In 2018, American singer and actress Barbara Streisand cloned her dog, Samantha, in order to have two identical copies of her after she died. This way, it would be as if Samantha never died. However, even though the new dogs were designed to have Samantha’s same genetic makeup and the same features, there are many environmental factors that make clones not identical to the original. Streisand has said, “You can clone the look of a dog, but you can’t clone the soul.”

Scientists have invented a process called cloning that allows them to copy the genes of organisms, or living things. In reproductive cloning, scientists transfer some of an organism’s genes to a new egg. A clone, or copy, of the original organism starts to develop after the genes have been transferred. Agricultural companies clone plants to produce crops that resist disease or feature qualities that people like, such as juiciness in tomatoes. Some farmers and ranchers are interested in cloning animals, too. For instance, they might clone cattle that produce particularly tasty and tender beef.

Opponents point out that reproductive cloning has low rates of success. Most cloned animal embryos will not develop into healthy individuals. For example, a famous early case of animal cloning is Dolly the sheep. Out of 277 cloned embryos, Dolly was the only clone to be born alive. The safety concerns and very low efficiency present a serious challenge to reproductive cloning. Researchers have also observed some negative health effects in sheep and other mammals that have been cloned, including increased birth weight and a variety of defects in vital organs, such as the liver, brain, and heart. Other potential negative impacts of cloning include a shorter lifespan and problems with the immune system.

Additionally, cloning is very expensive. In Dolly’s case, it took over 100 tries to get her right and an estimated $100,000. Is it worth the cost? Do the benefits outweigh the problems, when the cloning is often unsuccessful?