OMG! Pet Cloning Produces ‘Double Trouble’

[BruceLeeDemarcus]

(GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)


When Danielle Tarantola’s beloved dog Trouble died at the age of 18, she decided she simply couldn’t go on without him. So she paid $50,000 to a company in South Korea to clone the dog, and she is now the proud owner of an exact genetic replica of her original pet, aptly named Double Trouble. Even if you could afford it, would you pay $50,000 to clone YOUR pet?
Tarantola says she can barely tell the difference between the original Trouble and his replacement. Pet cloning has been highly controversial since the famous cloning of Dolly the sheep back in 1996. The procedure for dogs is currently only available in South Korea.
I find the whole idea of ‘cloning’ quite disturbing, creepy and just plain wrong. But that is just my personal opinion. I am curious to see what the majority of people think about ‘cloning a pet’ too!

(found on www.wycd.com)

[Aletheia*]

I find it a bit strange, but I do see where this woman is coming from. She had her beloved pet for 18 years, and when he passed away, I'm sure she felt lost. I know I did when I lost my beloved pet of 16 years back in 2006. However, I would never consider having him cloned, and I wouldn't consider cloning my current pet, Boost. It's messing with what nature is there for; nothing is meant to live forever.

[TigerTank77]

Anyone? Yes?

Anyway, if you can afford it and want to spend the money, fine.

[Revolution]

I know she said she can't tell the difference, but there will be differences. Personalities develop from a mixture of genetics and experience, so every person/being is different. I of course must bring this up because I'm a twin and it weirds out about people thinking personality will be the same.

I don't like the cloning thing. I think this direction in science is very positive, with doing step cell research to cure diseases. But closing animals/people? No me gusta.

[Pelios]

I really love my dog with all my heart and it would be terrible when he dies but no. I would adopt another dog there are so many dogs out there wanting homes, we had good memories and everything but cloning them... I don't think.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

When Dolly was first cloned, one of the biggest issues was the fact she didn't behave the same and had a variety of physiological problems. Double Trouble may have the same physical appearance as Trouble but it's questionable whether Double Trouble behaves in the same manner.

I would consider cloning one of my dogs. I would not expect the clone to behave in the same manner, instead I'd look forward to the new behaviour as though it were a completely new dog. The two biggest concerns for me would be the money needed to clone the dog as well as whether there was an increased likelihood of health complications early in life. If there were a high likelihood, I would simply get a new dog in the old fashioned way by going to the pound, humane society or contacting breeders.

[TheBabyEater]

I'm against breeding dogs when there are so many in the shelter, no shit I'd be against cloning....

[Maverick.]

What a horrible way to spend money. Why not just adopt that same breed?

[BDF]

Originally Posted by Joker

What a horrible way to spend money. Why not just adopt that same breed?

You find it horrible, she didn't. If that's how she wants to spend her money, she should be allowed to. Does it in any way inconvenience other people? I don't think so. If some billionaire wants to buy himself a gold plated Bugatti Veyron, again, it's their money. In fact it's better that he buys it than not... otherwise what else would the money be doing? Nothing? What use is that?

Plus funding for this type of technology has to come from somewhere. I doubt the company's expenses for cloning the dog are $50,000. Especially in countries like South Korea.

[blumemusik♫]

The thing is, it's slightly pointless. I see where she's coming from, I would be distraught if my dog died, but I still think it's wrong. The dog was cloned from old cells. In the case of Dolly, she died from age-related illness even though she was less than half of the average life-span of such a sheep (or something like that.) So this new dog won't live very long, and what will she do then? Pay yet another $50,000 to clone this dog and halve the life-span again?

[Maverick.]

Originally Posted by BDF

You find it horrible, she didn't. If that's how she wants to spend her money, she should be allowed to. Does it in any way inconvenience other people? I don't think so. If some billionaire wants to buy himself a gold plated Bugatti Veyron, again, it's their money. In fact it's better that he buys it than not... otherwise what else would the money be doing? Nothing? What use is that?

Plus funding for this type of technology has to come from somewhere. I doubt the company's expenses for cloning the dog are $50,000. Especially in countries like South Korea.

Well that money could have gone to hungry kids in third world countries. It would have been smarter and cheaper to have adopted another dog than to do what she did.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by asthenophobia.

The thing is, it's slightly pointless. I see where she's coming from, I would be distraught if my dog died, but I still think it's wrong. The dog was cloned from old cells. In the case of Dolly, she died from age-related illness even though she was less than half of the average life-span of such a sheep (or something like that.) So this new dog won't live very long, and what will she do then? Pay yet another $50,000 to clone this dog and halve the life-span again?

You misunderstood the case of Dolly. She was euthanized after having lung cancer and severe arthritis. The controversy that follows is whether these health detriments were due to the cloning process, which at the time was less understood and refined than today because the cancer was very common in sheep. Furthermore, Dolly produced several healthy young sheep from mating, which weakens the argument of a genetic flaw resulting in a reduced lifespan. This leaves several possibilities, including genetic material was taken from a middle-aged sheep instead of a younger one (although this was part of the purpose of the study it is also a weakness).
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr03/030415f.asp

It is not an issue whether the cells per say are "old" since cells in healthy organisms die and are replaced. Instead, the issue is re-programming adult genetic material as it is no longer totipotent or pluripotent, successfully cloning mitochondrial DNA, etc... .

However, I don't see why there's a fuss over how much she spends. After all, does her spending $50,000 affect you, your family or any pets you have? Of course not. Once the cloned dog dies and she puts up another $50,000 I fail to see how that is anyone's concern or business other than hers. You may disagree with it for whatever reasons, whether it be the cloning of Dolly or molecular and cellular biology, none of which you understand, or moral/ethical issues. If you are to boldly suggest the cloned dog's lifespan will be halved, you need to support that statement either through reasoning or evidence, none of which you've shown.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by Joker

Well that money could have gone to hungry kids in third world countries. It would have been smarter and cheaper to have adopted another dog than to do what she did.

I agree. But it's pointless expecting other people to do this kind of stuff. The only thing you can do about it, is to do it yourself when you get the opportunity.

Maybe I sounded slightly offensive... but I have an aversion that sometimes surfaces, towards any ideas that other people have any sort of obligation to disclose or justify how they spend their own money, if it doesn't directly harm others.

I say this after feeling like I had been bullied by my own parents in the past into having to justify every last penny that I spent, and justify every second of my time. I am not exaggerating.