Is cloning "unnatural"?
Not at all - some organisms in nature only reproduce [?] cloning - not only bacteria and yeasts, but also [?] organisms like some snails and shrimp. Because in nature sexual [?] is the only way to improve the genetic stock of a species, most asexual species tend to die off, but at least one - a shrimp [?] Artemia perthenogenetica - has [?] for at least 30 million years. Many more species, including the aphid, reproduce by [?] most of the time, only [?] sexually every few generations. Perhaps one day humankind may follow their lead.

Is an identical twin essentially the same as a clone?
Only if the clone is born at the same time from the same womb as its clone, as we now know that what a fetus is [?] to in the womb, in the way of nutrition or alcohol or drugs or perhaps even stress hormones, can influence its physical and mental [?].

Could vital organs be grown using cloning without the rest of a body?
[?] - but nobody is even close to knowing how. Contrary to scientists' [?], the [?] of Dolly shows it is possible to reprogram the cell of an adult (or at least its genome) so that it begins development all over again. This newly discovered [?] means it may one day be possible to reprogram skin or blood cells so that they grow into "spare part" tissues and organs, rather than whole organisms. But the technical [?] will be huge.

Could cloning be used to save endangered species?
At the moment its success rate is very low (Dolly was only [?] after 276 tries) but if this can be improved on it might well turn out to be useful to increase the [?] of hard-to-breed animals. Extinct animals (or animals without females) would be more difficult. A female can't [?] give birth to an animal of a different species.

(From Cloning FAQs in the New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cloning/cloningfaq.jsp)