Americans: Cloning
By YouGov,
YouGov
| 01. 26. 2013
In this YouGov poll, the questions are:
1. Suppose it were possible to clone a woolly mammoth (an extinct relative of modern elephants). Should scientists be allowed to clone them?
2. Suppose it were possible to clone a Neanderthal (an extinct close cousin of modern humans). Should scientists be allowed to clone them?
3. Suppose it were possible to clone a Neanderthal, but it would require a human volunteer to be a surrogate mother to the Neanderthal. Should scientists be allowed to clone them?
4. Do you think scientists should be allowed to try to clone human beings?
| |
Yes |
No |
Not sure |
| Cloning mammoth |
31 |
46 |
23 |
| Cloning Neanderthal |
17 |
63 |
20 |
| Cloning Neanderthal w/human surrogate |
15 |
66 |
18 |
| Cloning humans |
16 |
66 |
18 |
- 1,000 American adults
- conducted January 25–26, 2013
- margin of error is 3.7%
- Source: YouGov Omnibus Poll [described here]
Related Articles
By Jenn White, NPR | 02.26.2026
By Evelina Johansson Wilén, Jacobin | 01.18.2026
In her book The Argonauts, Maggie Nelson describes pregnancy as an experience marked by a peculiar duality. On the one hand, it is deeply transformative, bodily alien, sometimes almost incomprehensible to the person undergoing it. On the other hand...
By Josie Ensor, The Times | 12.09.2025
A fertility start-up that promises to screen embryos to give would-be parents their “best baby” has come under fire for a “misuse of science”.
Nucleus Genomics describes its mission as “IVF for genetic optimisation”, offering advanced embryo testing that allows...
By Grace Won, KQED Forum [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
