Scientists are claiming a victory in cloning efficiency. Only 150 or so embryos had to be implanted to get three animals to be born. That's 2%. Out of the three, only two survived because one was “accidently” killed by its surrogate mother (I'm not sure how you “accidently” kill a piglet). That's now just over 1%. If this was a terrorist situation, would you be happy with only 1% of the hostages being saved?

Efficient or not, out of 150 embryos, we have two cloned offspring. Which aren't identical. That's right; the two clones have different markings. The company that performed the experiment even states that “a percentage of cloned animals may suffer from genetic defects”. If the genetic damage is so obviously affecting these offspring, why is it that we still consider them clones? If the point of cloning is to create genetically identical offspring, surely having this degree of mutation must make the experiment a failure.

So we have an inefficient way of creating non-clones. Go science.