Cloning of pets?

BillChin · Post by **BillChin** » Sat May 28, 2005 10:13 am

What say you? Immoral? Unethical? Wasteful? Okay, but not something you might choose? How does it compare with an expensive operation for an aging pet? An average pet cat costs $6,000 USD over a lifetime, so is $32,000 to start really so absurd, especially for an extremely wealthy person.
average pet cost source:
http://petplace.compuserve.com/Articles ... onID=23956

from
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/business/28clone.html?
...
The cloning and sale of pets has its critics, who call it wasteful and inhumane. Some point to shelters bursting with pets in need of homes, or remind buyers that cloning is still a relatively new process, with the health of future generations of offspring still unknown. And the $32,000 lavished on one kitten clone would certainly pay for the care of many a needy animal.

But Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University, said affection for lost pets was a powerful motivator. "People pay outrageous sums for unusual breeds and purebreds, and, now, clones," she said. "Some people become adoring of a particular pet, and want another one exactly like it."
...

djm · Post by **djm** » Sat May 28, 2005 10:21 am

Not something for me, but we shouldn't overlook the value the research involved in this adds to overall knowledge of genetics.

djm

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Sat May 28, 2005 10:46 am

Teetering between choices 2 and 3. 2 because the word "stupid" appeared in it--but while I find the expense stupid, I find the concept of trying to recreate an existing pet even stupider. Are there not enough adoptable animals in the world, each with its own charming qualities?
People, even if they have that kind of money, are better off learning to move on.

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Sat May 28, 2005 11:42 am

Having recently lost a very, very dear friend in the "pet" catagory, I have thought more deeply about this than I might have otherwise. The fact is, she was so special because of who she was and her relationship to me and mine to her. Although a clone would share the physical and other inherent traits, it would not be HER. Part of what makes special relationships so dear is that they are finite. There can be no other just like it.

Random notes · Post by **Random notes** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:14 pm

Last year I had a Norwegian Elkhound mix, Cisco, die. He was only about 3 yrs old, and had been rescued less than a year earlier. I spent at least $2000 trying to save him from a bronchial illness that had apparently afflicted him from before he was rescued but didn't become symptomatic until it was too late. He was Mr. Personality and everyone who knew him loved him, and I miss him terribly. I know that a clone would not be the same dog, but I would have jumped at a chance to clone him. Maybe it is partly guilt feelings at being unable to save him, but I would have taken a chance anyway.

I have volunteered at a Shelter, and I know that there are many homeless pets available. Over the years I have had quite a few and all of them have been rescues of one kind or another. My current sweetie, an Aussie named Caitlin, was a surrender from someone who found her unmanageable; I find her delightful. Still, I would have taken the chance.

Roger

SteveK · Post by **SteveK** » Sat May 28, 2005 1:22 pm

I have tried to imagine cloning my late beloved cat Bridget. I wouldn't do it. I think it would feel very weird to have a duplicate which you know isn't the original animal. Even if the clone's behaviour was quite similar it would always be in the back of your mind that "this isn't really her."

Steve

feadogin · Post by **feadogin** » Sat May 28, 2005 2:13 pm

Not unethical or immoral, just scary. :roll:

Justine

BillChin · Post by **BillChin** » Sat May 28, 2005 2:58 pm

Most people are attached to their pets. Many would make what seem like irrational financial sacrifices to try and extend the life of an aging pet. One friend lost a favorite dog and in my opinion hasn't been the same since, despite adopting two other dogs. That favorite dog was so important.

Another friend had a relative take care of the dog while on vacation. That relative "lost" the dog for half a day by leaving a yard gate open. My friend said that if that news had been relayed, the entire vacation would have been cancelled and would have boarded the first plane home NO MATTER WHAT THE COST.

A third friend reluctantly adopted a cat, and that cat has improved that person's life 100%. The person is calmer, more patient, just happier in general and I attribute most of this to the effect of the cat. $32,000 spent on a new car, or some fancy gadgets, an addition on the house, or psychotherapy would not have near the impact the cat has had.

There is a part of me that is uncomfortable with spending large sums of money on what clearly is a luxury, not a necessity. Cloning an animal is not something that I would do, but if someone else wants to go ahead, it doesn't bother me much more than if they spent $32,000 on another luxury such as a home theater system.

The pink elephant in the middle of the room is the question of human cloning and the ethical questions associated with that.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sat May 28, 2005 3:49 pm

Well...

Andrea (or mabey izzarina) told me that I was the boards' "defender of animals" so I will give my thoughts.

It's stupid, scarey, and unethical (I'm not sure I'd use the term "immoral" because it means something slightly different in my mind).

Cloning of pets is bad for multipe reasons: 1). Even if it's the exact same genetic copy it will not be the same animal because enviromental factors and life experience changes an animal in various ways. 2). There is so much room for disaster, both with physical problems and mental problems (yes, pets have mental problems) and 3). There are so many homeless animals who are put to death (aka PTS, or "put to sleep") because nobody wants them (this is the most important, immediate reason I feel)...

The animals in the shelters are often healthy, happy, pets (not just dogs and cats, but birds, small mammals, reptiles, and all kinds of critters). These animals need adopted more than new clones need created. If they're not adopted, within a certain amount of time, they die. Clones don't even have to be alive. We should deal with the problem we have now, not create more!

/me steps off of the soap box.

Cynth · Post by **Cynth** » Sat May 28, 2005 4:09 pm

To me it is not a question of money, but I don't think cloning a pet or a husband would bring that same person or pet back. People and animals are a result of their genes and their experiences. I don't think you could guarantee any creature having the same life experiences as another, so two genetically identical beings would still have different personalities. It is scary to me that people don't seem to understand this. It seems as though this way of dealing with grief could do really strange things to your head.

We canceled a vacation one year because our cat was ill. I suppose that is different than coming home in the middle of it. But how could you enjoy your vacation if you knew something was wrong with your pet? There would be no point in staying if you could get back home.

I don't think you can "get over" the death of a pet any more than you can the death of a person. But it seems that many times people are able to realize that there is an infinite amount of love and that loving another animal or person does not take away from how much you loved the being that died. The new being is not taking the place of the one that died, that could never happen, but it has a new place.

jsluder · Post by **jsluder** » Sat May 28, 2005 5:01 pm

emmline wrote:Are there not enough adoptable animals in the world, each with its own charming qualities?
People, even if they have that kind of money, are better off learning to move on.

I agree wholeheartedly. Having lost two wonderful cats (and yes, cats can be wonderful) to cancer in recent years, the idea of cloning them just makes no sense to me. They were unique, as are our remaining pets. A clone would not be the same being. When the time comes to get another cat or dog, we'll adopt an existing animal who needs a home.

Cheers,
John

jsluder · Post by **jsluder** » Sat May 28, 2005 5:06 pm

Cynth wrote:I don't think you could guarantee any creature having the same life experiences as another, so two genetically identical beings would still have different personalities.

Case in point: Has anyone ever met human identical twins with identical personalities? They're genetically the same, but their unique experiences result in unique personalities, even for those raised together (and, perhaps, dressed identically by parents who seem to think it's cute).

cowtime · Post by **cowtime** » Sat May 28, 2005 9:10 pm

It's just wrong. We all get pets with the realization that in all likelyhood, we will outlive our pets.

Like lots of you, I've had dogs and one horse that were a big part of my life,and their loss was devastating, but I could never think of trying to make a copy.

When ever I hear about cloning pets I have flashbacks to -

Steven King's

"Pet Semetary"

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sat May 28, 2005 9:22 pm

cowtime wrote:It's just wrong. We all get pets with the realization that in all likelyhood, we will outlive our pets.

Unless our pets are certain tortoises or parrots, which often live to over 110 years.

cowtime · Post by **cowtime** » Sat May 28, 2005 9:56 pm

Cranberry wrote:
cowtime wrote:It's just wrong. We all get pets with the realization that in all likelyhood, we will outlive our pets.
Unless our pets are certain tortoises or parrots, which often live to over 110 years.

True. I know of several folks who have parrots that are named in their wills, because the owners know that they will probably not last as long as their birds.

Chiff and Fipple Forums

Cloning of pets?

Your thoughts about the cloning of pets

Cloning of pets?