maybe, maybe not
No, Ian Wilmut did not call cloning "cloning." He is known for his work in cloning Dolly the sheep, the first mammal cloned from an adult somatic cell, but the term "cloning" was used to describe the process before his work.
Cloning has been a topic of scientific interest for decades, with the first successful cloning of a mammal (Dolly the sheep) in 1996. Since then, cloning technology has advanced, leading to the cloning of other animals and ongoing ethical debates surrounding the practice. Cloning has potential benefits for research and medicine but also raises concerns about ethical implications and the impact on biodiversity.
Replacement cloning is a theoretical possibility, and would be a combination of therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Replacement cloning would entail the replacement of an extensively damaged, failed, or failing body through cloning followed by whole or partial brain transplant.
Human cloning and animal cloning both involve creating a genetic copy of an organism, but there are differences in the ethical and legal considerations surrounding each. Human cloning raises complex ethical issues related to human rights and medical ethics, while animal cloning is primarily focused on agricultural and scientific applications. Additionally, the technologies and procedures used for human cloning may differ from those used for animal cloning.
I wouldn't quite say that there's a "study of cloning" per se, but cloning is a field in genetic engineering.
Its bad because it's unnatural. But so are polio vaccines! Cloning parts for people to save their lives could be a good thing!
Its bad because it's unnatural. But so are polio vaccines! Cloning parts for people to save their lives could be a good thing!
Yes, they save lives.
Yes, they save lives.
Toast can most definitely save lives; lives of starving families.
The idea is to clone a part of a human. So if you need a new liver, a liver could be cloned from your DNA, making it the perfect donor. You wouldn't actually clone a whole human.
They can save lives by making sure it doesn't erupt
Some cons to cloning are that you would be like eating fake or artificial food and meat. Additional Info: Short lives, and different personalities.
How many lives did Albert Schweitzer save?
well of course...imagine there are people who need transplants but there just isn't one out there, if we could take their tissue and clone a healthy heart or lung or arm or w.e they need then we could save thousands of lives
If we live in peace and have no war and live a dignified live we can save many lives
One advantage is that cloning human body parts for transplant could potentially alleviate organ shortage and save lives. However, one disadvantage is the ethical concerns surrounding the cloning of human beings and the potential for exploitation or unequal access to this technology based on socioeconomic factors.