Why isn't cloning the answer?

Fraggr · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:36

I was just thinking about endangered animals, and wondered to myself: why can't we just clone a few thousand to bring up numbers, and they'll reproduce, so won't have to keep cloning to keep their numbers steady...

I'm sure I'm not the only person to have though about this. Scientists would have asked themselves the same question, unless I'm missing something (I don't know much about cloning)?

ElRazur · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:38

It might be more expensive than actually trying to save the endangered species. Think of the cost of re-inroduction to their natural habitat, ethics, etc...

Greenlizard0 · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:38

Your question doesn't make sense.

edit - I think I know what you mean. It's not ideal to have lots of clones breeding with other clones, chances are, they'll produce identical children, which then might be left infertile. Or if they do, then their offspring might be genetically special like co-sanguinous children are.

Also out in nature, it's best not to have the main basis of a species all identical. You need variety to combat disease and promote diversity.

ElRazur · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:39

greenlizard0 said:
Your question doesn't make sense.

Off course it does, he is asking if cloning can be used to supplement endangered species.

Jokester · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:40

For a species to survive you really need a gene pool, cloning the same animal would likely be a disaster.

Jokester

Fraggr · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:40

My question is "Why don't we clone endangered species?"

Dave85 · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:42

as with jokestars answer it needs a good gene pool to start with, witch it wont have.

Greenlizard0 · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:42

ElRazur said:
Off course it does, he is asking if cloning can be used to supplement endangered species.

See edit

loopstah · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:43

Because then you would end up with a large population of genetically similar animals and that can cause more problems in the long run.

Or you would end up with thousands of animals competing for limited resources in rapidly dwindling habitats and very soon most would end up dying.

Adding a few thousand animals to an ecosystem tends to upset the balance a bit.

Most endangered species are endangered for a reason and making more of them wont solve the root of the problem that is making them endangered.

Al Vallario · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:44

Fraggr said:
My question is "Why don't we clone endangered species?"

Vastly increasing the numbers of one species of animal would also disrupt the delicate balance of nature. Unless the cloned animals were kept in captivity the food chain would be disrupted, resulting in the numbers of other species declining

Gilly · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:45

Its a fair question though.

You take 3 pandas in China, you clone them. You send the three clones to London zoo, Los Angeles zoo and Singapore zoo (just pulled them out my ass for purposes of example) and mate them with pandas they already have.

Where's the problem? You're spread the gene pool apart so you won't have the same genetics across the board.

Saberu · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:46

Read up on what gene pool means and you'll understand why it's unworkable.

I'm feeling generous heres a Wikipedia defi-
nition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_pool

iCraig · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:47

Money. In order to significantly boost a species population a lot of cloning would need to be done. Not every cloning procedure is successful, so that would add to the number of clone attempts. Cloning is an expensive procedure.

Dave85 · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:47

all this talk of cloning, i just hunted out the 6th day

loopstah · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:48

Cloning endangered species just to put them in a zoo doesn't sound very ethical though. It would be a bit selfish to save them just for captivity and if they were released into the wild there are only so many places pandas could live and then you would end up mixing the similar genes together again.

VeNT · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:48

its also a right sod to clone things, dolly the sheep was like the 30th attempt!
imagine trying that on a scale that would work?

Saberu · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:49

Gilly said:
Where's the problem?

A pandemic disease goes and wipes them all out because the cloned parent was susceptible to it.

edit: There seems to be a lot of ignorance in this subject as only 1 or 2 posters are making the same point as me.

Greenlizard0 · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:49

Gilly said:
Its a fair question though.

You take 3 pandas in China, you clone them. You send the three clones to London zoo, Los Angeles zoo and Singapore zoo (just pulled them out my ass for purposes of example) and mate them with pandas they already have.

Where's the problem? You're spread the gene pool apart so you won't have the same genetics across the board.

We barely know enough about the human genome, let alone in your example panda's. That panda might have some genetic quirk that instantly means it's babies are destined to be fatally flawed. We might not know this until too far down the line, when this one panda with the faulty set of genes has been allowed to breed with lots of zoo's pandas.

Jokester · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:51

You've also got issues with breeding between close relatives leading to genetic anomalies.

Jokester

Van Hellseek · 5 Jul 2006 at 22:52

more animals isnt always the solution, for instance one significant factor in why the cheetah is endagered is because they need so much hunting ground. they wander onto namibian farmers land and get shot as the farmers see them as a threat to their livestock.

greater numbers wouldn't solve this.