|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.
|Cloning has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|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. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Section 3.3.2: Tadpoles are animals
- 2 Dolly was not the first cloned mammal.
- 3 Rule of Thumb?
- 4 Relevant article
- 5 Strange but True
- 6 Binary Clones (science fiction)
- 7 Weasel Words citation in final paragraph
- 8 Extinct
- 9 Deleting bit that contradicts the source given
- 10 Birds and reptiles
- 11 Hans Driesch
- 12 Section 3.4 Lifespan
- 13 Main Picture
- 14 Human Cloning Section
- 15 Dolly Parton
- 16 Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014
- 17 summary words 'strong resistance in other regions due to misinformation' unsupported by citation
- 18 Cloning in Nature
- 19 Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2015
- 20 Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016
Section 3.3.2: Tadpoles are animals
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)
- My bad. I meant to say "mammal", not "animal". I've fixed it now. Gabbe (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Dolly was not the first cloned mammal.
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
Rule of Thumb?
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. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/business/global/30got.html story about cloned fighting bulls
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cloning is distinct from artificial selection, if that's what you're referring to. Gabbe (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Strange but True
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)
Binary Clones (science fiction)
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.
Weasel Words citation in final paragraph
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? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleting bit that contradicts the source given
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."
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)
- 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)
- 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. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Birds and reptiles
- I'm a bit late, but you could try asking at the reference desk. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 10:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Section 3.4 Lifespan
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.
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.
Human Cloning Section
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)
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)
- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
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)
- 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)
summary words 'strong resistance in other regions due to misinformation' unsupported by citation
The summary at the top of the article includes the sentence: 'Such practice has met strong resistance in other regions due to misinformation, 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.
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).
Cloning in Nature
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2015
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
>>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".
- Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
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)
- 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)