Jump to content
BC Boards

Would you clone


Alfreda
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would clone for research purposes. For example, to study the interaction between genes and the environment in how they manifest as diseases.

 

It might be interesting to clone a bunch of Border Collies, send them to different trainers and see how training technique affects the finished dog. But I think this is not a wise use of money or a good enough reason to test those ethical waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ethics of the whole thing would stop me, as others have already alluded to. Not to mention the fact that I have lost a number of animals to old age. I loved them all for their very individuality. They all had personalities and traits that I adored. My first heart dog is gone, but there could be another. I don't need to try to recreate the first one. It wouldn't be her, except for the genetics. As Sue said, not the same soul. Not for me.

 

While I don't necessarily consider it "playing God" I do think it opens up a huge can of ethical worms, and I'm not sure I'd trust people to have the best interests of the animals in mind. In fact, I think it's like something that could be used for additional exploitation, and I'd want no part of that.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest issues with cloning pets are the incredible amount of money it costs that could be used to ease the suffering of so many other creatures and subjecting the animals who are used for donors and surrogates to unnecessary surgical procedures without their consent for questionable purposes.

 

Both are pretty significant ethical dilemmas IMO.

I agree-

but just for sake of discussion...

 

What if: a future company were to offer to clone your dog for a reasonable fee (say $1000?) and promises to give 10% of every cloned pup sold to a shelter/rescue, and demonstrates that the surrogates have a decent quality of life?

 

Thinking about the dog surrogates, I found myself thinking also about sheep artificial insemination- which is not something I know much about, but I'm sure being hung upside down is not pleasant for the ewes...?

 

That story about the folks who spent $100K on their cloned pups also mentioned that one pup died of distemper - really? in a (sterile) laboratory?

 

going to go hug my sweet, quirky, unique dog now... :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The story of Chance and Second Chance (who, btw did gore his owner -- twice! -- but didn't kill him) ends with a quote by their owner . . . "When he died the second time, it was just as bad as when he died the first time. It never occurred to us that we'd lose him again."

 

Yeah, there's that, too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could have another shot at training Sage. His life was so badly altered by being attacked by loose dogs. He was such a natural sheep dog and has some amazing dog social skills and is extremely gentle, despite his rough start to life. I think he could have been a really "good one" had things gone better for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree-

but just for sake of discussion...

 

What if: a future company were to offer to clone your dog for a reasonable fee (say $1000?) and promises to give 10% of every cloned pup sold to a shelter/rescue, and demonstrates that the surrogates have a decent quality of life?

Not GentleLake, but I still wouldn't do it for the reasons I mentioned. You mention 10%. What if the person who wanted a clone instead got another dog (clone won't be exactly like the first anyway) and have half of what they would have spent to shelters/rescues?

 

Honestly, I just don't think cloning gets you a, well, clone of the original. It may be genetically the same, but t won't be in essence (all the intangibles that really matter in an individual) the same, IMO.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be extremely interesting. I don't really feel strongly either way ethically. I think it would be incredibly foolish for people to clone their own dogs. For the same reasons as above, they'll never be your heart dog. But I don't have any problems with it otherwise.

 

Cloning has been a fairly big deal in the AQHA for a while. They recently ruled to disallow the registration of clones. I'm quite happy with that, for the purposes of breeding. The gene pool is becoming increasingly smaller with the widespread use of frozen semen (from studs who are long dead!) and flushing multiple embryos per mare per year. Interestingly they also just ruled that effective for foals born this year, frozen semen and frozen embryos will only be able to produce registered offspring for up to two years after the horse's death. It ridiculous that we're still seeing Smart Little Lenas born today when he's LONG gone. Anyway, I digress.

 

Smart Little Lena was cloned....7 times? Something like that. Interestingly enough, only one or two ever made it to adulthood and was also fertile. Also pretty cool to see the variance in markings even though they're genetically identical.

 

But back to dogs. I think it would be fascinating, but far too expensive to pursue. But how cool to study the effects of so many variables. Lifestyle and hip dysplasia, spay/neuter, +R or other training methods, so much potential to learn! But it's inappropriate to allow owners to expect their pet to be cloned over and over and still be their heart dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My heart dog was my labradoodle, and he died suddenly at 5.5, from acute liver failure, no cause ever identified. It seems possible it was some sort of genetic issue, and the chance that we'd have to go through that again...I could never.

 

But also, he was special because he was my first dog. I raised him from a pup, and he and I learned a lot and grew up together. I'm a different person, and a different dog owner now, and it just wouldn't be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. I can see people with valuable animals wanting to do this for 'insurance'.

 

So you have an animal that is valuable for some reason, in a way that makes their offspring potentially so- racehorse, sheepdog, show animal, stud animal. You could have an 'insurance policy' where if the first animal dies (for example falls prey to the accidents that befall racehorses before you can really put it out to stud) you have an animal with similar genetics.

 

It's going to be an interesting issue to deal with in the fields that make it financially viable...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - for many reasons mentioned here, but just purely from the point of view of my relationship with the dog that I have - and I have a dog that I think a world of and we have a very close bond:

 

I wouldn't do it out of respect for my dog and out of respect to other dogs. I respect Bonnie for what she is, and while I'd love to have a dog that it similar to her, I wouldn't want to attempt to produce her copy. We spend our time and space allotted together, and it is this uniqueness that makes it special for every dog in my life. And neither would I want to repeat this in another dog, nor would I want another dog to be merely a copy of something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have an animal that is valuable for some reason, in a way that makes their offspring potentially so- racehorse, sheepdog, show animal, stud animal. You could have an 'insurance policy' where if the first animal dies (for example falls prey to the accidents that befall racehorses before you can really put it out to stud) you have an animal with similar genetics.

I think that freezing sperm or eggs would accomplish the same thing - with the caveat that there is a limited supply. And if the clone was 'weaker' in some way than the original, I would be thinking that I wouldn't want to use that animal for breeding since I wouldn't trust that it was exactly identical. Even though it was a clone, DNA recombination/rearrangements that are a normal part of development probably wouldn't be identical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just to add: I agree that the genetic diversity of a population would suffer - more so than it already does with popular sire syndrome, AI, embryo transfer and whatever else we've got going on to try an achieve that 'perfect' specimen (and I don't believe that there can be, nor do I want, a perfect animal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing more than a massive ego-trip, or a scheme to get rich off of the production of carbon copies of successful studs. We have a clone of our dog! We can give you a son of this great sire!

Hundreds of thousands of dollars are thrown away to produce dogs that are not the dog you had. And what about the other dogs involved, living as laboratory animals? To clone a dog you need to use a lot of other dogs to serve as egg donors and surrogates, and that means many dogs are undergoing surgical procedures. Most of the time the process doesn't work; many attempts are required to produce a single clone. I've read that it takes about 20 lab animals (dogs) to produce one viable clone. Many clones are produced with poor health. There is some doubt about the quality of life for all of the other dogs involved in the cloning process. And where do they go when they are no longer needed?

 

All this so someone can “print out” a copy of a pet or make megabucks on what amounts to stud fees. Too many “cons” and not enough “pros.” I’m against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know freezing is done that way already- but I wonder if a clone by its very rarity could be a kind of draw. "This animal was SO VALUABLE that SCIENTISTS decided to preserve it!"

Scientists usually don't have the money to preserve an individual animal, and I am sure there is no grant money floating around to preserve Mr. Studly Bull.

 

And scientists probably wouldn't decide which animal to clone (unless is was solely for experimental purposes, and then the arguments Geonni makes above come into play). Only owners who are quite rich can afford to go this route. One best not figure that one will make their investment back by selling little clones. Something usually goes wrong. Or by the time the clones appear, the livestock industry has decided that there is another, better, bull out there. Just too many unknowns to risk the $ and expect to make money.

 

Cloning entire animals is a great scientific achievement, but IMHO is not a good practice for any livestock industry (even if the costs were 'reasonable'.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would come from the syndicate who owned the animal, the marketing, not the actual description of the decision making process.

 

Edit: basically I can't see there being much of a practical argument for cloning, barring maybe an accident that prevented collection of semen or something- but I can see there being opportunity for a publicity stunt, for marketing potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...