Cloning of pets?

[Wombat]

I voted for option 1, not because I buy the stock conservative arguments against things like genetic engineering and stem-cell research but because I think it takes creepiness just a bit too far.

Would you clone a child of yours who died in a car accident at age 12? I hope you answer no to that, not because there is anythiung intrinsically wrong with cloning—identical twins are clones—but because the attitude to personal identity seems at least borderline psychotic to me. The new child would almost certainly be cloned specifically to be a replacement for another in a way that would affect it's sense of self deeply and, I think adversely.

Obviously no pet is going to be psychically damaged in this way, but it encourages humans in the unhealthy belief that individual lives are 'replaceable' in a way in which they most certainly are not. Life contains mortality and tragedy. I sympathise with those who suffer but not with those who look for ways of pretending it doesn't.

[jsluder]

... it encourages humans in the unhealthy belief that individual lives are 'replaceable' in a way in which they most certainly are not. Life contains mortality and tragedy. I sympathise with those who suffer but not with those who look for ways of pretending it doesn't.

Well said. Much human endeavor, however, seems to be an attempt to escape reality. Cloning pets is just another example.

[missy]

I love my furbutts - but they ARE dogs.

When we had a boxer that developed lymphocarcoma (sp?) we had the option of doing chemo. By the time it was discoverd, his spleen was already huge, and it was evident that the cancer had already spread. I had also just lost my dad to cancer 2 years earlier (and he refused chemo).
Sure, we loved Porky. But he was a DOG. I wasn't going to put all that money into an animal that probably wasn't going to be helped by it - that would have probably been quite sick during it - and that you can't explain to why you are doing all this TO it. We brought him home, gave him prednisone for the swelling, and kept him until it was evident he was starting to suffering, and had him put down.
Also lost a dog to a very agressive, acute leukemia. We could have tried some heroic measures - but he was already jaudice and suffering. Again - we couldn't explain to him that perhaps sticking him with needles and giving (expensive) blood transfusion "may" let him live a little longer. We had him put down, too.

I wouldn't clone a human. I wouldn't clone an animal. I certainly wouldn't spend that much money on an animal.
But - I can't say what others should or shouldn't do.......

Missy

[Caru]

Note: everything I say is assuming that all the current medical problems with cloned animals are overcome -- it would be cruel to create an animal more prone to health problems or likely to die young

I don't think cloning a pet would necessarily be a bad thing, as long as you go into it with the right attitude. What you get will be a sibling/descendant of your original pet, not a copy. If you expect a duplicate, you're just going to be disappointed.

Still, a lot of traits are influenced by genetics, and the clone will have a good chance of sharing many of the general characteristics that you found appealing (or unappealing) about the first animal. I think of it as kind of like always getting Maine Coon cats or beagles or whatever -- you don't expect them to be exactly alike, but there are certain traits that tend to be characteristic of the breed.

Many people may also be looking to preserve a tie with the original pet, in the same way that having kept a puppy/kitten from a beloved pet may make it a smidge easier to accept that pet's death -- that puppy or kitten is obviously not your original pet, but at least you can take some comfort from the sense that their line is continuing.

If you are looking for a fresh individual that is related to and somewhat similar to your original pet, clone away. If you expect something other than that, you (and your new pet) are probably not going to be happy.

[Wombat]

I don't think cloning a pet would necessarily be a bad thing, as long as you go into it with the right attitude. What you get will be a sibling/descendant of your original pet, not a copy. If you expect a duplicate, you're just going to be disappointed.

What you'll get is an identical twin, except for the fact that the zygote receiving the nucleus will have it's own mitochondrial DNA. I agree that this isn't intrinsically wrong. But why would someone go to all that expense to get something that close genetically?

If you are looking for a fresh individual that is related to and somewhat similar to your original pet, clone away. If you expect something other than that, you (and your new pet) are probably not going to be happy.

If that's all you were looking for, you would get it by replacing your dog with one of the same breed, even one with roughly the same bloodlines. Presumably the only reason someone would not be satisfied by that would be that they have somehow bought into the idea of simulated eternal life.

When asking about motivation, it always helps to ask why someone would clone their dead 12 year old daughter rather than simply have another daughter. I can't find any answer to that question that isn't downright creepy.

[Walden]

Presumably the only reason someone would not be satisfied by that would be that they have somehow bought into the idea of simulated eternal life.

Sounds like a religious cult the crew might meet up with on an episode of Star Trek TNG.

It probably appeals to the same crowd who spend a thousand dollars to get a dead cat freeze dried, so they can keep it as a throw pillow.

[cowtime]

Presumably the only reason someone would not be satisfied by that would be that they have somehow bought into the idea of simulated eternal life.

Sounds like a religious cult the crew might meet up with on an episode of Star Trek TNG.

It probably appeals to the same crowd who spend a thousand dollars to get a dead cat freeze dried, so they can keep it as a throw pillow.

When I was a vet tech, we had a client who spent huge sums(which she did not have to just throw around) on a cat dying of cancer. Chemo, experimental treatments at major universities, you name it, she tried it. She went to great lengths to keep this cat around. At the cat's death, she wanted the names of any taxidermists around and also asked if we thought some hair off of one of her other cats could be glued to this ones leg where it had been shaved!
I'm glad to say, she could not find anyone to stuff her "baby".

That was just crazy.
But, not as crazy as the woman who talked to her cat and (in the lady's mind, and her brother-in-law's) the cat talked back. The woman would put her ear to the cat's head and say"What, what?" and then proceed to relay what the cat was telling her. According to the lady, all her cat's talked to her, and some of them used very bad language.!!!!!

[jsluder]

But, not as crazy as the woman who talked to her cat and (in the lady's mind, and her brother-in-law's) the cat talked back. The woman would put her ear to the cat's head and say"What, what?" and then proceed to relay what the cat was telling her. According to the lady, all her cat's talked to her, and some of them used very bad language.!!!!!

Did she look like this?

[Caru]

I don't think cloning a pet would necessarily be a bad thing, as long as you go into it with the right attitude. What you get will be a sibling/descendant of your original pet, not a copy. If you expect a duplicate, you're just going to be disappointed.

What you'll get is an identical twin, except for the fact that the zygote receiving the nucleus will have it's own mitochondrial DNA. I agree that this isn't intrinsically wrong. But why would someone go to all that expense to get something that close genetically?

If you are looking for a fresh individual that is related to and somewhat similar to your original pet, clone away. If you expect something other than that, you (and your new pet) are probably not going to be happy.

If that's all you were looking for, you would get it by replacing your dog with one of the same breed, even one with roughly the same bloodlines. Presumably the only reason someone would not be satisfied by that would be that they have somehow bought into the idea of simulated eternal life.

Okay, I can't get the quote to split right, so I'll address both points together.

As for the first part, I meant that it wouldn't be a duplicate of your pet in the sense of being the same individual, some sort of weird reincarnation or such. It would of course be a unique individual, with its own personality and experiences. Obviously a clone's genetics are identical, by definition. As for the expense, I agree with you. If the price came way, way down, say to the several hundred dollars people routinely pay for certain breeds of animals, then perhaps it might seem worthwhile. (I personally have never paid more than a token amount for a pet, not while there are so many fine cheap or free ones around.)

As for the second point:
Just as twins tend to have more similar personalities than strangers or cousins, a cloned animal would be more likely to have a personality similar to the original pet than would an unrelated or distantly related animal (such as one of the same breed but no other known relationship).

Besides, going for the same breed doesn't apply to the many people who have mutts (or mutt cats, if that's the right way to put it). Finding the original pets' relatives is often not possible. For instance, Rigel, the best cat I ever had, died a few years ago. She was fixed when young, so obviously keeping kittens from her wasn't an option. Her mother (also my cat) had been rescued from some teenagers who were trying to kill her one Halloween night. Other than that, I have no idea where she came from. Rigel's littermates had been given away to friends who all had them fixed. Once the mother couldn't have more offspring, we were at a dead end. At that point, had it been cheap and safe, I would have gladly cloned Rigel -- not because of some idiotic idea that the new cat would be her reincarnation or a way to give her "simulated eternal life", but because her clone twin would be more likely than some random kitten from a friend or newspaper ad to have the particular sweetness and good nature that I loved about her.

[I.D.10-t]

Cloning, like other things, is a marvel of technology. Often times it is greed and desire for luxuries that push technology rather than altruistic reasons.

I think that this is even more interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/

I can imagine the intellectual property rights battle the first time someone tries to clone one of these.

I guess that to me the most interesting things about this technology is the rights of the clone. I could see someone that loved their pet enough to clone their pet to make a “spare parts pet” This could be less horrific than it first seems, after all, bone marrow, kidneys, blood can all be taken with out killing the clone. Indeed, in humans, in vitro fertilization has been used to select a child that could save the life of the older sister in this way.

One fear that I have is that with the current politics agreeing (to some extent in the US ) that life does not begin in a petri dish, to me this seems like a bad precedent in that we are already setting up different rights for one group over another.

But it is all about the shades of grey…

[Band Nerd]

I love my dog, and I think it would be kind of cool to have another dog that looks exactly the same as she does.

[Wombat]

As for the second point:
Just as twins tend to have more similar personalities than strangers or cousins, a cloned animal would be more likely to have a personality similar to the original pet than would an unrelated or distantly related animal (such as one of the same breed but no other known relationship).

.......... Rigel's littermates had been given away to friends who all had them fixed. Once the mother couldn't have more offspring, we were at a dead end. At that point, had it been cheap and safe, I would have gladly cloned Rigel -- not because of some idiotic idea that the new cat would be her reincarnation or a way to give her "simulated eternal life", but because her clone twin would be more likely than some random kitten from a friend or newspaper ad to have the particular sweetness and good nature that I loved about her.

OK. I think you've convinced me that the motivation for cloning pets doesn't have to be completely mad. Filling in the gaps a bit, what makes pets different from humans is that they don't know they've been chosen for their qualities rather than for themselves so can't be psychologically damaged by that fact. In fact, it's common to inspect a batch of pups and ask about their temperaments and so on.

But I'm still puzzled a bit. If you want a placid brown labrador you can easily get a placid brown labrador. You don't have to clone one. Yes we do choose by qualities, real or hoped for. But why would we want to be this precise unless we did hold nutty beliefs. We don't choose kittens and pups completely randomly, at least not if we are clear about what we want.

[fearfaoin]

I'm with Cran on this one. I think it's unethical not because Cloning is bad in and of itself, but because
there are so many homeless animals that are put to sleep which could be adopted instead.

It would be an interesting experiment to clone one of my cats to see how environmental differences
change its eventual personality, but I'd never actually do it.

[Tyler]

I agree with some of the posts that say there are far too many animals that need adoption.

Then again, one day, it may prove to be viable, affordable and logical...
Ever see The Sixth Day with Gov. Arnold? (that was all filmed in my city in B.C., I'm so proud to say!)
Then again, by the same token, other moral implications may arise that we have yet to even think of...
Ever see Pet Semetary?
Okay, that's a little extreme, but you get it?

[peeplj]

Maybe it's just part of my heritage (being from the South and all), but I would consider cloning a pet to be a sort of insult to the original pet. It makes him (or her) replaceable...and that is a terrible, subtle insult, a lessening of worth.

Life is precious because it ends. Enjoy your pets while you have them, but don't lessen their worth in this way.

--James