Annotations

“CLONING Some are put off by the notion of 'Frankenstein science” Sunday Tasmanian (Australia), August 20, 2006 Sunday, Pg. 25
This article gives a broad overview to the definition of cloning and the two different types of it. There are many important events listed in the development of cloning and legislation being passed. While therapeutic cloning is predominately discussed because of its greater appearance in current issues, the author seems to be neutral on the subject. The basic definitions and the obvious good and bad that could come with cloning are a good foundation for my research.

Abbott, Jillian “Meanings blurred in science's mad rush to clone” Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) August 25, 2006 Friday, Pg. 13
Abbott just straight up says that no cloning can be good cloning. She believes that any type of cloning will essentially lead to the same thing and therefore no types should be allowed. The author seems to attack one specific scientist and his motives, without giving much if any facts or statistics to back anything up. The vocabulary used is unconventional and not made for a formal piece of writing. The targeted audience is obviously a more radical group of people that already don’t believe in cloning. But while this article is completely biased, it brings up a good point. There is a fine line between what exactly cloning is, and no one seems to be comfortable enough to actually define what is what.

Burke, Nicolette “Cloning a 'slippery slope to disaster” The Daily Telegraph (Australia), September 5, 2006 Tuesday, Pg. 13
This article also discusses how therapeutic cloning is only one step away from reproductive cloning, but instead of an emotional tirade, it gives evidence to back its claims up. It says that using embryos could easily turn into cloning children. So while there were a slew of scientists trying to reject therapeutic cloning, one man was given millions to work on adult stem cell research. I assume this is an attempt to shift research from embryos to another source to not have to worry about the cloning issue. This is more professionally written and definitely gives a more educated and information source.

Lamb, Gregory M. “How Cloning Stacks Up” Christian Science Monitor, July 13, 2006, Thursday, Pg. 13
Lamb talks about how controversial cloning as a whole is and how extremely unlikely it’s success will ever be. He also discusses the huge battle over therapeutic cloning and how it doesn’t really seem to be making headway one way or the other. The best part about this source is the detailed list of chronological events that have affected cloning over the years. The author seems very neutral and the piece is extremely informative. The dates, quotes, and facts will be priceless to my paper.

Niall, Hugh “Cloning: Why We Need It” The Age (Melbourne, Australia), December 21, 2005 Wednesday, Pg. 15
Though the title of this article seems to differ from my point, it actually brings up all of the opposing arguments of its own side and therefore lays out all the answers. Niall attempts to explain all the advantages cloning could have in curing diseases, but ends up spending most of his time explaining what people have problems with, and not seeming to defend his side in any way. This article gives concrete reasoning behind the downside of cloning and shows many examples of legislation and political acts that are attempting to fight it.

Kerridge, Ian; Schofield, Peter; Skene, Loane “Five myths of therapeutic cloning” Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), November 27, 2006 Monday, Pg. 9
Kerridge shows that yet again success can lie within the opposition thorough his use of setting up the “Five myths of cloning” and stammering through the answers without giving any facts or even good reasoning to back it up. The inability to defend the counterexample is showing great fault in the logic behind it, and helping my argument in ways I could only have hoped for. And again, this article seems to be unprofessionally written and not exactly made for a high class newspaper. The intended audience would have to be people that know only so much about cloning and don’t care enough to read about facts and evidence when they can hear someone rant.

McDowell, Doctor Melaine “Double trouble; Put aside the myths and take a real look at clones” The Advertiser (Australia), July 29, 2006 Saturday, Pg. W02
This article has nothing but facts. It starts at a very basic level explaining the definition of the types of cloning and how each is done and then gives scientific descriptions of them. The facts are so concrete and yet unbiased that it gives a great basis for what cloning really is. And it tells it like it is, giving the examples of how cloning has been used to heal and help in the medical field, but has been vastly unsuccessful as far as reproduction. The best part about this article is the facts it gives that I have yet to see anywhere else, and that it is completely unbiased by politics, not even mentioning the popular opinion on this matter.

Caulfield, Timothy “Ten years after Dolly: the lessons” The Globe and Mail (Canada), February 21, 2007 Wednesday, Pg. A21
Caulfield really tries to show all of the controversy behind cloning. Though not really taking a side on the issue, he does show that cloning has been unfairly attacked in the media because people don’t understand and don’t know how to react. And while he does state recent events in cloning legislature, it comes down to the fact that nothing has really happened yet. Not much progress has been made. This article doesn’t give many facts, but does attempt to show the fighting. It is geared toward anyone who wants to know about current events in general, as it doesn’t focus on the science behind it.