Unnecessary , irresponsible and rash are the words that spring to my mind when this question is asked. How can man consciously play god, and unrelently contiunue to attempt to revive extinct species via cloning, when undoubtedly he has seen his mistakes in the past and continue to do this for his own benefit?

Dolly is the most famous sheep in the world. She looks much like any other sheep, but she has been cloned from another adult sheep. Her announcement in February 1997 led to an unprecedented media circus which caused as much confusion as it shed light. The attention focused mainly on speculations about the possibility, or otherwise, of cloning humans but also speculations of cloning extinct species But it does prompt us to ask questions about the way we are using animals with new technology, and the kinds of assumptions we make.

Cloning had already been done to a limited degree by splitting embryos, mostly in cattle, and raised ethical and welfare concerns in the process. But assuming it could be applied more widely in the fact of reviving extinct animals, many more issues can be brought

Even in extinction, the woolly mammoth has more going for it than most living creatures, and some genetics-happy scientists hope that it can be brought back from the dead to dazzle again with its mangy charms.

There should be exactly the same ethical reservations about cloning animals as there are to cloning human beings. I mean..why NOT? Cloning extinct species appeals to the human imagination to the extent of selfishness and only gaining what we want.

Some common words found in the essay are:
According MacPhee, , Alexie Tikhonv, YES Christian, Natural History's, Michael Lynch, Nicknamed Dima, Ross MacPhee, extinct species, cloning extinct, Diversity YES, cloning extinct species, cloning animals, via cloning, play god, mistaken belief, money spent, research conservation, dinosaurs mammoths, complete dna, revive extinct species,
Approximate Word count = 1299
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)