t only proclaims but also brings us to a close proximity of "wondrous innovations with huge economic implications" of the future (134).Ellen Goodman, however, is not so optimistic of the issue of animal cloning. To the contrary, Goodman is extremely critical and sarcastic in her, almost satiric, argument of the topic. Goodman does not explicitly state her opinion on the issue, though, she makes it clear that cloning of animals should not be used as the sole precursor to human cloning; she believes the two are incomparable. "Individuality" (an integral part of humanity), for instance, is at the least, only one the incomparable differences between humans and sheep; "individuality was never the ewes' strong point", insists Goodman (Goodman 134). In addition, Goodman is choosing to be quite ignorant of the advantages animal cloning has to offer humanity. In her statements, "What are they bred for anyway? Lamb chops? Wool? Nursery rhymes?", she purposely chooses not to acknowledge any of the agricultural and medicinal wonders that Kevles is highly optimistic of (134). In posing such questions, Goodman naively ([]as if the world is low on lamb chops, wool, and nursery rhymes[]) insists upon the "fact" that the major goal of modern day biotechnologists is NOT agriculture (neither is it engineering animals for medicinal purposes), but IT IS, in fact, human cloning. Goodman argues that our over fascinated biologists, with a "belief that DNA is destiny", are using animal cloning to get the general public ready for the real deal. At the moment, scientists are simply feeding the public with--"many scientists still insist we won't be able to clone people any day soon"--with an occasional-though, "there is no reason in principle why you couldn't do it" (134). The issue of human cloning brings us to the very next, and an even stronger, disagreement between Kevles and Goodman. Kevles, for instance, openly states that, at the moment, "cloni...
