Artificial Embryo Twinning


Artificial embryo twinning is more of a low-tech way to make clones. This way of cloning agricultural animals is the natural process to create identical twins.
Artificial embryo twinning is when a young embryo has been produced through IVF and then it is divided into several individual cells. This is at the stage where the embryo cells are not concentrated on yet. Each cell grows into an identical embryo.
Also, Artificial embryo twinning is carried out in a Petri dish before its put inside the mother. A very early embryo is then separated into individual cells, which are allowed to divide and develop for a short time in the Petri dish. The embryos are then be placed into a surrogate mother, where they finish developing. Again, since all the embryos came from the same fertilised egg, they are genetically identical. The diagram above shows the whole process from a cluster of early Embryo to cloned offspring. It shows how the Embryo develops into small identical individuals.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer

Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) uses a different approach to artificial embryo twinning, but it produces the same result: an exact genetic copy, or clone, of an individual. This was the method used to create Dolly the Sheep. In This way of cloning, the nucleus, which contains the organism's DNA removes the somatic cell (a body cell other than a sperm or egg cell), and removes everything around it until only the nucleus is left.
The nucleus of the somatic cell is then inserted into the enucleated (removing the nucleus from a cell). After being inserted into the egg, the somatic cell nucleus is reprogrammed by the host cell. The egg, now containing the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated with a shock and will begin to divide.After some time, this single cell forms a blastocyst (an early stage embryo with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism.

After all this research, they started an experiment on a sheep ( Dolly). The method used was indeed Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. They took a cell from the mammary glands of a Finn Dorset breed of sheep, removed the nucleus and injected it into a Blackface ewe breed. An electric pulse was process was repeated 276 times and after 148 days, Dolly Sheep was born on 5th July 1996. This success enabled scientists to clone domestic animals such as cows, horses, bulls etc. After being bred with a Welsh Mountain ram, Dolly gave birth to six lambs. She then died at the age of six as she developed lung diseases and arthritis. The image below shows the entire process from removing cells to the resulting clones.then used to fuse the nucleus with the cytoplasm ( A thick solution that fills each cell and is enclosed by the cell membrane). This fused cell was then transferred into a Blackface ewe.

When an Agricultural animal needs spare organs, their cloned counterpart can be the standard source for the organs they need. It is a form of giving farm people the assurance that they can get the same organs needed by their herds from its clones.

Cloning is expensive because a great number of eggs are required for a single clone and this is wasteful since it is much easier to breed animals naturally.
Research involved in the development of animal cloning is very expensive and also sometimes it isn't very efficient. This means it requires a lot of time and a large number of man hours to make sure it comes out correctly.
Another reason is that it takes highly trained and educated people to perform this. Also they need all the equipment and cost associated with keeping up with the high regulations surrounding it.

Since the cells used with cloning are from parents with outstanding characteristics, that means they are born disease resistant and they are a more superior producer of herds.
Also, cloning will lead to more sources of meat and milk, which can benefit the Economy and struggling families. This will help all the families and the farmers in the world.

Though these cloned animals come from their respective parents, the meats from these cloned animals are not yet tested as a safe source. Since these are not yet tested, alterations may be present, consuming any products produced by cloned animals may lead to harmful results.

Given that these clones are just the same as their parents, scientists are able to make use of their research about particular diseases both in human and animals and try it on the clones first. These cloned animals can be used with certain experiments and prove if particular medications treats or worsens a case.

The production of clones and success rate of cloning is currently very low to be considered for full commercial use. The actual success rate of cloning is very small: 1 to 10 percent as young clones are plagued with diseases such as tumour growth and infections (HealthRF, 25/2/15).
Also, from the same resource, the Whitehead Institute of Biomedical Research has demonstrated that through the results of cloning, abnormalities formed have been recorded at 4%, a percentage too high compared to natural mutations and abnormalities formed.

Cloning animals should be banned! It's risky, expensive, time consuming. An animal is already in peace, why disturb them? Cloning animals is unnatural and scientists could be spending time doing more important things!
But on the other hand, cloning Agricultural can be beneficial. For example, the cloning of cows can benefit us because it will give us more sources of milk and meat, which will then lead to cheaper prices at supermarkets. However, these meats haven't been tested for safety yet.
Overall, in my opinion,there are too many risks associated with animal cloning and it needs to be banned!

University of California, Davis, last updated 11/9/2014,
accessible through
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotech/biotechnology/Cloning/
, accessed on 24/4/15
The information provided on this website was produced by students/teachers (author/s unknown), immediately crediting the correct utilisation and relevance of information. The site provides an overview on the process of cloning through embryo splitting and nuclear transfer. It also provides a brief history on the evolution of cloning and possible benefits from cloning (example given was cloning animals providing factor IX in their milk), hinting a small bias towards the support of cloning due to the inclusion of cloning’s benefits and exclusion of the repercussions of cloning. The 22 resources utilised by the website retain professionalism and relevance to cloning, covering the aspects discussed in the site. Overall, “Cloning” provides a descriptive, relevant representation of the principles of cloning and other aspects of cloning. However, the lack of reputable authors diminishes the credibility of the source.

“Cloning Fact Sheet”, National Human Genome Research Institute, reviewed on 28/2/15, accessible through
http://www.genome.gov/25020028
, accessed on 20/4/15
The information provided on this site was created by a whole institute, implying the removal of unnecessary information due to multiple groups analysing the information provided. The site covers several aspects of cloning such as the definition of cloning, types of cloning and the positive reinforcements and negative repercussions of cloning. The acknowledgement to both benefits and defects from cloning demonstrates the lack of bias and personal influence to cloning. However, references were not provided, diminishing the reliability of the information provided alone even for an institute. “Cloning Fact Sheet” provides information for the positives and negatives for cloning equally without bias, however the lack of acknowledge sources results in caution for the website.

“Cloned Animals”, RSCPA, date created unknown, accessible through http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/laboratory/biotechnology/clonedanim... and http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset
asset=document&assetId=1232712941729&mode=prd, accessed on 22/3/15
The authors are creditable and relatable to cloning due to their research including the cloning of animals. Howeverm the information provided is sparse compared to other sites revolving around cloning and its positives and negatives. The site provides its own opinion through its “What we think” section,yet it does not interfere with the statistics provided, resulting in a lack of bias through the inclusion and exclusion of information. Furthermore, the date the websites was created or last update was not on the we page itself, resulting in the chance the information on the site was out of date.

“Why Clone?”, University of Utah Health Sciences, date created unknown, accessible through http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/whyclone/, accessed on 22/3/15
Due to the authors providing the information being a university, it can be implied that the information on the site is accurate due to the site requiring extensive analysis before the university can claim it as a part of their work. The website provides reasons for cloning, heavily providing positive reasons for cloning, resulting in the absence of reasons not to clone. This exclusion suggests bias as a result of the exclusion of reasons not to clone. Furthermore, there is no date provided for when the site was crated/last updated or credit to resources utilised, further diminishing the credibility of the site’s reliance. Nevertheless, the approvement of the university removes skeptism towards the website.

“Cloning”, Sustainable Table, date created unknown, accessible through http://gracelinks.org/media/pdf/cloning_tp_20090515.pdf
, accessed on 21/4/15
This document provides details on the lack of adequate research on the consumption of clones and further provides recommendations to readers to research whether their consumables are created from clones. The website provides relevant information against the support of cloning such as the extreme expense to clone an organism and the lack of research towards the consumption of cloned beings, hinting bias against the support of cloning. Furthermore, no date or references are credited to, resulting in a one-sided caution against cloning supported by its own arguments.