Or could religions destroy the possibility of cloning? And finally, something difficult, I would like to investigate: What other interests are behind the concept of cloning? Which aspects of cloning are considered legal and feasible?

Lpez 3 What impact it would cause on society if cloning is considered an alternative to combat death? Part III: The Search According to the article The animal extinction continues growing; which was written by Barbara Hirtz and published at ZonaCatastrofica.com on November 9, 2009; the rate of the animal extinction and endangering species around the world is growing drastically. Having as a reference the statistics presented by IUCN (International Union to Conservation of Nature) based on a determined amount of studied species. In 2009, the Red List of Endangered Species was published by the IUCN. It revealed frightening data which deserves to get a lot of attention and raise consciousness in peoples minds. According to the data with a sample of 47.677 studied species; 17.291 species are endangered. It means about 36% of the evaluated species are just one step away from disappearing from the face of the Earth. This percentage of endangered of species refers to the complete animal kingdom itself and covers 21% of known mammals; 30% of amphibians; 12% of birds; 28% of reptiles; 37% of fish and 35% of invertebrates are endangered around the world (Hirtz). And supporting this terrible and alarming data; Jane Smart, Director of the Biodiversity Conservation Group of the IUCN, expressed: The scientific evidence of a serious crisis of extinction is growing, (qtd. in Hirtz). Looking in a deeper and more detailed way the data provided by the IUCN we can get a proven perspective of the endangering species rate. We could observe that in the case of Mamals which are 5490 known species; 79 are considered extinct, 188 are critically endangered, 449 are endangered and 505 are vulnerable. All this statistics represents the 21% of endangered mammals. On the other hand, the USA National Wildlife Federation Statistics mentioned before; of 27000 species are extinct every year. It means we lost 3 species every hour. All this caused by many factors with different percentages like hunting in a 20%,

Lpez 4 Habitat destruction 30%, Species introduction 33%, Pollution 15% and other reason 2% (Hirtz). This statistics provides us a clear idea of the principal reason that causes all this factors. It is human ignorance to which the NWF attributes the 100% of the animal extinction rate. I agree with the perspective of the NWF and it supports my belief that the endangering species rate is growing at a rapid pace. All this caused by a single species that does not consider his brothers. This is the human being which since its appearance on the planet has only been focused on benefiting at the expense of damaging whatever is in its environs. Added to this is the low will and sense of responsibility for the damage we have caused which have distinguished us from the other species since time immemorial. Now that I have established how much the extinction and endangering species rate is growing; I intend to investigate what are the foundations that protect animals doing to fight against animal extinction? Based on this question; I found an article called Life after Death written by Chris Hayhurst and published in E: The Environmental Magazine on November 1999. The information presented in this article express the idea of what does are the foundations that protect animals doing to fight the extinction of species in the planet. It refers to the statistics about the species that are officially endangered or threatened. According to the information revealed by the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); 877 species of our animals and 569 of our plants are officially endangered; that is, one step away from disappearing from the face of the earth. Added to this, 297 species are threatened. It means that they stand a decent chance of becoming endangered in the not-sodistant future. Finally, a more telling statistic that is not included in USFWS figures. That is the tally of species that are gone, presumably forever. Hand with statistics that likewise has

Lpez 5 the National Wildlife Federation (NWF); the current worldwide rate of extinction is about 27,000 species per year. It means, around three species lost every hour. Within this group of species are animals and plants that have never been cataloged. According to the information revealed by the USFWS Consultations and Habitat Conservation and expressed through the words of the Chief Rick Sayers: "To be honest with you, if we're really convinced that a species is extinct, we don't make a particularly strong effort to continue looking for it." (qtd. in Hayhurst) referring to the fact that once a species is branded extinct, it essentially drops off the agency's radar screen as well as the endangered species list. But despite these dismal and alarming figures, there is the thinking that extinction wont be necessarily forever as Bruce Stein, a senior scientist at The Nature Conservancy (TNC), explains in the phrase: A lot of times, you simply don't know if something hasn't been seen for a long time because it's really gone, or because no one has bothered to look for it. You can never be absolutely certain about extinctions," (qtd. in Hayhurst) to refer to the alternatives that foundations are actually exploring to save animals. And consistent with this positive thinking about saving animals from extinction; there are already initiatives applied in favor of the endangered species like the TNC's recently defunded Canon Exploration Grants Program whose mission is to concentrate efforts in a systematic way to look for missing and possibly extinct U.S. species. Over two years of coordinated research; many re-found species; as they're known resulted out of it like of several plants, six snails, two insects, and freshwater mussel, among others around the country. And motivated by this initiative this organization and independent scientists like Dr. Stuart Pimm of the University of Tennessee who scoured the side of Maui's 10,000-plus-foot Haleakala Crater in search of the elusive po'ouli honeycreeper; first discovered in 1973 and

Lpez 6 then branded extinct. They re-found three remaining individuals and it was a significant--if slight--find, but one disconcerting problem appeared as the scientists made their way back to the lab. Two of the animals had the same sex and according Dr. Pimm: I think it's now known that two of the birds are of one sex, and one is of the other, but for a while there was a distinct possibility that they were all the same, you don't have to be a biologist to work out the consequences of that." (qtd in. Hayhurst) to refer about to the thin a line these rediscovered species are walking. But despite of this; these scientists refuse to give up hope for the survival of each rediscovered species. For example, the effort of the Philadelphia-based Wildlife Preservation Trust International to organize a search to reveal a wild population of black lion tamarins in the slashed-and-burned rainforests of eastern Brazil and which was successful as well as the possible future searching a flock of thick-billed parrots in southern Arizona; both of these species were branded as extinct. And based on this trend; sometimes scientists make their own luck and try other alternatives to save animals from extinction. For example in New Zealand; researchers approved a plan to clone an extinct bird, the Huia, from preserved specimens. This bird was endangered due to the use of their beautiful feathers by the European millinery trade. The idea is searching cells in bone and tendon or the DNA extraction using what the Environmental News Network calls "Jurassic Park technology." But the despites of having the knowledge and the technology to do it; comes to light the question Is saving animals without also saving their habitat is a futile effort, (qtd. in Hayhurst) as suggested by John Kostyack, NWF counsel. In conclusion, an implication of this study is that many alternatives to save endangered animal species are being explored. Everything is done to one day we could consider the extinction of species a thing of the past. The idea may sound a bit exaggerated

Lpez 7 but its clear that nowadays but despite of the efforts of the animal protectors foundations the rate of extinction is growing every day in a rapid pace. So all this initiatives represents a minimal percentage; almost nothing compared with the damage caused because of the extinction of the species. So, based on this thinking; we cannot deny that cloning offers an alternative of life for all species. The problem is that despite of having the knowledge and technology to fight against animal extinction through cloning; we still consider negative comments and thoughts that revolve around it and we totally stop our efforts. I think we should pool our efforts and focus them towards the principal reason; saving species from extinction; if we want to reverse that terrible high percentage. This has satisfied some of my research questions but it is now necessary to show what cloning actually is and how could it be applied in animals? So, in order to answer this questions I found an interview which gives us a clear explanation of this field. The following is an interview in which Dr. Wilmut was interviewed by Jackson Hole. It took place in Wyoming on May 23, 1998. Dr. Ian Wilmut is the pioneer scientist who applied the cloning theory and created Dolly the sheep; the first cloned animal. Dr Wilmut has dedicated his life to research on animal genetic engineering. He did some pioneer experiments based on the cloning concept like the first calf from a frozen embryo, an animal the team named Frosty or a pair of lambs, Megan and Morag, from embryonic cells. Given the length of the interview, I have decided to select questions and answers directly relevant to my topic. Jackson Hole: How did you become interested in science? I understand your first interest was in farming? Ian Wilmut: We lived in a woolen area, in an area where the mill was famous because it was the first in which the wool from llamas was used, alpaca. And so it was an industrial area. But

Lpez 8 I always enjoyed getting out. And I think it was through working with animals on the farm. I'm not particularly mechanically minded, so tractors never really attracted me at all. But, milking dairy cows, becoming familiar with dairy cows, understanding the biology a little bit, that's where the interest developed. JH: So you could have very easily become a dairy farmer. IW: Absolutely, that was my expectation. I applied to a school of agriculture, with the thought of going overseas, to go to a developing country. That was something that my wife and I (my girlfriend then) discussed at that time. JH: Was there a pivotal event that turned you towards the area of biology and specifically, embryology? IW: I can't remember what made me start thinking about it. Everybody did the same subjects in the first year at school, and then you specialized. I was most interested in animals, but I began to realize that I wasn't really a very practical person, and that practical agriculture probably wasn't the right thing for me. It was a relatively unusual thing to do in Britain in those days, but I arranged to go and work in a lab for a summer project on a scholarship as an intern, which students here I think almost take for granted. Not quite, but it's well been built into the routines here. In Britain it is still not a routine thing, you have to work pretty hard to get them. And I was very fortunate to get a scholarship. So, I went and worked in a lab for eight weeks, when the main function was just to do the ordinary tasks in the lab. But, there was obviously a responsibility on the senior scientists to talk to you, to explain to you what was going on and that was in my last holiday as an undergraduate and [this experience] utterly persuaded me that was what I wanted to do. JH: When you first came to Roslin, weren't you working in a different direction? IW: I started on a completely different area. It's scenario biology, which hasn't had a fraction as much notice. When I was at Cambridge I'd become fascinated by a particular question.

Lpez 9 Quite a proportion of embryos which are formed at fertilization die. It's a particularly high proportion in humans. Some estimates are that more than half die. Why? For several years I worked on trying to understand that. It was very difficult to work with. JH: But in animal science? IW: I think it's been put to one side. It's very difficult to cope with. JH:How did this lead you to cloning? IW: There was a major change in the institute. The institute wanted to bring in molecular biology. As I said, biologists have discovered molecules, and this is becoming a very important thing. And in being able to change genes in animals, you need to work with embryos. And very, very unusually, but I was essentially told to stop working on the cause of embryo loss, and to begin working on this area. An instruction which I deeply resented, deeply, deeply resented. Scientists don't like being told what to do at all. JH: You could have left, what made you stay? IW: I'm very cautious, I suspect we both are. We had children in high school, which is a critical age for them. The opportunity that came along though, was to work in molecular biology, in modern genetics. After a few months of working with the microbiologists for the first time, that is when I began to understand the power of genetics. We're talking about 1983. JH: Was that a sudden breakthrough for you? IW: A steady evolution. Fifteen years later, I'm heavily committed and impassioned about it. I think this area of biology is just exploding. I'm privileged to be in it at the right time. JH: If someone hadn't come along and said, stop doing what you're doing, would we have had Dolly? IW: You probably would, but through somebody else. There are other labs around the world - one at Texas A&M which subsequently moved to Salt Lake City -- and one of them would have had the good fortune at some point, not too much later.

Lpez 10 JH: You have said on occasion that if not for a conversation you had in a bar, a major development would not have occurred. Can you explain that? IW: In a conversation in a bar one evening we were told that somebody working in that lab that I mentioned in Texas had achieved a step forward with nuclear transfer and was getting development from cells taken from embryo. And, it sparked across to the fact that in mouse there are ways of culturing those cells in the lab, they're called embryonic stem cells. A specialist population of cells which can give rise to every other tissue. Now, what the person in Texas had done was to take cells from just a day or two earlier than that, so there's sort of a short gap. But, the point that excited me was that if we could bridge that gap, then we would be able to have ways of being able to make genetic changes in animals and make lots of copies of animals. JH: You met with a lot of skepticism. How do you deal with that as a scientist? IW: You just have to believe it, don't you? You have to be prepared to defend your interpretations and to justify them as well as you can. Science makes progress by advancing new ideas, hypotheses which can be tested by designing good experiments. I just had faith in my hypothesis. JH: When was Dolly born? IW: July 5th, 1996 JH: You kept this a secret. IW: The reason's quite simple. The particular journal, Nature, will not publish things if they are in the public domain. It's trying to hype the publicity of the announcement. If we had discussed it in public, it would not get a proper scientific review. And, of course, my career ultimately depends on publishing scientific papers. It also took us a number of weeks to do the tests to prove her parentage, and to confirm that we really had done what we were describing. There were a lot of other lambs born at the same time. And then it took us until

Lpez 11 the 22nd of November to prepare the manuscript. The remaining three or four months are taken up by the journal. The paper is sent out to people to assess, to referee. They make comments and we made some minor changes and then it went in for publication. If you asked a hundred scientists at random if they've had a paper published within six months of the experiment, they'd tell you it's usually a bit more than that, eight or nine months. Not many have got a publication in that period of time, it was very quick. JH: You have talked very specifically about the moral issues raised by your research. Can you define that for us? IW: Well, the general question that I would ask about anything is, what are the effects of it? Are the things which may come from something you're thinking of doing beneficial? Very often of course there's a double edge to it, and so it's a question of, does the benefit outweigh any disadvantages that there are? So it is, if you like, a pragmatic judgment that I'm making. And so, if you're thinking of experimenting with animals, that may cause distress and pain to the animal. "Is the distress that you're going to cause justified by the potential benefit in terms of new treatments for human patients?" for example, would be the sort of judgment that we have to make all the time. And, we have to not only make those judgments, but document them to a supervisory system. In terms of human applications of cloning, in terms of application of cloning, essentially the same sort of process Recently, there has been the suggestion of treating infertility by copying one of a couple and I would usually use my own family as an example, and would suggest that, let's say that we decided -- that we hadn't had children, and so we decided -- to copy me. JH: I suppose every scientist draws that moral line individually. But when you bring a new technology or discovery into the world, you know that there are individuals who can use it who may draw the moral lines in a different place. A few months ago there was a man in Chicago who was making rather incredible statements about taking this offshore and doing

Lpez 12 something with it. As one of the people who brought this technology into the world, how do you feel about that? IW: First of all, he got far more attention than he deserved, because it's nonsense to suggest you can do it at the present time. I actually also think that it's rather sick. If you think that half the pregnancies we start don't make it. A fifth of the lambs that are born alive die within a few days. That's distressing enough if it happens to sheep. If you're talking about a woman having a miscarriage within days of term, of young children dying, I'm sad that people are even thinking about it. That's the immediate safety issue, it's appalling. I don't think this is a new philosophical position for people to be in. Sadly, each day people in this country and everywhere around the world will be killed by cars, which we all take for granted. We all use them because they're such a contribution to our life. JH: Will you be on the front line of the discussion? IW: I would be very happy to do that, yes. Because I think it now is part of my responsibility. But I think there's a distinction between being involved in the discussion and making the decisions. And according to the reason of the interview; an article called Everything you need to know about cloning written by Paul Raeburn, Faith Keenan and Arlene Weintraub and published in Business Week on April 24th 2002; gives us a clear idea and detailed information on cloning as well as important aspects as the controversial of cloning itself and the possible therapeutic benefits of it. Also, refers to a discussion of the United States government about prohibiting human cloning; the high possibility of enacting a law criminalizing it and the consequences that this decision could root for the field of biotechnology. The article explains that the word cloning means in a first glance copying and its used to talk about identical twins created naturally when cells divide in the womb. But where is the controversial? When we talk about of extracting someones DNA; I mean, a skin cell

Lpez 13 or a hair follicle--and inserting it into an unfertilized human egg from which the existing DNA has been removed. There is the controversial (Raeburn, Keenan and Weintraub). Most researchers, biotech companies and politicians they look this aspect from a conservative opposite perspective about using cloning to create children. In the other hand, many others oppose to it too because they say its unsafe and unethical. They ensure that children could be born with deformities if they finally survive the process. But instead of it, many scientists ensure that the cloning process could have amazing therapeutically benefits. For example, it brings a great value to the treatment of strokes or Alzheimer's disease as well as it could be used to correct the movement disorders of Parkinson's disease or to restore movement to people who are paralyzed through the cloning of neurons. The problem lies in the thought that cloning has other dark interests outside therapeutic. On the one hand, the people who oppose cloning are based on moral. They ensure that these embryos are human beings and therefore experimentation on them, even at their earliest stages of development, is wrong as well as its regulation through laws. They say that despites of being partially restricted and allowed for researching purposes could lead to a reproductive cloning use. Even the U.S. government has taken part in this debate. The President of USA, George W. Bush said at that time that he would sign any well founded bill it if it reaches his desk. So, the Democratic leadership and moderate Republicans drafted a competing bill that would allow therapeutic cloning. But, instead of it; many scientific groups have taken the opposite side. Among the group of opposition are 40 Nobel laureates who signed a letter saying by declaring scientifically valuable biomedical research illegal, Senator Brownback's legislation ...would have a chilling effect on all scientific research in the U.S.'' (qtd. in Raeburn, Keenan and Weintraub) referring to the bill proposed by Senator Brownback; which consisted ban human reproductive cloning but permit research cloning to develop therapies

Lpez 14 according to the data exposed in the article Senate Bill Introduced This Week Would Allow Research Cloning written by Ted Agres on February 7, 2003 on the website grg.org. This bill was called The Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2003 (S. 303) and it makes human reproductive cloning a crime punishable by up to ten years in prison and a fine of $1 million or three times any profits for anyone who clones or attempts to clone a human being (qtd. in Agres). But despite of anti-cloning measures emitted in the House and Senate; according to the bill Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) techniques would be permitted under strict Federal government regulations. In conclusion, the findings agree with the same perspective as I do when talking about cloning; this concept really gives us many possibilities to explore and find the solutions to the problems we face every day like animal extinction and endangered species. Also, it gives us a clear idea that there are two tendencies on this controversial topic. In one hand, cloning is approved and viewed from many aspects such as positive scientific progress for humanity that would allow us to fight against terrible diseases as Parkinson, Alzheimer's. Contrary or problems in the world like animal extinction. But, there is another negative trend which brands it as unsafe, unethical and a threat to the most ancient religious beliefs about creation of life. Both trends have higher powers and interests involved, such as the United States government and the Vatican. Also, it is clear that because of being a revolutionary theory it causes and will continue causing controversies among the years based on many aspects of life like science, ethics, etc. But Im sure that people like Dr. Wilmut will continue this trend of looking for solutions to the planet. This article has led me to wonder: What kind of efforts are the two trends making efforts to defend and support their views of opinion? On the one hand the trend that opposes animal cloning has been making various efforts to eradicate this idea because the criticism

Lpez 15 considers it like unethical and a threat to a number of paradigms of contemporary society. These efforts combine claims in different areas of society even issuing laws to limit cloning itself. One example of it is described in the article Animal Cloning: FDA Safety Call Not Enough, written by Gregory Jaffe and published in BusinessWeek Online in September, 2007. The information presented in the article demonstrates what obstacles the cloning issue could have. It refers to an assessment given by the FDA (Food and Drugs Administration) in relation to consuming products that comes from cloned animals. According to a study and review of a scientific data surrounding the safety of cloned animals milk and meat; they emitted an assessment expressing that: these products are as safe to eat as food from conventionally bred animals, (qtd. in Jaffe) because they couldnt find any difference between a healthy clone and a healthy conventionally bred animal. Also, there wasnt evidence that meat or milk from cloned animals or its offspring was different to the conventional bred animals. In the year 2007, the FDA reaches to public comments and took a decision about safety of the cloned animals products. If the FDA approved it, the food manufacturers could send in the clones. But because of the FDA announcement; the press report stressed that many people didnt want to eat products from those animals and were incomfort with the idea; claiming that consuming them was unethical. Many despised cloning asking questions like: Why it is needed? or questioning the science behind the FDA's determination. However, despite the decision of the FDA and that producers, consumers or retailers such as Kroger (KR), Safeway Stores (SWY), or Costco Wholesale (COST) would buy cloned animals products; the organization believes that certain issues about it must be addressed by the livestock industry and the government before offering the products to the people. Consumers believe that the key issue surrounding the products from cloned animals is

Lpez 16 safety. So, the FDA released data on the safety of these products. These means the first step in determining the safety will occur through public scrutiny and scientific peer review. But an FDA wont be enough for the public to provoke the widespread adoption of animal cloning if that technology does not provide benefits to society. So, because of the lack of information provided by the cloning industry about why cloned animals are needed; many questions have arisen such as Will cloning really lead to better products or disease-resistant animals?, or What are the societal benefits of using cloning technology and do they outweigh any potential risks?. The cloning industry must demonstrate to the public that cloning will lead to safer or cheaper food or more environmentally sustainable agricultural practices. In addition, there are ethical problems surrounding this topic like assertions that cloning is playing God or interfering with the natural needs and interests of animals. The FDA has acknowledged that assertions but they wont consider them in their scientific decision-making process because it is legal and specifically focused on safety issues about the products obtained from cloned animals and their offspring. But, despite the FDA assessment and based on the controversy between cloning and the criticism based on ethics and other issues; certain governments have gotten involved in the debate. A clear proof of it is described in the article called The ethics debate over animal cloning which was written by Scott Nolen and published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association on February, 2007. This article provides a clear idea of how much opposition the animal cloning theory actually has. It refers to growing criticism of this topic based on ethics and moral issues; which has provoked initiatives by some governments to ban it. Based in 2007 FDA emitted assessment; assuring the safety of cloned animal products; many people became annoyed and sparked a lot of controversy.

Lpez 17 Criticism ranged from charges based on religious statements and beliefs such as that the animals involved were violated and suffered terribly. The author refers that despites the 678-page draft risk assessment and the FDA stating: Somatic cell nuclear transfer can pose an increased frequency of health risks to animals involved in the cloning process, but these do not differ qualitatively from those observed in other (assisted reproductive technologies) or natural breeding."(qtd. in Nolen)the evidence wasnt enough for the audience and consumers. And based on this lack of credibility; a coalition of consumer, environmental, and animal welfare organizations presented a petition to the FDA; seeking to put a moratorium on the introduction of cloned animal products in the market and force the creation of regulatory laws of premarket food safety and environmental review of cloned foods. Also, Michael Greger, HSUS director of public health and animal agriculture, supports this trend expressing: The Humane Society of the United States supports scientific advancement, but cloning lacks any legitimate social value and decreases animal welfare.(qtd. in Nolen) It clearly reveals the discomfort of food institutions. Paul Thompson, PhD, the W.K. Kellogg Chair in Agricultural, Food, and Community Ethics at Michigan State University, express that the opposition to animal cloning can be focused and based on the negative feelings produced by the human cloning concept in general. So, the people associate both theories immediately. Also, he believes that they look cloning as an unnatural practice that treats animals as simple and worthless things. And despite the clearly baseless criticism; this trend has gained support of some governments. The European Parliament; which according to The New York Times post published on July 7th, 2011, seeks to ban clones from foods. The chamber which had its meeting in Strasbourg, France; also sent a petition for a temporary suspension of the sale of food containing ingredients derived from genetically engineered substances. Based on this

Lpez 18 request the members of the chamber now have the intention of voting on legislation that could regulate the sale of foods based on new production processes like cloning. As a consequence, companies will have to ask permission to sell food derived from cloned animals. So this September this law has to be totally finished and a decision has to be taken. In addition; Ethicist Bernard Rollin, PhD, talks about the unintended consequences of animal cloning. He says that it could produce an accelerating monoculture in animal agriculture or a new emergent pathogen that could kill entire herds; associating it to the lack of genetic diversity among the animals. In conclusion the articles mentioned above provides a clear idea of how much the opposite trend to cloning animals is growing. Besides, the most amazing thing its that despites of the baseless sources of this comments and criticism; this trend is getting stronger. And its is reflected in how governments looks to ban it instead of educating people about how useful it could be. Also, because of the lack of support to this theory; the refinement of it is almost impossible. I disagree at all with this trend because I think that before talking about any issue; we must to know the topic in detail. High level religious, scientific and social forums are needed to clarify all these assertions and objections surrounding the cloning idea. The only way to reach a consensus that benefice to each and every human perspective is to debate it within an environment of knowledge about the topic. We cant emit a comment based just in our beliefs because we never will get the reason. Do you know why? Because, if its baseless, there wont be anything to prove. Now that I have established the negativity and criticism about animal cloning concept; I intend to prove the other side of the coin. The benefits that cloning has within the scope of protecting endangered species and efforts that have been doing in support of this theory

Lpez 19 among the years. A clear proof of it is the article called Betsy Dresser written by Laura Tangley and published in U.S. News & World Report on March 3th, 2000. This article gives us a clear idea about the efforts of scientists in studying the alternatives to saving wild endangered creatures from extinction applying solutions like cloning. It provides a very valuable opinion from the Profiles animal physiologist Betsy Dresser defending this alternative and commenting how she and a group of scientists in New Orleans are working to make this idea a reality. This article explains that for more than two decades Betsy Dresser, director of the Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species in New Orleans, has been fighting hard to save many species from extinction. This includes a rare African wildcat, whose mother was a domestic housecat; which birth was achieved through the in vitro fertilization. And based on this spirit of saving endangered species she hopes to apply cloning in favor of endangered species and within a decade to clone her first endangered animal. At the Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species in New Orleans there is a collection of embryos, eggs, sperm, and other cells collected from endangered species and cryopreserved--frozen at extremely low temperatures and preserved in liquid nitrogen; named the frozen zoo by Dresser. And according to Dresser the real function of the zoo is to preserve viable genetic material, or DNA, for hundreds to thousands of years so, when species disappear in the wild, these genes may provide the means to bring it back; giving us a clear idea of where and how cloning could be applied. At the time the article was published the cloning process had still technical hurdles. Many scientists were just quite familiar with the reproductive physiology of sheep and other livestock, but not with systems in more exotic animals. At that time; cloning livestock remained imprecise. Also there was the ethical opposition of the public based on the fear that

Lpez 20 cloning could be a quick way to prevent species extinctions and could divert money from the important work of protecting habitat. But as the time passes, technology and science evolves. And despite the technical problems that cloning had; the efforts to develop and refine it prevailed over the years. The spirit of preservation of the species still continues as the article Back from Extinction reveals. It was written by Alan Pierce, a professor of the Department of Technology in Elizabeth City State University and published in Tech Directions on January 2000. The article provides a clear explanation of the evolution of the cloning process and the goals it could achieve. It refers to the movie Jurassic Park to give us a clear idea of how the ideas and the process of cloning itself have changed over the years. This movie was based on the cloning of extinct dinosaurs and bringing them to life; clearly showing an unimaginable technological achievement. But this movie becomes Science fiction when the scientists involved in this process create dinosaurs by "filling in the gaps" of the incomplete dinosaur DNA using the DNA of frogs. This part of the movie is really impossible because the missing information of the organism is about 99%. To have a more understandable vision and idea of this; imagine yourself trying to solve an enormous jigsaw puzzle with just a very small segment from of piece. At this time cloning dinosaurs is still impossible because viable DNA doesnt exist for those kinds of creatures. However, a 23,000-year-old Woolly Mammoth could be cloned because currently there exists viable DNA to do it. This DNA could be extracted from a totally frozen Mammoth found in Siberia with very well preserved hair, skin, flesh, and bone. A few years ago, despite having the resources to do it; the process was still impossible because the cells from adult creature went through a differentiation process that the scientist didn't understand.

Lpez 21 But, everything changed with the creation of Dolly. This process was successful because scientist learned how to use a small charge of electricity to reverse the differentiation process of the cells. Based on this knowledge; the protocol to create a clone of a dead Woolly Mammoth sounds simple (Pierce). He expresses the point of view that by using the common process of cloning based of filling a coreless egg cell with the DNA of the future cloned animal a Woolly Mammoth can be created. After long studies and research; the scientists expect that an Asian elephant would serve as a surrogate mother in the above protocol because despite 23,000 years having passed; the nearest descendent of this creature, the elephant, only has a 5 percent genetic difference. An implication of this study is that over the years the cloning had problems to be perfected as well as everything changed with the creation of Dolly and the discovering of Dr. Ian Wilmut in the cloning field; which allows the possibility of bringing back the Woolly Mammoth to life. However something hasnt changed among the years. The tireless efforts to develop it like an option to resurrect animals from extinction. Clear initiatives to support this theory like the ideology promoted by Betsy Dresser who defended it in her phrase: would hate to see animals like tigers only in zoos, but I wouldn't want to live in a world without any tigers." (qtd. in Tangley)have prevailed over the year. Equally, the uncertainty of the public about it and the fear to it; based in many unsupported conclusion and beliefs. At the time when the articles were published this process was being started to study; but nowadays thanks to the advance of science the cloning has become more perfected. Therefore, in order to explain in detail the advance of cloning itself. I will refer to the article Send in the clones written by Thomas Fields-Meyer, Thomas, and Debbie Seaman and published in People on August 9th, 2003. This article provides a clear background of the usefulness of the cloning to fight against animal extinction. It refers to the gathering of a group of scientist, in which Betsy

Lpez 22 Dresser was a member, to observe the birth of a calf from a Cow at Iowa. The calf was created by the C-section (Cloning Section) by a group of scientist led by Dr. Robert Lanza a pioneering medical researcher who is using cloning technology to help endangered species. The experiments of Lanza started in 2000, when he tried to clone a gaur, an oxlike animal from Asia in danger of extinction. He used the traditional process of cloning which is using a coreless egg cell and filling it with the genetic material from a single frozen cell taken from a dead gaur. Then they used chemicals to mimic sperm and get the egg cell fertilized. The result was an embryo closely identical to the gaur which was implanted in a cow later. The cloned gaur was named Noah and he died of dysentery a few days later. The experiment was a failure but gave Lanza the confidence that the process could work. And his experiments finally succeeded with the cloning of a calf in Iowa. It was a banteng; a rare bovine native to the forests of Southeast Asia. The event was expected to fail and everybody believed that to be the case when calf was born and stayed immobile. "The animal was totally still--my heart dropped,"(qtd. in Fields-Meyer and Seaman); but after a few minutes the banteng called Stockings struggled to stand up--and let out a loud bellow. "One hundred [plant and animal] species go extinct every day, and those genes are lost from the planet forever; here is a tool to help rescue them (qtd. in Fields-Meyer and Seaman), he expressed completely full of joy. The Dr. Robert Lanza experiment supports my belief that cloning can be used to fight against animal extinction. And what more evidence to support it; than the opinion of the same person who carried out the experiment expressed in an interview about Animal Cloning and the successful cloning of the gaur This interview was between Melissa Block and Dr. Robert Lanza. It took place in USA, at NPR (National Public Radio) on April 8th, 2003. Dr. Robert Lanza is the currently Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology in Massachusetts, and Adjunct Professor at

Lpez 23 Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He is a pioneering medical researcher in stem cell therapy cloning. And based on the Dr. Wilmuts theory; he found success in 2003 when a cow gave birth via C-Section (Cloning section) to a rare banteng native to the forests of Southeast Asia. Melissa Block, host: It's the one-week birthday today for a cloned banteng, a kind of wild Southeast Asian cattle. Bantengs are an endangered species; fewer than 8,000 are believed to survive in the wild. Scientists succeeded in taking a frozen skin cell from a captive banteng and fusing that with a regular cow egg that had its genetic material removed. That embryo was transferred to the womb of a domestic cow in Iowa. And last Tuesday, Robert Lanza, with the Massachusetts firm Advanced Cell Technology, which collaborated on the cloning, was there to watch the birth of the cloned offspring. Dr. Lanza, this was a delivery by cesarean section. Can you tell us about the birth? Robert Lanza: Yes. We used cloning to resurrect an endangered animal that died almost a quarter of a century ago, and we now have an adorable baby banteng that looks just like a little Bambi with its big brown eyes and ears. It was really quite amazing. Here we were out on the farm in Iowa watching a beef cow give birth to this exotic endangered animal that normally is born in the bamboo jungles of Southeast Asia. The animal was born last Tuesday morning and is totally normal, dancing and jumping around, having a good old time. MB: Making some noise? RL: Yes. In fact, within minutes after it was born, it was struggling to get to its feet and let out a loud bellow, and we all applauded. MB: I've seen a picture from the San Diego Zoo of the little guy. He's pretty cute, drinking from a bottle. RL: Totally adorable, yes. And he's suckling away. And, yeah, we have very high hopes for him.

Lpez 24 MB: Describe, if you could, the science behind this. You took genetic material from a banteng at the San Diego Zoo that had been dead for 23 years. RL: Yes. We actually used this cross-species cloning to resurrect an endangered animal that had died almost a quarter of a century ago. And about a year ago, the San Diego Zoo sent us a vial of frozen skin cells from a banteng--it was Stud 391--and the bantengs were cloned by transferring the DNA from these cells into empty eggs from ordinary domestic cows. We then implanted the cloned embryos into a herd a beef cattle, which served as the surrogate moms. And although we started with 16 pregnancies, we only had two of those go to term. MB: Now the second banteng--you referred to two--I understand that one did not fair as well. RL: Yes. Unfortunately, the second animal, which was born last Thursday, was born on the large size. It was twice the size that you would anticipate for a baby banteng. We were monitoring that very closely, and we just received news today that because of the health of the animal, the animal was going to be euthanized. MB: This is, I think, one of the criticisms of cloning, that there' s a high failure rate, a lot of health problems. In this case, one out of two didn't make it. RL: Well, we do know that there are some problems with cloning, and in particular, there's something known as large calf syndrome, which, in this particular instance, you know, can lead to health problems. And so, again, you know, obviously this technology has not been perfected, and I think, in fact, this is one of the reasons why those of us in this community are so strongly against at least applying this for human reproductive purposes; I mean, aside, obviously, from the obvious ethical and moral issues. MB: One of the goals here is to help perpetuate an endangered species. But what do you say to those critics who say, `If you want to do that, help preserve habitat. Help create an environment so that these species can thrive'?

Lpez 25 RL: I couldn't agree with them more. I mean, make no mistake about it, habitat protection is the cornerstone of all of our conversation efforts. And it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend all of that energy on habitat preservation if there are no animals left to preserve. It's like two sides of a coin. On the one side, we have to make every effort to preserve the animals' habitat, but on the other side, you have to maintain a viable, healthy population of animals. You need valuable genetic diversity in order for the animals to have a fighting chance to survive, to ward off disease and to adapt to other environmental insults. MB: Well, Dr. Lanza, thanks very much. RL: Sure. No problem. MB: Robert Lanza is vice president with Advanced Cell Technology, which collaborated on the successful cloning of an endangered banteng. A second banteng was euthanized today. In conclusion the article and the interview have the same perspective as I do about how much useful animal cloning could be. And despite of the criticism based on supposed ethics and moral; which sustain that we must to conserve the habitat of animals but not clone them. I totally agree with the thought of Dr. Robert Lanza when he says: And it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend all of that energy on habitat preservation if there are no animals left to preserve. It's like two sides of a coin, (qtd in Block). It makes no sense to strive to preserve the habitat of animals, while we still exterminate them without of control. To save you need a joint effort of conservation and viable survival maintenance of the species. It is clear that the criticism far from helping to the species; it actually stops the researching and the looking of possible solutions to this kind of problems. We must not just focus our intellect in consider any concept that hits our beliefs like negative and impossible to be. We must expand our mind and learn to consider even accept other opinions and concepts; because the answers to that problems are there outside. But we wont find them if we dont have the will to look for them.

Lpez 26 Part IV: What I Learned This study set out to determine how big a problem the animal extinction is and how the concept of cloning extinct or endangered species represents a pretty feasible option to fight against this problem. Besides, it provides a clear idea of the growing trend to adopt it around the world as well as the multiple obstacles that are hampering its growth and development; like political, ethical, religious and economic issues. This research paper has shown how despite of the high amount of criticism emitted because of cloning animals; this concept is still considered applicable. And it has shown how scientists based primarily on effort and perseverance have found a way to prevail. Also, it explains how useful it could be in the field of preventing animal extinction and endangered species and how it has demonstrated and supported its utility. The relevance of using cloning as an alternative to fighting against animal extinction is clearly supported by the current findings which suggest that in general cloning can be used to save endangered animals as well as to recover extinct species; removed unfairly from the face of the Earth because of the ignorance of mankind. The second major finding was that despite of the abysmal growing rate of endangered species; the efforts of the foundations to protect and save animals has shown a minimal success rate compared to it. Also by subtracting to that effort the negativity of people; the idea of the uncertain future faced by the species on our planet becomes clear. But the most obvious finding of this study is that since the creation of the sheep Dolly by the Dr. Ian Wilmut; animal cloning has been highly developed and applied around the world. An implication of this is the proof of how minimal the criticism and baseless comments and beliefs are; compared to the growing trend of the scientific concept. Also, it gives place to the possibility of applying it in a near future on fields like medicine, fighting starvation as well as its use on human beings.

Lpez 27 Finally, a number of important limitations need to be considered. First, the study was limited by the fact that the cloning theory is not supported by any government. Therefore, it will be impossible to create an environment of trust and acceptance for it. As a consequence, most of the theories or comments surrounding this topic are basically negative. Also, another limitation was the few positive sources that could be found because of the reason mentioned before. Those that exist are mostly negative or are expressed in terribly technical and scientific language; which is not aimed at the general publics understanding but at experts on the topic and in the field. Further work needs to be done to establish whether the cloning concept is totally feasible and applicable to save animals from disappearing from the planet as well as to create an environment of trust among the people it is essential. Not only to showing the results of its application but instruct and educate the public about the idea; so they can be truly informed and can emit more educated comments and criticisms. Also, the development showed not just come from the scientists involved in this field but governments have to support them; primarily as an issue of investigation and development.

Lpez 28 Part V: Bibliography Agres, Ted. "Senate Bill Introduced This Week Would Allow Research Cloning." Gerontology Research Group Index Page, as of [1997 - 2007] . 2 Feb. 2003. Web. <http://www.grg.org>. Block, Melissa. Interview with Dr. Robert Lanza. NPR All Things Considered 8.4 (2003) highbeam.com, 2003. Web. Fields-Meyer, Thomas, and Debbie Seaman. "Send In The Clones." People 60.10 (2003): 89 90. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Aug. 2011. Hayhurst, Chris. "Life After Death." E: The Environmental Magazine 10.6 (1999): 23. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Aug. 2011. Hirtz, Barbara. "The Animal Extinction Continues Growing." ZonaCatastrofica.com Medio Ambiente Y Ecologa. 9 Nov. 2009. Web. <http://www.ZonaCatastrofica.com>. Hole, Jackson. Interview with Dr. Ian Wilmut. Academy of Achievement 23.5 (1998) achievement.org, 1998. Web. Jaffe, Gregory. "Animal Cloning: FDA Safety Call Not Enough." BusinessWeek Online 09 Jan. 2007: 6. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Aug. 2011. Nolen, R. Scott. "The ethics debate over animal cloning." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 230.4 (2007): 467-468. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Aug. 2011. Pierce, Alan. "Back from extinction." Tech Directions 59.6 (2000): 12. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Aug. 2011. Raeburn, Paul, Faith Keenan, and Arlene Weintraub. "EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CLONING." BusinessWeek 3780 (2002): 44-46. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Aug. 2011.

Lpez 29 Tangley, Laura. "Betsy Dresser. (Cover story)." U.S. News & World Report 128.1 (2000): 47. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 Aug. 2011.