Talk:Human cloning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human cloning article.
Article policies
Archives: 1


Contents

[edit] Source needed

"Current regulations prohibit federal funding for research into human cloning, which effectively prevents such research from occurring in public institutions and private institution such as universities which receive federal funding. However, there are currently no federal laws in the United States which ban cloning completely, and any such laws would raise difficult Constitutional questions similar to the issues raised by abortion." I'd like a source for that, and it should be more specific. What amandment of the American Constitution? Ran4 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of spam and low quality links from External Links section

  • I have removed a bunch of poor quality and spam links from the EL section. Note to spammers: putting a link on the page does not help your Google Page rank, see here. Please also note that a .org or tax exempt site does not automatically qualify for inclusion here. See the criteria for inclusion here. Also note that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. Skopp (Talk) 06:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of links to humancloning.org and associated site reproductivecloning.net

These sites, under the guise of "official" status (not official at all — even the owner is anonymous) are basically ad farms with pages designed to play upon the heartstrings and anxieties of the weak and desperate (e.g. the childless, the paralysed, the infertile, the bereft etc) for donations. The sites attempt to mislead people with unscientific claims and unpublished speculation. To the anonymous owner of those sites: provide footnotes with links to scientific, published papers if you want that site linked. At this stage, your sites feature a long list of pie-in-the-sky "benefits" of human cloning. As it stands, it is misleading and unscientific. Some may even say it is predatory. Skopp (Talk) 07:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No controversy?

Human cloning is a very controversial topic. Why is not any entry on controversy and particular opinions or views on this topic cited on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.69.75.146 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very much so. Possible controversy regarding ethical and religious points of view should be put under such an entry there. Mixing biased points of view into the "prologue" is a very bad idea, therefore I'll revert changes made by 18.96.6.53 on 23:35, 22 November 2007. One might want to revise the mentioned submission when creating such an entry. --80.221.19.39 (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia needs to have a dicussion about cloning, while i do understand it is a touchy subject dealing with religious beliefs and other factors, i still strongly believe there should be one. I also need some opinions on the subject for my essay Ihave to right for my health class.please feel free to speak up.

  • Cl*

[edit] Essay

The beginning section reads essay-like and amateurish. It does not follow encyclopædic style, but that is the least of my concern. I know this article has the possibility of being high-quality, but currrently reads like an ad by a marketing research company.

The article certainly should reflect criticism of human cloning, because I find cloning (human and non-human alike) Flowers For Algernon-like, unethical, and despicable, and I know I'm not alone.

Not just that, but if a corporation who specialises in fucking with nature wrote an introduction to an article on their practises, this wuold be it.

I am not trying to make it to my point of view, I'm saying this is 1)not neutral, 2)reads like an ad, and 3)is notable, so more effort should be put into it to improve it. Candleof Hope 14:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC) DEEPAK MAURYA

The phrase "by daniel S who was killed by one of his experiments (carl brookes" didn't seem to make sense, so i have removed it, also some editing should be done to clean up the grammar. 65.174.105.61 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That was vandalism. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still being vandalized?

{{Editprotected}} Hmm, just noted that I couldn't add some stuff here.

The first human hybrid human clone was created in November 1998, by American Cell Technologies.[1]. It was created from a man's leg cell, and a cow's egg whose DNA was removed. It was destroyed after 12 days. Since a normal embryo implants at 14 days, Dr Robert Lanza, ACT's director of tissue engineering, told the Daily Mail newspaper that the embryo could not be seen as a person before 14 days. While making an embryo, which may have resulted in complete human had it been allowed to come to term, according to ACT: "[ACT's] aim was 'therapeutic cloning' not 'reproductive cloning'"

~ender 2008-02-16 10:58:AM MST

N Declined. The article is not protected. Sandstein (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ermm.... I think IT IS PROTECTED! 88.105.87.97 (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

Also, the definitions of 'cloning'/'human cloning', 'clone', 'therapeutic cloning' and 'reproductive cloning' all need work.

There are no documented cases of successful human cloning.

Directly contradicts this:

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being, human cell, or human tissue.

Since ACT (and others) have generated human embryos. However, I can see the confusion, if people are using different definitions of what 'human cloning' meants.

ACT itself complains about people mis-using the term 'therapeutic cloning'; "claiming that employing cloning techniques to create a child for a couple who cannot conceive through any other means treats the disorder of infertility. We object to this usage and feel that calling such a procedure "therapeutic" yields only confusion."[1].

Creation of an embryo which could be brought to term and/or has been successfully brought to term needs a specific name, versus the creation of other types of cells which while able to reproduce and differentiate, cannot be used to create a reasonably undamaged complete organism - which needs a different term.
~ender 2008-02-16 10:58:AM MST