Talk:Human cloning

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2014 (Saint Louis University/BIOL 460: Developmental Biology (Spring 2014). See § Past Editing

update section on EU Charter[edit]

The section about the prohibition of reproductive cloning in the EU is outdated. It states that "...if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified..." As it stands now, The Treaty of Lisbon, which makes the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights legally binding, has been ratified and goes into effect on December 1, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source needed[edit]

"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) use i dfg gb gs — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If federal regulation people lost a child they would do how do we know they haven'tthey can do things and hide itI bet you it has been doneif anyone heard anything let me knowbecause I do it Nick11415 (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

  • 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)Reply[reply]

Removal of links to and associated site[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Weasel words... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No controversy?[edit]

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 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very much. 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 on 23:35, 22 November 2007. One might want to revise the mentioned submission when creating such an entry. -- (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

My son died. I want him cloned is it possible? Nick11415 (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still being vandalized?[edit]

{{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)Reply[reply]

Ermm.... I think IT IS PROTECTED! (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC) i think the last comment was supposed to be under No controversy??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]



What the hell does "descregligible" mean? "and "persistence cloning" to descregligible SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence)". As far as I can tell, this word doesn't exist anywhere outside of this article and the various websites that mirror it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Who is John Rick Shelton?[edit]

"However, the most successful common cloning technique in non-human mammals is the process by which Dolly the sheep was produced. John Rick Shelton was one of 277 attempts. It is also the technique used by Advanced Cell Technology (ACT), the first company to successfully[2] clone early human embryos that stopped at the six cell stage."

I removed the sentence referring to the gentleman as Google didn't turn up anything relevant to Dolly the Sheep or cloning when I searched for his name. --Kyace (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article is horrible, it's written like a 6th Grade Essay. It discusses events in 2001, and rambles on about aliens... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever. Please do not use personal attacks on Wikipedia. See WP:PA for further reading.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible Advantages[edit]

One of the headings in the article on human cloning is 'possible advantages'. A few years ago I wrote articles on the subject of humanitarian cloning,and I mailed the articles to magazines,but unfortunately,none of them were interested in publishing my articles. As far as I know,I am the only person who has proposed the idea of humanitarian cloning. Basically,the purpose of humanitarian cloning is to preserve the genetic diversity of a population that has been devastated by genocide,for example,the Jews in world war two. Since six million Jews were killed by the Nazis,we should allow the Jews who are alive today to create as many as six million cloned copies of themselves. Another example is the Bosnians who were killed in the war in the 1990's. Bosnians who are alive today should be allowed to clone themselves,and these Bosnian clones would replace the Bosnians who were killed in the war. Of course,replacing people who were lost is only a symbolic gesture,to try to heal the emotional wounds of war,the people killed during warfare can never really be replaced. The real value of humanitarian cloning lies in the possibility of preserving the genetic diversity of the Jewish gene pool,the Bosnian gene pool,et cetera. Signed---- Anthony Ratkov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on above statement: I believe that "preserving the genetic diversity" of the gene pool of populations reduced by genocide would not be achieved by cloning the remaining population because no new diversity would be achieved except where the usual mutations occur. Remember the clones would be genetically exact copies of the donors. (Panthora (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Why is there absolutely no mention of cellular/molecular level human cloning? We are already growing human limbs and tissue.  Sirmikey1 (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Identical Twins[edit]

The article should address "natural" cloning...i.e. identical twins.

Goeggel (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or, to put it more comparatively, explain how "natural cloning" (multiple identical siblings) is often referred to as "horizontal cloning" where the children are born at the same time, and "reproductive cloning" as "vertical cloning" where the children are born after the first "sibling" has already grown to adult maturity. This could help to establish that clones aren't the same person, much like identical siblings aren't the same person, and that "genetic" identity is intrinsically flawed. FinalDeity (talk) (Sorry, forgot to log in)

No process of cloning stated?[edit]

Why is there no process/theories of Human Cloning stated? -Vincetti (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can a diseased human use his part for cloning and if so what happens to the cloned being[edit]

i have wondered how human can be cloned and if they can be cloned why don't scientist clone people with HIV patience and develope clone liver for people with hepathitis B and also get artificial blood for blood transfusion instead of taking blood from people which can end up being diseased infested —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean? Someone dead or someone infected?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 03:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totally unclear passage[edit]

"With regard to" is a weasel term. Tell me, what does this passage mean? It's not even clear whether the research is legal or not: The remaining gap with regard to therapeutic cloning was closed when the appeals courts reversed the previous decision of the High Court.[16] (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rorvik book title needs correction[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Established user needed to correct this last part of History section please:

"Human cloning also gained a foothold in popular culture, starting in the 1970s. Alvin Toffler's Future Shock, David Rorvik's In His Image: Toward Cloning of a Man, Woody Allen's film Sleeper and The Boys from Brazil all helped to make the public aware of the ethical issues surrounding human cloning."

The correct title to Rorvik's book is: "In his Image: the Cloning of a Man". Not "...Toward Cloning..." and "his", not "His"

Please change "In His Image:Toward Cloning of a Man" to "In his Image: the Cloning of a Man"

The word "his" is intentionally left uncapitalized by the author at least on the cover. I assume Rorvik did this to underscore the play-on-words concerning a man cloning himself (thereby creating a being in "his" image), as apposed to the more familiar meaning of the phrase (a supreme being creating a life in "His" image, usually a direct reference to God) in which case the word "His" in the phrase "In His Image", would of course be capitalized regardless of whether it appeared in a title or not.

Also this last small paragraph in the History section listing the books and films involving human cloning, would probably be better placed, or actually incorporated, into the Popular Culture section in the article.

I have made the appropriate edits to the book title in Rorvik's article. Can I please get an established user to make the corrections in this semi-protected article?

 Done Requires sourcing though if you have any, I'll see if I can come up with some later on tonight when I get some more time to spare. Regards, Jeffrey Mall (talkcontribs) - 19:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm new to WP but in a case like this where the correct title of a book is disputed, wouldn't the most reliable and authoritative source have to be the book itself?- Racerx11 (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding hitman franchise to popular culture section[edit]

I suggest someone writes a few lines about the "Hitman" franchise of games from game developer Eidos. The game theme and story revolves around cloning, with the games protagonist being a clone himself. The last game in the franchise "Hitman: Blood Money" is about the political and legal aspect of cloning, especially in the United States of America. -- (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From a global viewpoint, this is not important at all. See WP:TRIVIA. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misconception on therapeutic cloning[edit]

The probably most common misconception about therapeutic cloning is that it would mean the creation of a whole human to take the needed organ(s) from. But since a human clone would inevitably develop a full human mind and an unique personality this would be equivalent of killing one person in order to cure an other. Consequentially, the goal of therapeutic cloning is to create only the tissues which the patient needs. As such I think that therapeutic cloning should be encouraged due to its potential to cure diseases otherwise incurable. For a more detailed explanation of cloning of whole humans please read the discussion under the subtitle “Misconceptions on reproductive cloning”. I have started it myself.

2010-06-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I really felt the need to write this. I know this is intended to be a discussion of the article but I apparently minsunderstood that. It would be suitable to point out in the article that therapeutic cloning does not involve the creation of a whole human as many people seem to think.

2010-06-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Fair enough. Which source would you use? Gabbe (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I don't remember where I got my statements from. Sorry for not thinking about that.

2010-08-25 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Misconceptions on reproductive cloning[edit]

There are many misconceptions about reproductive cloning. I intend to debunk the two most important ones here. If you want to criticise my text please avoid ad hominem attacks. I know that cloning is a hot topic but please just ask about or criticise things immediately related to what I have written here.

One is that clones would be soulless. It is based on the claim that the soul enters the embryo at conception. This idea is in turn based on two misunderstandings of what conception means. First, conception is not a moment but a process which takes between 24 and 48 hours. Secondly, the result is just a barely visible single cell. This cell divides into two, which divides into four ones, which divides into eight and so on. When there are enough cells they split up into one inner layer which later develops into the foetus and one outer which develops into the membrane of the foetus and placenta. The inner layer splits up further into three layers. The innermost develops into the digestive system and lungs. The middle layer develops into skeleton, muscles, the circulatory system, kidneys and genitals. The outermost layer develops into skin and the nervous system. This is a completely natural process which takes place in all Chordates but at different speeds and with different end results. Comparable processes take place in all animals except for sponges and Cnidaria which develops two cell layers instead of three. (A possible other exception is the Placozoa which have only been seen to reproduce asexually.) My point is that a soul can't exist without a brain. It does not matter if you call it soul, spirit, mind or personality it is still dependant on the function of the brain. Consequentially, if there is a sufficiently developed brain there is also a soul. The only way a child can be born soulless is if it is born without a cortex. However, such a child could be considered born brain-dead.

If a healthy clone can be made the development of the brain would not be influenced by the coning process. Although clones may have aberrations from human nature but these will be aberrations existing in non-clones as well. People ignorant of such aberrations may mistake them for evidence that clones does not have a full mind. The idea of clones being soulless will result in them being treated as if they where not sentient. If carried out from start such a treatment will result in clones having their mental development neglected. In severe cases they may not have the chance to learn fundamental human skills such as speaking and knowing the properties of everyday objects. There are cases of severely neglected children which have not even learned to chew because their parents had never given them any solids! Clones which never had the chance to learn fundamental human skills may be misunderstood as being born without the ability to learn them. This will result in no effort to repair the damage done to their minds to the extent it is possible. All in all this misconception has the potential to make a clone’s life truly miserable.

One other is that cloning would recreate the personality of the cloned person. But since there is no magic involved in cloning cones can be directly compared to identical twins. What we call “identical twins” may be physically nearly identical. Yet they always develop unique personalities regardless if the grow up together or apart. As such a clone would inevitably develop an unique personality. Most important, a clone will have no memory of anything that has happened to the cloned person. Neither is there any guarantee that the clone will have any of the cloned person's skills, habits or addictions. (A clone may have the genetic potential for addiction but this is not the same as addiction itself.) However, a clone will to great extent share the cloned person's specific talents, lack of specific talents and general temperament. Some element of taste for food and drink is also hereditary since the density of taste buds on the tongue is genetically determined as well as dislike of certain plants. These similarities – combined with skills and habits based on them – may be mistaken for evidence that the clone is the cloned person. Is there anything more frustrating that not being believed? Moreover, children who grow up with the expectation of becoming someone who already exists become unhappy because they can't live up to people's expectations. This has already happened to several children of celebrities. So we might call this condition “famous parent syndrome”.

I think that cloning of whole humans is immoral. By cloning you create a person who merely from the way he or she came into existence runs a constant risk of being wrongfully treated. This kind of cloning should be outlawed. But artificial dividing of embryo could be allowed provided they are all developed during the same pregnancy. If so the result will be indisguisable from natural identical twins, triplets, and so on. Most likely the first human clone in not born yet. However, it is probably only a matter of time before the first human clone is born. Since clones would not differ from non-clones in any intrinsical sense they should have full civil rights. They should be raised by people who have not only realized this but also are highly motivated to let them live their own lives. To everyone who blames a clone for the actions of the cloned person I want to say: Would you blame an identical twin for something the other twin has done? To all future clones I want to say: Please remember that you are unique, just like everyone else.

2010-07-27 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Interesting. However, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss sourced improvements of the article, it isn't a general forum on the subject of human cloning. See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Are there any specific improvements to the article, based on reliable sources, that you would like to discuss? Gabbe (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest the use of Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate – The modern denial of human nature. I have read it myself in Swedish translation. In this book he writes that personality is 40–50% hereditary, 10% or less due to parenting and 50% due to pure random chance. If no-one has anything against the use of this book as a source I think it should be used to fill a hole I found. The article states that we don’t know to which extent I clone’s personality would resemble that of the cloned person. However, I think we already know enough to make rough estimates of the similarities between them. I was in fact more prepared to criticism based on bad analogies. For example, some people compare modern twin studies to the experimentation on twins conducted by the Nazis. In reality they have no more in common than the use of identical twins. What the Nazis did wrong was conducting painful human experimentation instead of painful animal experimentation. (The Nazis treated many animals better than many people.) I can’t find out any way in which twin studies could be painful. Identical twins divided shortly after birth for other reasons has just been traced down and asked systematic questions independently of each other. From the answers they have given their degrees of different personality traits can be estimated. Although there are always significant similarities between their personalities there are also always significant differences as well. From this I draw the conclusion that clones would inevitably develop unique personalities yet there would still be some similarities with the personalities of the persons they where cloned from.

My point is that a clone would not be the cloned person any more than an identical twin is the other twin. People thinking that cloning would recreate the cloned person most be using some kind of magical thinking. Many habits and skills can’t be hereditary themselves since their very existence depends on what can be found in the environment. When similar habits are found in identical twins raised apart they most be due to the same inborn tendencies getting a similar outlet in a similar environment. In the same way we do not inherit skills themselves but the ability to learn specific types of skills. About memory I am convinced that humans are born with almost no memory at al. What little memory we do possess at birth is due to experiences during the later stages of fetal development. Since there is no magic involved in cloning cones will be no different. Please note that there are several different types of which mature at different ages. Infants can remember and learn a lot but they can’t have any conscious memory of events. This ability develops at the age of two or three when the mind of the child matures to the stage of being aware of its own existence independent of the environment. This can usually be noticed due to the child starting to use pronouns in first person or referring to itself by using its first name.

Some people think that clones will be “soulless” due to the absence of conception. These people can’t be aware that identical twins (triplets and so on) originate from a single conception. Do they share a single soul or is all but one soulless? This is a good question to ask such people.

2010-07-28 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

A big problem arises when you say "From this I draw the conclusion [...]". While there is nothing wrong with drawing such a conclusion (and, in my view, it is a reasonable one to make), we aren't allowed to insert conclusions we've made ourselves when editing articles, see WP:NOR. Every single statement (and conclusion) in every article must be attributable to a reliable source that directly support the material as presented. Furthermore, if we want to include statements like "some people think [...]" into the article, that would likewise require a source explicitly saying so. Gabbe (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brave new World[edit]

I think Huxleys take is all the more meritorious since he came up with it in '31. I added it to pop culture. I appologise I screwed it up and am unable to fix the damn thing. Please help&delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the first person who was cloned the process of -- (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality of Subjest[edit]

While I was reading this article, this phrase caught my eye. "The ethical and moral issues cannot wait and should be discussed, debated and guidelines and laws be developed now" This statement seems to infer that Wikipedia is not neutral about this topic. Any thoughts? BubbleBuggy (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pop culture[edit]

I've removed the long section of trivia. It contained only one ref tag and that seemed nonWP:RS. If anyone wishes to add some back, reliable sources are imperative and an indication of relevance to the subject -- as in how does the fictional thing improve the article content or reader understanding of the content. Vsmith (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think with the Ditto controversy, the Pokémon series here has severe issues as gamers are left unpunished when using imposter Ditto's or normal Dittos using transform in battle. Also, gamers are left almost unpunished when it comes to other science controversies or prohibited thinking orientations such as Eugenics, inbreeding and other nonsense coming from rather not racists like the n**i regime only, but also nobility elitists such as kings and queens and their kingdom and empire families.--2001:16B8:570E:1D00:C14F:B181:1C48:2C0E (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The first lines say "Human cloning... does not refer to ... reproduction of humans/animals cells or tissue." Then a line says "There are two commonly discussed types of human cloning: therapeutic cloning ... Therapeutic cloning involves cloning cells from an adult for use in medicine and transplants". That's contradictory. I'm not sure how to resolve that now, but it should be resolved some way. Chuck Baggett (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Past Editing[edit]

This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2014 (see the course page for more details).. Estephe9 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2014 (see the course page for more details).

Jfriend2 Jfriend2 (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Education Program namespace has been shut down. I updated the copy of this notice at the top of this page to reflect that. wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Edits[edit]

User:Jfriend2 and I are discussing how this article could be improved, and we think it would be beneficial to change the format of the article. Some of these changes include:

  • Removing the Ethics, Laws, and Popular Culture sections
  • Add a section on the methods to cloning
    • This includes adding relevant images
  • Adding a main picture for the article
  • Trying to rewrite the opener to read better (brought up in a previous comment about the article)

Jfriend2 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfriend2 (talkcontribs) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC) -Estephe9 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estephe9 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for talking before jumping in. Why remove those sections? With regard to methods, please make sure you are working closely with the content in the Cloning article and the Somatic-cell nuclear transfer article that are linked-to in the 2nd paragraph of the Lead. You should look at those articles, make sure they are solid and up-to-date, update their leads, and basically use those leads (with references added) in the "Methods" section of this article. This way the content all stays up to date and aligned. See WP:SUMMARY. This is a really important concept -- Wikipedia "editors" too often fail to think like actual editors of an encyclopedia. Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We feel strongly that the Ethics and Laws section would fit better in it's own article or joined with the pre-existing Ethics of Cloning article. This would hopefully reduce the controversial aspect of the developing science behind human cloning. Thank you for the help and we will be sure to work closely with the pre-existing Cloning and Somatic-cell nuclear transfer articles. Let us know any other ideas you might have to help improve this article. Jfriend2 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying how you "strongly feel" is not the way we work here. You might as well say "banana banana banana". What we do, is discuss the "scope" of the article. The scope is generally determined by the topics that are generally discussed by reliable sources on the subject and, inevitably, by what the Wikipedia community cares about. For existing articles, you can get a good feel about what the Wikipedia community cares about by a) reviewing the Talk page and its archives and b) looking in the History section of the article itself, to see what topics have been most frequently worked on. For Laws, I think you could possibly create a new article on "Human cloning laws" and copy the existing content into it, and leave a stub section behind. The ethics section is already a stub section; I don't think you are going to be able to get rid of it altogether. (you should never just "delete" entire sections of an article - as I mentioned with laws if you want to reduce it, split it off in to its own article and leave a stub behind) Please hear me that I am sympathetic to your desire to get the article more focused on the science. I worked over the whole suite of "genetically engineered organisms/food/crops/controversies" articles and did exactly this kind of thing with them, in concert with some other editors. See genetically modified food to see what i mean.Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We apologize for jumping to remove these sections. I don't think the whole scope of the human cloning article should solely be focused on history, laws, and a very small pop culture. If you would be interested in helping us make a separate Laws of Human Cloning page we would love the knowledge you bring about editing wiki pages, since we are very new at this. For now we will try to focus on adding a more scientific approach, rather than taking away what is already there. Jfriend2 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good! I appreciate your willingness to Talk. I have had to deal with students in the past who were really just doing it for the grade and didn't care at all about the encyclopedia. So thanks!!! Fire away, I will be watching and will jump in if I am happy or concerned; feel free to ping me too. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking forward to working with you, Jytdog. Thanks for your help! -Estephe9 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jfriend2 and I are adding content to this article as part of our assignment in biolprof's course as discussed above. -Estephe9 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some quick feedback on the edits you just made:

  1. In general, avoid changing big chunks of text at once. Better to edit a small patch, provide an edit comment and save it, then do the next bit, etc. This makes it a) easier for you to explain what you are doing to other editors; b) allows other editors to reject part of your changes, as opposed to be left with an "all or nothing" decision.
  2. Please never cite a book, without providing page numbers. The markup for that is easy - it looks like this: : 3–4  Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chase71.161.109.86 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)why Not splice DNA in two humans in halve and take one halve from each and put it in the other. 12/17/21Reply[reply]

Comments from Rraju2[edit]

This article is being peer reviewed as an assignment for this class. Rraju2 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Including more links to relevant articles may be helpful, such as reproductive cloning. Some links are used twice in the article. SCNT and iPSCs is linked in the lead as well as in another section.
    • I took out repeated wiki links as mentioned. Therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning links were not added in the lead because they do not have there own wiki pages, but are a redirect to other related pages. Jfriend2 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Additional articles/journals/websites etc to the further reading section would be helpful so that readers know where to look or have some guidance if they would like to research further into the subject.
    • Added an article about personalized medicine to the Further Reading section. Estephe9 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Just kidding, that was removed because it linked to an article only available through SLU's databases. Estephe9 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We did add another article regarding different cloning procedures to the further reading section. Estephe9 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe mention Stem Cell therapy and if it relates to this subject or not. Many readers may make a correlation between the two when there may or may not be one. Here is an article that discusses Stem cell therapy. Once again, this should be mentioned based on relevance to human cloning. I feel as though there may be some popular common confusion on the subjects.
    • Thanks for the idea! We added some content from the stem cell therapy article and its references. Estephe9 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Adding a diagram of the iPSCs cells could be beneficial if possible. Rraju2 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • An image from Wikimedia Commons has been added to the sectionJfriend2 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Jtrivedi92[edit]

This article is being peer reviewed as part of this class — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrivedi92 (talkcontribs) 05:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The law and ethics sections may be more constructive if moved to a separate article.
    • We completely agree and are currently working with another member of the Wiki community to see if this is at all possible, but for now all of the content stays in this article.Jfriend2 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Jytdog, could you help us move the laws and ethics section? Estephe9 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point I don't see that the article is so long that any split is needed. Please see WP:SPLIT for the general rationale on splitting. If you look above, when you first broached this I said "if it gets too long" - at that time I had no idea how extensive your additions would be. They have been pretty minimal... Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • the section on IPSCs is unclear on what exactly pluripotency is and why it is useful in this context. A quick definition would make this section more accesible.
    • A definition and link to the pluripotency page has been added for clarity purposes. Jfriend2 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • connection between IPSCs and personalized medicine is unclear, it should state why cloning leads to more tailored therapy
    • a couple sentences have been added to the section with reference to the Induced pluripotent stem cell page and hopefully is more clear. Estephe9 and I will be working to expand this section shortly. Jfriend2 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • this is an article that describes some future medical uses for cloning and genomics that might help expand that section, especially given that the personalized medicine article itself does not cite any sources.
    • Thank you for the source, we will see if it works into the addition to the article. However, the Personalized medicine article does provide quite a few sources, 26 of them actually. Jfriend2 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We tried adding this link to the Future Reading section, but it is from a blocked source to those outside the SLU network and unfortunately we cannot reference this article.Jfriend2 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jtrivedi92 (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restrictions in Maine, Pop Culture section[edit]

According to the article as it's currently written, "Maine restricts human cloning but does not ban it." I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Does it mean that you need a state issued license to clone in Maine? Maybe you're not allowed to clone on Sundays and federal holidays? Since there's no citation for this claim, i think it causes more confusion than clarification.

Also, i don't understand what the popular culture section is supposed to add to this article. Unless i completely misunderstood the plot, Jurassic Park had nothing to do with human cloning in any way. Time Magazine once running a cover story about human cloning a decade ago is unremarkable unless additional information about the article and its impacts are provided. I think this entire wikipedia article would be improved simply by deleting the popular culture section. (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the Maine sentence. The pop culture section could definitely stand to be improved (there are many more directly relevant references than Jurassic Park), but left it for now. I wouldn't object to removing it, but it would be better to improve it instead.--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lanza/ACT study[edit]

Hey all, WP:MEDRS applies here, regardless of whether this is featured on WP's front page or not. Newspapers are not acceptable secondary sources for biomedical related information. Remember the South Korean issues, anyone? On top of that ACT is notorious for doing science by press release: We need to see if others are able replicate this and until the scientific community has time to absorb the results, and for this work to be discussed in a review article. As per WP:MEDRS. Until then, we need to wait to give a lot of WP:WEIGHT to this. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, this is too early so I reduced it further. I say wait until something is published in the scientific literature before giving this too much weight. AIRcorn (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was fine with Jytdog's rewrite, but felt the second rewrite by Aircon removed info that is fairly key to understanding and distinguishing between other reported "history" events. Thus, I reworked it again. It is slightly shorter than Jytdog's version, but slightly longer than Aircorn's (and much shorter than my original version). Hopefully this version is acceptable to all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think chopping any more details actually makes it look more credible, because then you just say "it happened" without any context at all, if that makes sense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if either you want to add a sentence about the credibility of ACT work in general to balance it, that would be fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
at some point this whole section needs to be rewritten using MEDRS-compliant secondary sources, and keeping primaries only as adjunct... as for what stands now, the less detail - the less WP:WEIGHT - the better. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it currently stands, the article is primarily a review of law. It is also a review of historical cloning claims. Finally, a portion is on current medical/scientific thought. I am sure you aren't advocating that the law section needs to be sourced to "systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals". I would argue that the history also doesn't have to be subject to such high standards. By its nature the history of a subject will include information that is no longer reflective of current thought, so I think it is unreasonable to expect everything to be backed by current medical journals. The "methods" and "potential medical uses" of course should be subject to MEDRS guidelines.
Right now, four (or five if you count 2013 as separate) claims are covered in history. Each has approximately the same amount of detail, and only one paragraph each. That is about 3% of the article per clai, which I think that is the proper weight. When you try to make them shorter, you drop details and it all runs together and it reads like "X made a claim in XXXX and Y made a claim in YYYY". Its better to have enough details to see how claim X is different than claim Y. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said "this section" and meant the history section. to the extent this section is making claims about biomedical research it is subject to MEDRS. Content about law isn't subject to MEDRS. As for the scope of this article, that seems to be in flux somewhat. If you read above, a group of students was working on this and said that they intended to expand the scope of the science/technology and they wanted to move the ethics and law to another article altogether; my response to that was essentially, "build away and if/when the article gets unwieldy we can decide what to do at that point."Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know what you referring too, but was expanding the comment to show why I don't think purely historical claims need to be referenced to "systematic reviews" exclusively. Of course if they can be, all the better, but a claim made in the past that attracted a lot of attention is still worthy of coverage (in "history" only) even if no current scientist would even bother discussing it... Would it perhaps be better if the section was renamed to something like "history of cloning claims" instead of just "history"? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The best (to my mind only) way to determine weight for scientific claims is by referring to the weight given in literature reviews published in peer reviewed academic sources. If they give it a brief mention we should do the same here. If they dedicate a large percentage of the review to the claim then we should follow suit. Anything else is basically original research on our part. This gets tricky with newly announced claims, but we are not a news service and don't have to keep up-to-date with every new announcement. If I ruled the encyclopaedia I would not mention it at all until it had received some more coverage in mainstream science sources, but I don't and news articles are given more weight than they probably deserve. However, I still feel that the current version is WP:Undue and fear that the expansion is being used to justify presentation on WP:ITN. AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are correct that sources determine weight, but that also involves editorial judgement - its not like we are going to count the sentences across every source and get an exact % that fact X is mentioned and then match that %. If I understand correctly, the point of MEDRS (and really all weight guidelines) is to insure that new/obscure ideas don't get exact weight. Additionally, news sources rarely consider details like success rate, reproducibly, etc. To me, the common sense thing to do is that if a new idea draws a lot of attention, it should be discussed briefly but with the proper qualifiers (e.g. basic study details, success rate, etc.). Including just "X said Y" without any details is in effect what popular media often do, and makes X look like like a breakthrough. Instead "X found Y, but only 5% of the time and only in conditions Z" gives the reader information they need to form in semi-informed opinion.
Here, I think giving the 2014 cloning report 3% weight and explaining the details is better than giving it a 2% weight and explaining nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry you kind of lost me at "Additionally, news sources rarely consider details like success rate, reproducibly, etc. " - what does that have to do with anything? Additionally, MEDRS is not primarily about WEIGHT but rather, what constitutes reliable sources for health related information. We just cannot know now how important this study will be, in the long term. And we don't have to know, now. We are not going anywhere - we can wait for secondary sources to deal with this. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From MEDRS: "Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care." I feel like by just reporting X happened, that is exactly what we'd be doing. I do realize there is no DEADLINE, but that applies both ways to some extent. What I am saying is if people will want to learn about a study because it is in the news, it makes more sense to give enough info to form a judgement than just a single sentence saying "X reported Y". --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Things like evidence quality are what secondary sources provide - we cannot make judgements about that - this is exactly what secondary sources are for! Costs and risks vs benefits are not relevant to lab experiments... and I do not agree that Wikipedia can even evaluate the article - that is not what we do here. In the near term, it is what scientists do on their blogs, like this, until there are formal reviews published. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can agree that the next time someone publishes a "history of human cloning" type article (and per MEDRS, popular media is often a good source of such histories), it would be preferable to use that source for the history section rather than the primary/near-primary sources currently used (in all cases except Hwang Woo-suk's fraud). The only thing we disagree on is the amount of details to cover in the interim... hopefully the debate will be made moot quickly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ThaddeusB I see that you added this to the front page, in this dif! Your description of this being the first "human clone" was just plain wrong, and what appears now on the front page is even more wrong. It actually says now "Adult human DNA is cloned for the first time within an unfertilized egg." I don't know who is responsible for editing these headlines, but this is just kind of embarrassing for WP - it is bizarre to talk about "cloning DNA" in the context of this paper, and it was not the first time that people had done SCNT with human cells. Do you know how to get the headline fixed or better just deleted? At least your wanting to give a bunch of weight to this topic makes a bit more sense now. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are looking at the wrong place. The mainpage template is Template:In the news and discussion on items is at WP:ITN/C. The editors there came up with the blurb, not me (although I did suggest the story.) I didn't add it to the front page, taht was doen here. My preferred blurb was actually "Human embryonic clone cells are created by replacing the nucleus of an unfertilised egg cell with one from an adult cell." but the other ITN/C regulars decided on the one found on the MP. I can, however, edit the template - what blurb would you suggest. (The other way to get it changed is report it as incorrect at WP:ERRORS. Pulling the item woudl require consensus at WP:ITN/C.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks!! I have no idea how that front page stuff works, so really, thanks. I did make an error report here but there has been no action on it. I suggested there that it should read "Advanced Cell Technology announced the results of an experiment in somatic cell nuclear transfer, a form of human cloning". Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I replied on WP:ERRORS, please reply ASAP so we can get this resolved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! replied there this morning. Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Jytdog, I see you have again chopped it down to a single sentence, yet left all the other experiments also attributed to immediate new releases untouched. Care to explain the different standard being applied? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi ThaddeusB - i am in the process of working over all the stem cell related stuff; it is going to take some time, but I will eventually get back to this section and rework the whole thing based on secondary sources, as it supposed to be done. the stem cell therapy article was/is the biggest disaster so i started over there. it is going to take time, but there is WP:NODEADLINE. articles that will be included and rationalized/better sourced are stem cells, stem cell therapy, cell therapy, induced stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, somatic-cell nuclear transfer, dedifferentiation, this one and some others. these articles (like many sets of related articles in WP) is a sprawling, self-contradictory, uncoordinated, overly-primary-sourced mess. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I did notice it was part of a series of edits, so I was hoping the other experiments would also be addressed at some point. Ping me when it is done - I would liek to see it. You'll notice I haven't undone the change; when/if the experiment does get additional coverage, I hope you'll consider putting the experiment details back in. I do think they give a much better context to understand the subject than just a "it happend" type statement. Thank you for waiting until the attention died down to re-cut it so that people curious about the experiment could see the context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i will be glad to ping you! :) Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed image on UN vote[edit]

I removed this image from the article because it is completely unclear. It doesn't say which declaration this was, exactly when it took place, or even what a for or against vote means in this context. And there's no source in the image description. Trinitresque (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for clear suggestions[edit]

As noted above, students in my class have been working on this article through the semester with their final effort due soon. User: jytdog has been watching and providing support throughout the process (Thank you!). Any specific and constructive suggestions of how they might continue to improve the article in the next few weeks would be welcome. If I can summarize some of what I think I understand on the talk page, they could:

  • look for more appropriate (i.e. WP:MEDRS) references for the history section.
  • edit the legend for the UN figure to give it meaning and context and then insert it back in.
  • redo the pop culture section to be more appropriate to Human cloning.

Correct me if I misunderstood and add to the list as seems appropriate. Thanks. Biolprof (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That all makes sense. for what it is worth, i am a big believer in really thinking like an editor for the encyclopedia, so when I work, i try to think about and improve related articles so the whole "suite" is improved together. I have been meaning to get to the Somatic cell nuclear transfer and [[nduced pluripotent stem cell] articles. as per WP:SUMMARY, the brief sections in this article, should really be basically copy/paste jobs from the lead paragraphs of those articles. and this article should be coordinated with the cloning article, so that all of them together are up to date, have minimal overlaps, and importantly, have nothing that contradicts. i know that is a big ask, but gaining expertise in a given area can benefit more than just one article. i think the biggest bang for the buck would be improving all four articles and making them coherent with one another... Jytdog (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from [User: RegOH][edit]

This article is being peer reviewed as an assignment for this class. RegOH (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It may be beneficial to add a few sentences or a paragraph to provide more detail to the methods section. Both subsections of Methods are very small and pretty general.
    • We would like to include more in this section, however there is not much more to be added. Everything on the topic of SCNT and iPSCs is primary literature discussing the successes of the use of these methods in human cloning. We are currently looking for secondary sources (i.e. review articles) on these topics, but if we find them, we've decided we will put them in the History section of this article, as the information would contribute to the development of human cloning itself and not the techniques it utilizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estephe9 (talkcontribs) 20:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The lead is largely dedicated to an overview of the methods of human cloning, but they take up a very small portion of the article. For example, adding a sentence to the lead mentioning statistics about various laws in different countries could make the lead better reflect the article.
  • The Uses, actual and potential section could be greatly expanded upon. Currently, it is only a few sentences. More detail could be added, and more uses could probably be mentioned. For example, you could expand upon just saying that cloned cells could be used in treatment of disease, and talk about what diseases and how they could be used.
    • Additional information has been added to this section. Thanks! Estephe9 (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RegOH (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comments from Biolprof[edit]

This article is being reviewed for this class. A few suggestions in addition to those above:

  • Lead, 2nd paragraph: Avoid starting a sentence with “There are….” since the word “there” does not have a reference.
  • Consider moving the phrase “is not in medical practice anywhere in the world.” from the 1st paragraph to the sentence in paragraph 2 that ends, “ active area of research.” Add a date to this information (in case it is in practice at some point in the future).
    • that phrase has been moved and a date for reference has been addedJfriend2 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Add more wikilinks to terms in iPSC paragraph.
  • Methods section might benefit from information comparing SCNT to iPSCs. How are the pluripotent stems cells derived from these techniques same/different from each other? Biolprof (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • a paragraph comparing the two methods has been added to the end of the section. Jfriend2 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from iamwillthinnes[edit]

  • The section Uses, actual and potential could be expanded
    • working to extend starter sentences into full paragraphs. Jfriend2 (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Add the top I would add a disclaimer or a link to the page for cloning, much like the Cloning page has for Human Cloning
    • a wikilink to the cloning page is provided in the first sentence of the lead. Jfriend2 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the Popular Culture section, I would either split it up into 2 paragraphs and put the Orphan Black information in its own section or shorten the information on Orphan Black.
    • much of the content for that tv show has been removed and this entire section is being worked on Jfriend2 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SCNT could be expanded, its own page has plenty of information that could be added that would add to the usefulness of this page.
    • this section is more of a summary of the actual article page so we do not want it to be very long and in-depth. Jfriend2 (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is a line in the section Ethical implications that sounds awkward to me: "...perspectives on cloning are theoretical.." That phrase does not seem to make sense to me. It is obvious that human cloning is theoretical, but perspectives on it don't have to be. I think it could be worded differently to get the point across better.

Iamwillthinnes (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular Culture Section[edit]

Some recent edits have been made to this section to include a very long detailed description on a tv show and it's plot that includes cloning. This whole section needs to be re-worked to focus only briefly on HUMAN cloning in popular culture, not just cloning in general. Cloning in popular culture has it's own section in the Cloning article. Only sources referencing to human cloning should be included in this section and I will be working on cleaning it up over the next day or so. Jfriend2 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All details on Orphan Black ought to be removed. They are irrelevant to the scientific nature of this article. There is already a section devoted to this in the cloning article that mentions this show. The wiki link to the show's page is sufficient explanation to the show's relevance to human cloning. Estephe9 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's relevant to bring up examples under the popular culture section because science fiction is often the source of misconceptions, also discussions on legality and ethics are often paralleled or thematically referenced in speculative fiction. A TV show truly has no place in a scientific discussion, but wiki is not a scientific journal and the factors influencing public opinion of topics is relevant to the article. It is important to the discussion being addressed to draw out the distinctions what is demonstrated by the scientific literature and what is shaping opinions from philosophical and pop culture sources. Czarnibog (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed uncited sentence[edit]

I was WP:bold and removed the following sentence from the history section:

Since a normal embryo implants at the fourteenth day, Robert Lanza, ACT's director of tissue engineering, told the Daily Mail newspaper that the embryo could not be seen as a person before the fourteenth day.[citation needed]

It seems to me that it is more relevant to ethical issues than history and it has no citation. Anyone who disagrees should feel free to revert. Biolprof (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Old" human cloning citation[edit]

I was reviewing the text on United states state laws and the source for the entry under Florida is not present in the current citation from the National Conference of State Legislatures Jan 2008

What is the reason for this? Has the state law been changed or was the source originally incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]