From the BBC Today:



Questions for debate:

Should we be cloning animals, for domestic use and not for science?
Should there be any restrictions?
Do you think Puffy is cute enough to be mass produced? (ok that last one was a shameless plug from a happy pet owner, so I guess you skip that one if you want to. )

Well, the pros as i see it:

1. cloning will allow people and scientists to recreate the same characteristics in the animal time and time agian, whether it is a beautiful coat and pretty eyes for the domestic pet owner, or a certain type of lung or internal tissue for the science lab.

2. This will allow people to say "Hey, that is a gorgeous dog, i want one just like it!" and they can.

3. it will allow for the perfect performance animals to be created, EG the perfect police K-9 unit.

4. it will allow for eliminating genetic problems with certain animals, (large dogs, etc)

Cons as i see them:

1. the gene pool could be severely limited in a few short generations, resulting in greater frequency of mutation in "traditionally" made offspring.

2. the diversity in the respective species' could be limited.

3. It will take the fun out of dog races, horse races, or any animal competition where breeding is involved, due to all the animals being the same ultimate animal.

4. it could develop a disrespect towards life in general to people who will grow up with the cloning culture... it doesnt matter if fluffy dies, we can always create her again... and the danger of this transferring into human relationship. far fetched maybe, but a possibility.

I myself have no relational attachment to animals, thus would have no problem just getting another cat/dog/guniea pig to replace the one i had. i like how each one is different, its part of the fun, unpredictabilty. otherwise you might as well buy one of those robotic dogs. it is sure cheaper than cloning.

Sorry Rev, i dont think he's cute enough for mass production... too much white fuzz...



Quane

I don't think we should be cloning pets. I believe it preys on people’s emotional weaknesses. Like the article says:

And isn’t it personality that makes us fall in love with our pets? If someone wants a carbon copy of Fluffy, and the clone isn’t quite the same as they expected, what happens? Kill it and start over? Ew, the negative possibilities make me shudder.

Though I love my pets a great deal, cloning still kind of freaks me out (shades of Stephen King's Pet Sematary). My bestest buddy Teddi was 21 when I had to have her put to sleep in 2001 (makes me choke up even thinking about it ), and had been with me for most of my adult life. She was a smallish Siamese-colored girl with white paws, smart, cute, and loving. For the longest time after she died, I had a hard time sleeping, because she used to curl up in the crook of my elbow. But, even so, Teddi was one of a kind, and even a clone couldn't replace her.

Now I have Apollo, Merlin, Bogart and Punkin, 1 dog and 3 kitties who "found" me, and are all special in their own ways.

Well, of course she's cute enough! She's adorable.

From what we have learned about cloning, one can expect Fluffy II to live a very short and quickly aging life. I love my pets way too much to witness that.

When things are cloned, the genes of the new animal are identical to the subject that was cloned. Genetically they will be identical, but that doesn't mean they will look identical, and the new subject will have it's own personality.

I am sure that people will be very disappointed if there goal is to keep the same Fluffy around for eternity, as that isn't the way cloning works.

If you like a certain dog or cat you don't have to clone it. There is some old technology that is still in place in parts of our world called mating that can be employed.

I agree with one of Quane's points. If we do start to commercially clone animals, what does that do for our respect for life? It's like the snowball effect. If we can clone Fluffy, why can't we clone grandma? Murder is no biggie, we can always grow another person exactly like the deceased. Plus, how healthy is it for people to have the huge power of being able to easily clone an animal? Is that much power a good thing. I'm all for individual powers, but the ability to easily and artificially create life, not even our species, is scary!

I think we are missing the option, "50,000 bucks?! I'll bury Sunny in THE Pet Cemetery and he'll come back for free."

Jokes aside, I don't think the clone is gonna be the same, since I believe nurture plays as big a role as nature, if not a bigger role.

I don't think cloning pets is a good idea. As much as we love our pets past and present, there is a problem with too many dogs and cats etc. already. Animal Shelters are over crowded and I really think you can find a great pet in one of those institutions and be happy. Just my thought!

I live with 12 cats. I love the cats I live with very much. I have had to see cats die. In the worst case, I had to see one of the cats I lived with, who was the sweetest cat I have ever known, killed by a dog.

Let's pretend for a moment that this procedure was free, that it was 100% effective, and that it created a cat exactly the same, physically and psychologically, as the deceased cat. I would still not do it.

Why? Because the clone is not the original. There has been a lot of bad speculation and a lot of bad fiction about cloning, all of which has ignored this simple fact.

I find the idea of cloning a pet odd and stupid for lack of a better word. When these animals are cloned all you get is the same species of cat or dog, not the same personality (although a certain species might have tendencies toward being friendly or violent the outcome will not be the same). To quote DaffyGrl:



If you really love American Short Hairs then go out and adopt another one. The real point here is that no two animals (dog, cat, or human) can have the same personality after cloning, so why even bother? And has anyone thought of poor Bob Barker? All those years of public service anouncments to spade/neuter your pet will go down the drain if you can just make copies.

I am not sure where this notion is coming from that identical genetic cats will not have the same personality. I expect cloned cats will have very similar personalities to the original. Will they be identical ? No, but hardly dissimilar.

There should not be any restrictions on cloning animals. There is no inherent harm caused by doing so.

Rev,

I checked out your Puffy. She's pretty cute, for a CAT.

We most definitely should NOT be cloning animals for the sheer
purpose of trying to make one's pet "live forever."

There are presently so many cats and dogs (as well as other animals)
in this world, who need a home. It would be selfish to waste time,
energy and resources, trying to recreate what cannot be recreated.

Was your pet just a shell of an animal? Or was there a soul or
spirit that was a huge part of his aura? How would one go about
cloning that pet spirit? It's a silly idea.

There should be one restriction: NOT ALLOWED

Actually, I think that the clone will look identical. Your right when you say that it won't have the same personality. Character seems to be something built during a lifetime.

This thread reminds me of the scenes depicting Schwarzenegger going to the "Re-Pet" store in the mall shown in the film "The Sixth Day." Victoria Silverwolf makes a good point about the clone not being the original and people's tendencies to miss this in science fiction; one of my brother's friends saw the movie and was very excited about how if this technology could be perfected, he might have a chance at extended life. It took half an hour to get the point across to him that even if he was cloned and his memories could be transplanted to the clone, it would still not be him. The new version of him might seem real to the rest of us, but the original person would be dead and gone.

Should we be cloning animals, for domestic use and not for science?

I think the concept of should or shouldn't mostly comes down to opinion. I personally would not be interested in cloning a dog or a cat, even if I had $50,000 I didn't care about to throw at the problem. I think I'd rather donate the money to charity than spend it on trying to recapture some sense of a lost relationship with a deceased pet.

Should there be any restrictions?

I don't know if it should be banned. I don't think anything presented in this thread rises to the threshold of justifying a law being passed to prevent other people from cloning and re-creating their own pets. I figure most people getting involved in this sort of endeavor will be the wealthy, who would actually consider spending $50k to replace Fluffy or Spike. It seems like money that just works its way back into the economy and pays people's salaries. How do we really justify outlawing it without forcing our opinions on others?

Having said that, restrictions would be necessary, in the same way that we license and regulate medicine and veterinary practices and to make sure people are not cloning human beings, unless society decides to allow human cloning. Safeguards would need to be instituted to try and prevent abuse. Some might reasonably argue that its so risky we can't allow any cloning because someone might try to clone a human, but I think that is an overbroad use of the legal system (just my opinion). I also think that if even if we did have such a law, someone could probably get around the problem here in the U.S. by taking their cash and going to some other country to get their pet cloned and shipped back home.

(edited: spelling)

I voted yes.

I thought this was a tricky question. I wouldn't spend my last 50,000 to clone an animal. But if I had 50G's to blow, sure, I would do it.

Variety is the spice of life, or so I have heard. I have only had 2 dogs and 4 cats in my 58 years to experience the variety of pets.
Would you want all your friends over an entire lifetilme to be identical in personality? I think not.
The only thing I would want to clone is the $50,000, and for the price, I want an entire litter of them puppies.

I don't believe so. If cloning is to be used at all, it should be for more important reasons than "fluffy"



I love my dog. We have no idea how old she is, we got her free from the pound four years ago. She's the most lovable and loyal mutt a person could ever ask for. We think that she's deaf, and she's been having some bladder problems as of late. I will need intensive psychotherapy when she dies. At the same time, it's all a part of the cycle of life and I don't want Dr. Strangelove messing with it. Death provides some meaningful lessons and I don't want it to be horribly changed through some freakish action out of a science-fiction novel.