juliepoudrier Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I'm eating my lunch and watching the news at noon and there was a segment on a couple who had a yellow lab whose DNA they saved when he died. They have recently had him cloned and now have a new little yellow lab puppy. The cost? $155,000. I love, love, love my dogs and have often said I'd like a Twist clone, but really, don't people see something--I don't know--shameful, maybe? about spending that kind of money on something so, well, frivolous? Of course, I'm sure my viewpoint is colored by the fact that I don't have that kind of money, but even if I did I can't imagine spending it in that way. It's just...weird to me. ETA: Here's a link to a video of the story. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurae Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I've thought a little about this, too. I also love my dogs and wish they would live as long as I do. But I agree that it would be a little creepy and almost a disservice to both the original dog (he will no longer be one in a million) and the cloned dog (who never gets to have an identity in his or her own right). However, I do think it would be really interesting to be able to study nature vs. nurture by being able to compare two dogs with exactly the same nature and change the nurture part of it. Along the same lines, I think it would be fascinating to see how training/handling a dog changes his or her behavior with regard to sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokjbc Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I've thought a little about this, too. I also love my dogs and wish they would live as long as I do. But I agree that it would be a little creepy and almost a disservice to both the original dog (he will no longer be one in a million) and the cloned dog (who never gets to have an identity in his or her own right). However, I do think it would be really interesting to be able to study nature vs. nurture by being able to compare two dogs with exactly the same nature and change the nurture part of it. Along the same lines, I think it would be fascinating to see how training/handling a dog changes his or her behavior with regard to sheep. I feel the same- to me it is saying that our dogs are just genetic packages, and not personal creatures with a soul and personality. My favorite dog, Nellie, is not replaceable and a clone of her would only be an echo of her genetic self, not the actual great dog that I love. That being said, it would be fantastic to have a second chance with dogs, working and training wise. I'd love to start my first border collie, Leary, again, but I wouldn't want to have her for another 15 years!! We never got along and I really don't like her (love and care for her, yes- but she drives me nuts!), but it would be interesting to have a clone of her for two or three years, just to see if it was my problem or hers. My other dogs, I don't feel like I made as many mistakes and they turned out o.k. I could go back and not move Jane up to Open too soon, but that's a mistake I can live with. Maybe a clone with an expiration date? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ooky Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 No. Not only is it too expensive, you do not get your old animal back. People often talk about nature vs. nurture, but it is much, much more complicated than that. First of all, depending on what cell they insert your animal's nucleus into, it may not even have any of the same mitochondrial DNA that all of us usually get from our mothers. Then, there is the developmental side of things. The maternal environment in utero and the interactions that go on there are extremely important in determining many things about the animal, and that environment wouldn't be the same for your cloned animal. Then, everything is pretty much different for your new animal from day one than it was for the old animal. Genes are like a recipe - there is the stuff that's written down in the book (the genetic code) and then there is the interaction that occurs when the cook decides what parts of the recipe to follow, which to embellish, which to leave out - that's a good analogy for expression. So you can have all the same genes and completely different expression of those genes due to developmental effects, maternal effect (where the mom send proteins into the developing embryo), different environment and experiences, or other factors. On top of that, with cloning the telomeres (the ends) on all the chromosomes of the clone are shortened. They don’t really know what all that might entail, but that could potentially affect the way cells get old, divide, etc. This American Life did a show with a guy who had a really gentle pet bull – did anyone see it. He loved that bull, and apparently it loved him. After it died he had it cloned. The new bull almost killed him several times even though it looked exactly like the old bull. The guy was heartbroken and refused to believe that the new bull wouldn’t just magically become like the old nice one in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Beer Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 No. I wouldn't. Even if I had the money and the process could produce an exact copy. The dog would only be that - a copy. That wouldn't work for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie Meier Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Boy, I don't know what to think about it, the practical part of me says it just plain not practical and crazy, but the part of me that is willing to accept other peoples decisions tells me too each is own and it's their money and who am I to think they are nuts and waisting money on what I would consider a fantasy or a one a million/billion/trillion or what ever the odds that they are hoping to hit on. Besides if I had the money to spend I couldn't honestly say with 100% certainty that I would or would not do the same thing, I don't think I would but maybe if things were different and I had a dog or a horse that was so important to me along with the money maybe I would. I look at it another way, better their money to further proof and test cloning research then mine, you never know, someday we may be greatful that people were willing to spend the money to try. Deb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbc1963 Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I'm a really thrifty person. I spend a lot of times thinking about what's a "want" vs. a "need." I think this dog cloning is absolutely frivolous. I really do believe it's part of our responsibility as human beings to not use so many resources for our "wants" that we deny others what they need. I do think that the way we spend our money reveals our ethics. To me, this spending is tough to justify. Beyond that, I completely agree that the dog won't be the same dog, and that this does a disservice to the original. Mary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandra s. Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I wouldn't do it if I got paid for it. The idea p*sses me off on so many levels. But then, even the classic "I want a puppy so *I* can personally shape every little bit of him" attitude disagrees with me. And yes, I've drunk too much strong tea too quickly again. Grrrr . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I think it's a more interesting question if we take the money thing out of the picture. Let's say cloning was free. Then would you do it? No one should expect a copy of the original animal, for the reasons that Ooky outlined. The nature/nurture experiment could only be done if an entire litter of clones was created, and then they could only be compared to each other, not the original animal. I would not do it because it would not get me what I want. I would like for Solo to live forever (or at least, as long as I do), but the technology isn't there, and we're running out of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted February 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Well even if it were free, I couldn't see myself doing it--for the reasons already outlined. I just don't think you'd ever get an *exact* copy, right down to personality, working characteristics, etc., from a cloned animal, so what would be the point? To me, if cloning has some real medical/scientific value (in that it can help to cure diseases or other maladies or advance scientific knowledge of genetics, etc.), then I say spend like hell on it, but cloning for it's own sake, so that John or Jane Q. can have an "exact" replica of Fluffy is silly, IMO. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockdogranch Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 OK, so now that money is out of the picture, I agree with Laura, and I'd give it a go. I think it would be absolutely fascinating to see how a clone would train up, understanding, of course, that it might not be an EXACT replica, genetics-wise. So I'd have Riddle cloned. I would not expect another Riddle--there could never be another (her heart, her soul), BUT, I'd bet it would be a darn good worker, and the odds would be good that she would have a similar working style and attitude. After all, isn't that what we aim for when we breed? And if our breeding program is decent, isn't that what we get? A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewie'sMom Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 For some reason the idea of cloning a pet makes me think of the movie, Pet Semetary. Kind of creepy and would feel like being unfaithful to the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ooky Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 The Pet Sematary answer is exactly the reason I still say no, even if it’s free to me. I don’t want no short-telomere freaks ‘round here. I think it would be disgusting, in a way, to have an animal that looked like Odin or my Mesto and maybe shared some similarities, but just wasn’t them. And are we also pretending the cloned animal will have no deleterious health effects? Because they often do, and live rather short lives. No seriously, I can see Anna’s point about how it would be interesting to see what happened with a clone of a star worker to truly understand how important descent was in your breeding program, but still I still think it would not tell you much because the method of descent in this case is SO artificial. You never get 100% of any breeding animal passed down in a real breeding. You also DO get mitochondrial DNA from the mother in a real breeding, not so here. As mitochondria make the energy for cells, I could see that certainly having something to do with the animal’s level of endurance or even general health. I really think the people here who would like to do it probably think they would get a much closer cloned animal to the real one than they actually would, especially in traits as complex as working ability. Identical twins share all the same DNA too, and the same maternal environment (or at least close), but are definitely completely different people, usually with very distinct personalities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo Peep Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Putting money aside, if the pup could remember all the things taught from before, I'd consider it. But, basically, you are just starting off from scratch with a new puppy. I'd just go back and get the same breeding if I could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Beer Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Even if it were free, I don't think I would do it. Knowing myself, I would put unfair expectations on the dog to "live up to" the dog that he or she was cloned from. Also, I would always be kind of sad that the dog was a clone, not the original. In spite of being a "copy", the new dog would be an individual and if I'm going to have a different dog, I want one that is truly a different dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bc friend Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Even if it were free, I wouldn'. I consider each animal an individual and, in my mind, it devalues the original to try to make a copy. The bond I have with each pet is based on that pet's personality and is different with each dog. I don't believe or want to believe that I could duplicate the exact relationship I have with each dog so why would I want one that only reminded me of what I had lost? Cloning body parts - such as kidneys is a different issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca, Irena Farm Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 If someone offered to give me a free clone of Ben, I wouldn't. What we had was special and gosh darn it I'm getting teary just writing about it now . . gah . . .but trying to recapture it would make it not special anymore, you know? That would make it not about him, but about me. I think the coolest thing about every dog is the little differences. It's one of the things that keeps me going back for more punishment in rescue - every new dog is a delight, seeing what they are capable of. Maybe someday I'll be competent to get into regular dog training and that will be the joy of it for me. And of course I feel the same way about my own dogs. I deliberately sought out a pup from parents very different from what produced Ted, even though I'm deliriously happy with how Ted is turning out. That was for practical reasons, but I'm greatly looking forward to my new teammate-to-be for entirely abstract reasons too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 That clone is eventually going to age and die......I couldn't do it- the idea of losing them twice is more than I could stand. The goal of breeding for me is not to recreate a great dog, but to produce greater ones, to go forward in this journey. I don't want repeats. And the poor Repeat....that dog would have to live to up to a life and expectation that were already done once - who can succeed under that pressure? And if I only had Joey's...then I would have never met Lena....if only Lena's, then never a Ben.... how much I would have missed if I limited myself like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura L Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 It wouldn't matter to me if it were free, I still wouldn't do it. You couldn't possibly raise the dog exactly the same to have the personality you love. I agree with the Pet Cemetery thing. My mom, had a nice orange tabby cat when we were younger named Amber. She's now on Amber III. They're not clones, just male, orange tabbies. It's weird, creepy, call it what you want. How many of us have black and white Border Collies but aren't trying to make them all the same dog we had before? Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaderBug Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I would never clone a dog, or any animal that I was attached to. Would I like some do-overs with my dogs? Of course. I would like to have had more time with my old dog Cody, he died before his time. I wish we would have trained Rocko and Sasha better. There's always something you'd like to change. Cloning a beloved pet won't bring them back to life. I would feel terribly bad for the clone too... you're putting an impossible amount of pressure on that dog to be like it's predecessor. It's not fair to the pup to put so many expectations and false hopes on them- especially if their personalities don't turn out the same. You're just setting the pup up for failure and yourself up for disappointment. Besides, I think it would be more fun to start with a new dog- you're never going to get the same thing twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Nope. Not for free and not if I had the money. I believe each animal not only has its body but also its own unique spirit, so a clone would just be a copy of the body but not the mind. But, then again, it could be tempting to try and work again with a dog and not make the same mistakes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 I go along with the "no" voters for many of the same reasons. Money is the last of the reasons I say that. The clone dog will never measure up to the original and I don't think many people could get past that and in the end, that disappointment will get carried on to the dog. You can clone the body, but you can't clone the soul. If all I want is a black and white Border Collie, there are more than enough available already. In the case of Baby Girl, she was lost from an illness that was not only devastating to us emotionally, but to her physically. Could it have been a genetic defect? We will never know, but why on earth would I ever want to intentionally subject another living creature to that potential? I guess if our dogs were nothing more than objects to us, like a shovel, car or vacuum cleaner, a disposable item that can be replaced when it is worn out cloning might be palatable and worth considering. As long as they are the unique individuals that have brought so much joy into our lives with their equally unique personalities, I'll pass, thank you very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 If it were free, and it were actually possible to recreate the exact animal without any adverse viability effects related to cloning or variation due to maternal effects, etc. -- well, I admit I'd be tempted if only to find out what Solo might have turned out like if I'd had him from puppyhood and he didn't live the life of a veal calf for his first year. I am 99.9% convinced that the fundamental root of his issues is biological and therefore any clone would also start with that deficit, but being a veal for a year certainly didn't help. I would try really hard not to expect the new dog to be Solo, but I guess it would be hard to do that. I also know that what Solo and I have is a unique event and cannot be recreated. Still, I do think that a clone of Solo, raised without the isolation and psychological abuse, would be a pretty cool dog -- even if he weren't Solo. The whole point is moot, so instead I spend my time trying to figure out which of Solo's antecedents contributed his personality, and which ones contributed his temperament. I do not think personality and temperament are the same thing. I would like to have another dog with a similar personality, but a sound temperament. Hopefully then, in the future, when I am looking for another big serious male dog, a complicated, strong silent type, I will know what lines to look to for that, and which ones to avoid. I also consider looking for another Solo in rescue -- a big male, one they're having a hard time placing, the kind of dog they describe in code language on the rescue website ("takes a while to warm up"; "prefers women"), you know, the dog no one else wants. Having lived with and loved one, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to me anymore, and somebody's got to help those dogs. That's probably closest to what I'll actually do. In the meantime, Solo isn't quite ten yet, hasn't started going grey, and is as raptor-eyed and complicated as ever. I hope to have plenty of time left with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo Peep Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Remember that movie with Arnold? It was in the future and they cloned pets. The dog actually remembered everything. Even Arnold didn't know he was a clone. Now, if they came up with something like that, where you could have your working dog forever- I'd consider it. But, that was just a movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Reichard Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 To put it in SoloRiver's way: would you buy a clone of Wiston Cap for a typical puppy price? Well, yes, yes I will, Yes of course, YES, YES!!! ... And I'd think that's why we shouldn't clone our dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.