Talk:Cloning

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cloning article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: Genetics / MCB Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance). Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Jurassic Park (novel)#Biological issues and accuracy|Jurassic Park]] The anchor (#Biological issues and accuracy) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blanca2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence at the end of section 3.3.2 does not make sense: "Though Dolly was the first cloned animal, the first vertebrate to be cloned was a tadpole in 1952." Tadpoles (the larval stage of amphibians) are animals, therefore if tadpoles have been cloned before, Dolly is not the first cloned animal. Maybe it should say: "Though Dolly was the first cloned mammal, the first vertebrate to be cloned was a tadpole in 1952." Does anybody know if there has been other instances of mammal cloning before Dolly ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pijeth (talk • contribs) 09:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I meant to say "mammal", not "animal". I've fixed it now. Gabbe (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that the article states this. It even says about 6 sentences later that the first mammal cloned was a mouse! Can someone fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly was cloned from an adult cell, the mouse from an embryonic cell. Thats a big difference and should be explained in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is stated very well that Dolly was first cloned mammal from an adult cell, but is there posibillity somebody to write about first cloning ever, because is hard to find evidence that don't say that Dolly is the first cloned mammal. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisstudent17 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to any "rule of thumb" for restoration of extinct species. Just who determines the rules? --71.245.164.83 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose the "rule" was such that no species should be genetically restored until former habitat is first restored - why would that prevent the restoration of any species destroyed by man, such as the Passenger Pigeon or the Great Auk? There is plenty of existing habitat - they were lost primarily by the lack of regulations. Regulations already protect hundreds (if not thousands) of species from extinction. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/business/global/30got.html story about cloned fighting bulls

Dhollm (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not state the history of cloning. It first originated from early farmers to reproduce fruits that were better than the others. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.48.223 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloning is distinct from artificial selection, if that's what you're referring to. Gabbe (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 Iowa State Fair Grand Champion Steer was a clone of the 2008 Champion. Champion steer at Iowa State Fair continues reign I'm not sure it's something to put in the article, or if it is where to place it. --Aflafla1 (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the science fiction section, it might be worth noting the concept of binary clones (DNA from two individuals are combined, to create an artificial offspring). It's less common in science fiction, than standard cloning (i.e. one donor), but common enough for it being worth mentioning. Binary clones include the metacrisis Doctor (a hybrid of the Doctor's Time Lord DNA and Donna Noble's human DNA), seen in Journey's End, the daughter of T'Pol and Charles Tucker III on Star Trek Enterprise. Along with comic book characters as Superboy, Nate Grey, X-23 and Ultimate Spider-Woman.

The sentences following the citation make the citation itself nullified, if I understand things correctly. The citation refers to an ambiguous 'many' and what follows the citation defines that 'many'. Is the citation still required here? 72.228.51.242 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the cloning of extinct animals have it's own article? Here is an idea for an article name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.128.11 (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys - I'm about to make a change to this paragraph:

"Pyrenean Ibex (2009) was the first "extinct" animal (while the species is not extinct, nor even endangered, no living examples of the Pyrenean subspecies had been known since 2000) to be cloned back to life; the clone lived for seven minutes before dying of lung defects.[33]"

I'm going to delete the bit in brackets because it contradicts the source article provided. The source says, "The Pyrenean ibex, a form of wild mountain goat, was officially declared extinct in 2000... extensive hunting during the 19th century reduced their numbers to fewer than 100 individuals. They were eventually declared protected in 1973, but by 1981 just 30 remained in their last foothold in the Ordesa National Park..."

If anyone wants to restore the claim that the animal is "not extinct, nor even endangered", then he or she must provide a source at this point, because the source given says the opposite.Señor Service (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, scratch that - I think I misunderstood it. On reflection, I guess that "species" refers to the Ibex, which is still around - with only the Pyrenean *sub*species being extinct? Left as is.Señor Service (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the change never came through, the bit in brackets is a bit confusing: being extinct, but not extinct or endangered. While its true the species is still alive, the particular subspecies isn't. And being that it hadn't been fully analyzed for taxonomy, it may be as far to qualify as its own species. Either way the bracketed text needs some help, or removed. 74.42.191.247 (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this with an edit today, putting the sub-species clarification in a note. i hope the edit resolves this issue. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why birds and reptiles haven't been cloned? I'm surprised that chickens haven't been cloned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.128.11 (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late, but you could try asking at the reference desk. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 10:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, messing around with an egg from birds or reptiles is much more difficult than amphibian or mammal embryos. The reproduction process of birds and reptiles includes the inner-species fertilization and than the building of the (entire) egg around the fertilised cell in the mother organism. In contrast, amphibian and fish reproduction mostly uses externally fertilization, therefor the embryos are readyly handable. For mammals, the extra-uterine-fertilization is a well established prozess, used for cattle, endangered species and humans with reproduction problems for decades. ciao --Pentaclebreaker (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Driesch is considered to be the first person to clone an animal. Were is he in this article?--Wester (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can this section be expanded at all? It is a very important point to note, but without follow-up or more information it does not seem necessary to put in its own sub-section. Maybe it should be added to a larger section if no new information or studies can be added.

Jfriend2 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a different picture that clearly represents cloning? The main picture now is hard to interpret. On first glance it looks like debris floating in water.

Jfriend2 (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main article Human Cloning has recently been updated and the information in this section does not represent the main article anymore. I will be making some changes to this section to better represent the updated information in the main article.Jfriend2 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm helping too! Estephe9 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

human cloning started by the end of WW2 and since the its been happening. Celebrities, singers,actors are mostly cloned for different types of reasons. Samkelekile Sam (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Good luck with sourcing encyclopedic content on that particular theory. Cnbrb (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about this revision: it seems like a non-sequitur. The link in the references just asks me to login, so I can't see the source material that was quoted for this. Can someone please elaborate? I am only asking because I can't tell if this is meant to convey some information (and I'm just not getting it), or if it is vandalism. Allquixotic (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

somebody created the reference link from inside a university somewhere so the link doesn't work. That was a mistake. I replaced it with a better reference. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please can you change the phrase: "which allow only cells in which the vector has been transfected" to become: "which allow only cells in which the vector has been transformed". The process of transformation is that associated with the insertion of DNA into bacteria, transfection is typically a reference to the transient introduction of DNA into cells such as in mammalian cell research. The heritable introduction of DNA into bacteria is typically achieved via the process of bacterial transformation. Rcawooddna (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Can you find a reliable source that makes these definitions clear? From what I can tell [transfection] is not necessarily transient. Cannolis (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The summary at the top of the article includes the sentence: 'Such practice has met strong resistance in other regions due to misinformation,[5] such as Europe, particularly over the labeling issue.'

This may very well be true, but it is not at all clear that it is such an important fact that it belongs in the summary. After all, it does not help define what clones are, but only that some opposition to one use of them may be due to misinformation.

Further, the reference cited (#5), does not seem to support the statement, or at least the abstract does not. The reference only says that (roughly) the mortalitity and fertitility rates of cloned animals matches non-cloned ones (in some cases), and that derived food products from them are not accepted because of reasons including "lack of public acceptance" and "low efficiency". Neither one of these, especially the second, is the same thing as "misinformation".

So i think first some decision should be made as to whether that sentence even belongs in the summary.

If it does (or if it does not, but is moved elsewhere), it should have a reference that supports it. Son of eugene (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author of the sentence conflated their own personal views on GMOs with their own personal views on cloning, and tried to find evidence supported said views, because opposition is usually due to questions of ethics rather than whether it's viable (various news articles support this, such as http://politiken.dk/mad/madnyt/ECE458262/usa-indfoerer-klonede-dyr-i-maden/ - the primary issues brought up are not about whether the food is safe, but whether it's acceptable). The sentence reveals a very American POV, as it assumes that the US has made the right choice and has the best information. It should be removed for violating NPOV. - Anon, 5:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

that stuff was well cited both in the lead and the body. arguably doesn't need to be in the lead, so just removed it from there. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This para contains many grammatical errors: Original: Cloning is a natural form of reproduccion that had allow spreading of life form more than 50 thousand years, it has been used as a reproduction form by plants, fungi, or bacteria, it is the way that Clonal colonies reproduce themsef, a few examples of this organisms are Blueberries plants, Hazel trees Pando's trees, Kentucky coffeetree, Myricas and American sweetgum.

Corrected: Cloning is a natural form of reproduccion that has allowed spreading of life forms for more than 50 thousand years, and has been used as a form of reproduction by plants, fungi, or bacteria. It is the way that Clonal colonies reproduce themselves. A few examples of these organisms are Blueberries plants, Hazel trees Pando's trees, Kentucky coffeetree, Myricas and American sweetgum.Jayrsamal (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

>>Being changed: Cloning in nature Cloning is a natural form of reproduction that has allow spreading of life forms for more than 50,000 years, and has been used as a reproduction form by plants, fungi, and bacteria. It is the way that Clonal colonies reproduce themselves. A few examples of these organisms are Blueberries plants, Hazel trees Pando's trees, Kentucky coffeetree, Myricas and American sweetgum

>>Change to: Cloning in nature Cloning is a natural form of reproduction that has allow spreading of life forms for more than 50,000 years, and has been used as a reproduction form by plants, fungi, and bacteria. It is the way that Clonal colonies reproduce themselves. A few examples of these organisms are Blueberries plants, Hazel trees, Pando's trees, Kentucky coffeetree, Myricas and American sweetgum.

>>Chnanged: Added a coma after "hazel trees" and a full stop/period after "sweetgum".

92.0.234.254 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed that content, as it was added unsourced and the "more than 50,000 years" is dubious. We can restore if there is a reliable source provided. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to add some information in the section about "lifespan", as I feel that simply stating that "the lifespan of a clone is normal" is not sufficiently informative. The fact that the telomeres of the cells of the adult organism to be cloned are shorter and so, by rights, the cloned animal should live a protracted lifespan, is important. The observation that cells can "regrow" telomeres, allowing that cloned organisms do not have protracted lifespans, is surprising and should be appreciated as such. I hope it's okay to add that! Sources include the paper by Xu and Yang (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC305328/), and that of Lanza and others (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10784448/). KRHenninger (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cloning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723041627/http://www.exn.ca:80/Stories/1996/10/21/01.asp to http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1996/10/21/01.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071226063158/http://www.ibiza-spotlight.com:80/news/2006/monster_plant_280506_i.htm to http://www.ibiza-spotlight.com/news/2006/monster_plant_280506_i.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloning is a process where DNA is transfered to a new organism so that the new organism can have a certain trait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.11.52.2 (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the first pictrues there is written the info: Many organisms, including aspen trees, reproduce by cloning Thats not true! The aspen tree has an other way to make cloned or genetic most identical babies than the person that are doing cloning in the laboratories! Its wronge to say, its the same! Thats absolutly not true! The aspen tree has no loboratory, where it buildes its babies! Its an other technic or just an own, an "unic" way of reproduction! --2A02:1205:5009:C1F0:5848:B189:CE93:EFEF (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cloning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1996/10/21/01.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibiza-spotlight.com/news/2006/monster_plant_280506_i.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627234420/http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/pyreneanibex.htm to http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/pyreneanibex.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://jetpress.org/volume13/bainbridge.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630225455/http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/FINAL_FORMATTEDprime%20time.pdf to http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/FINAL_FORMATTEDprime%20time.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cloning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pereplet.ru/nauka/anobele/klon/bio.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130223142719/http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html to http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Lifetime Movie 2017 - No Ordinary Baby - Based On A True Story89.33.208.120 (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cloning is a natural form of reproduction that has allowed life forms to spread for more than 50 thousand years. It is the reproduction method used by plants, fungi, and bacteria, and is also the way that clonal colonies reproduce themselves.[4][5] Examples of these organisms include blueberry plants, hazel trees, the Pando trees,[6][7] the Kentucky coffeetree, Myricas, and the American sweetgum.

  If life existed on earth for more than 3 billion years and early life showed no signs of sexual reproduction (i.e. asexual reproduction took place and hence cloning), then why does it say 50 thousand years only when it should be in billions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RANDOM29 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Raptor Film Legends Museum.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dragon Con 2013 Parade - Star Wars (9681599977).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the section 'First Steps', the following sentence appears: " In 1928 [Spemann] and his student, Hilde Mangold, were the first to perform somatic-cell nuclear transfer using amphibian embryos – one of the first steps towards cloning." This is impossible, since Hilde Mangold died in 1924. I'm not sure what specific experiment the sentence refers to, nor whether the error is the date, Mangold's participation, or both. I'm tagging as dubious. 71.73.46.37 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, it's also possible that the experiment was credited to 'Spemann and Mangold' or the like, but that 'Mangold' referred not to Hilde but to her widower Otto, who was Spemann's assistant. 71.73.46.37 (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change the image, it does not represent cloning. It would be good in the article, when referring to the tree. Not at the top, where it does not represent the subject. I am up for anything else, and let anyone else decide. AggiesNeverLie (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zebrafish listed as first cloned vertebrate but dated after other listed vertebrates, including carp 2601:547:F00:1E60:1112:5B9D:857B:855F (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section badly needs to be updated. Some of the information is more than a decade old and is obsolete (e.g. the statement that wooly mammoth DNA has not been recovered). I've made some tweaks, but I'm not familiar enough with the current literature to undertake a complete re-write. 100.11.147.223 (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]