Get the Family Dog Cloned

Anonymous writes "Some of you may have seen 'The 6th Day,' the movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger a few years back. If you recall there was a 're-pet' cloning service to get your dog back if you ever lost them. Enter 'Best Friends Again': 'A US biotech company on Wednesday announced it will auction off the right for five dog owners to have their furry best friend cloned, with bidding starting at 100,000 dollars. "BioArts International ... will sell five dog cloning service slots to the general public via a worldwide online auction," the California-based biotech start-up said in a statement.'"

my favorite pets

are Playboy bunnies.

wonder if I can clone them too...

Ridiculous

If we can put a man on the moon, I should be able to get my dog cloned for under 100k.

Re:Ridiculous

What were the headlines like that day?

"Now you can keep your Boogers forever!"

"Woman buys $50,000 artificial Booger"

"Chinese scientists follow God's nose, extract Booger"

Hmm...when did I hear about this before?

Let's hope that this company has greater success [wired.com] than earlier ones [slashdot.org]...

(Yeah, I know that the wired article says "Dead cats", but Genetic Savings & Clone was also a dog cloning company)

Or you could just breed your dog

Let's face it, you are going to have to invest the time to re-train the clone, so isn't genetically descended almost identical to genetically-identical in practical terms?

Re:Or you could just breed your dog

Sure, but I doubt this is about anything but social status among rich people. Bragging about a cottage up in Aspen pales compared to having one of only five genetically cloned dogs.

Re:Or you could just breed your dog

What I'm curious about is whether the cloned dog will smell exactly like the original to other dogs. Scent is more important to dogs than sight; that butt-sniffing ritual they perform when they meet each other lets them remember each other for a long time. Smelling another dog's urine will let a dog know who the other dog was, whether it was male/female (and if the latter, where it was in its menses), whether it was sick, etc.

So if I cloned Aloysius, would my other dogs think the new dog was him? If I cloned him while he was alive, would he think he was smelling himself?

Re:Or you could just breed your dog

Let's face it, you are going to have to invest the time to re-train the clone, so isn't genetically descended almost identical to genetically-identical in practical terms?

No, the cloned dog is souless Thing That Should Not Be. Probably possesed by a demon from hell.

Imagine that a demon with the face of your best friend. Muahahaha.

Re:Or you could just breed your dog

No, the cloned dog is souless Thing That Should Not Be. Probably possesed by a demon from hell.

How is that different from dogs that aren't clones? *(Cat person)

Re:Or you could just breed your dog

A dog is accurately described as man's best friend

I'm not sure how accurate that statement is. You don't hear stories of cats mauling their owners faces off. Sure a scratch or two, but nothing. Violence aside, raising a dog takes almost as much energy as raising a child, if you want to do it well. Even a well trained dog is only as independant as a 3-4 year old. If you want to have a dog, you might as well have a child. Cats on the other hand, are much more independent. Put food out for them, change the litter box every few days, and they are set. They are just as affectionate as dogs, and require much less maintenance. I'm not sure why more people prefer dogs.

Re:Or you could just breed your dog

If you want to have a dog, you might as well have a child.

Are you kidding me? Children:
* Can't be potty trained for over a year. A dog takes a few days.
* Can't be left alone for a few hours. A dog is perfectly fine by himself.
* Are extremely expensive. Dogs are very cheap in comparison.
* Will turn into teenagers and dress in all black to spite you. Dogs are always affectionate.

Dogs are way better than human children, and they're a hell of a lot cuter, too. I have no idea why humans breed these days, at least here in the US.

I'd have to disagree that cats are 'just as affectionate' as dogs. I have lived with both. I have also lived with horses, rabbits, cattle, snakes, mice, fish, ferrets, and a few other critters. None of them are as affectionate or attentive as a dog. I would put horses or ferrets second.

Dogs are designed to be pack animals. Cats are designed to be independent loners. One is going to be more affectionate and social than the other by default. Sure, there are always exceptions, but in general, I've found this to be true.

Cats are great if all you want is a fuzzy companion walking about that doesn't require maintenance, and if your living space is limited. Dogs are great if you want more interaction, and don't mind the extra work and you have more room.

I would never, ever keep a dog in an apartment or a small house, not even one of those little ankle biters. Dogs need some room to run around.

That said, dogs really aren't all that much work. I have three dogs right now. I put out food for them to eat as they wish, I change the water twice a day, and they have a doggie door out into a fenced yard if they want to pee or whatever. Check over the yard every day or two and pick up any poop, only takes a few minutes to clean up. It works really well.

I've also never seen a cat play fetch, play tug of war, warn strangers, get my slippers, etc., etc. Dogs have a more advanced brain (I'm not going to dig up the articles, but you can find them if you want) and are simply capable of more. Cats are more hard wired. Granted, automatic potty training is a plus, but beyond that your options are limited.

Another reason I prefer dogs? They're awesome kissers. (o:

Re:Or you could just breed your dog

Another reason I prefer dogs? They're awesome kissers. (o:
--
Love sees no species.

Where's the -1 frighteningly appropriate sig mod?

Re:Or you could just breed your dog

Most cats I know come when called. You just have to understand their real names are all the sound a can opening makes.

exact replica of a pet is impossible

Most pet owners have suffered the loss of a very dear and special pet. And while owners would like to keep their dear friend with them forever, very few would actually go so far as to entertain the idea of cloning.

To most pet lovers, that cherished "once-in-a-lifetime" dog or cat should remain just that. In February of 2004, the AAVS (American Anti-Vivisection Society) commissioned Opinion Research Corporation to conduct a national survey to assess public opinion about cloning pets. Eighty percent of the respondents were not in favor of cloning companion animals or the selling of genetically altered animals as pets. But for the 13% of respondents that are in favor of pet cloning, financial issues may well be the obstacle.

Genetic Savings & Clone, a gene banking and cloning service for pets, is currently offering to store a treasured pet's genetic material in the hopes that the owner will take advantage of cloning that pet in the future. Currently the cost to "bank" a pet's DNA, or genetic material, with GSC (Genetic Savings & Clone) varies from $295 to $1,395 plus $100-$150 annually for storage fees. The cost for cloning is a different story. According to the GSC website, expect to pay $32,000. And to date they have only been successful with cloning cats.

Yet, for all of the technology and expense involved, exact replicas of cloned animals are not always produced. In fact, due to unusual genetics, calico cats will rarely produce clones that physically resemble the donor. Cloning opponents contend that an exact replica of a pet is impossible, as training, experience, and environment are keys to an individual's behavior and personality. Even worse animal that have been cloned often have severe health problems, and a short life expectancy.

The industry is almost totally unregulated and strong opinions on both sides of the cloning issue seek to educate the public about the benefits, or lack thereof, of pet cloning. While tremendous publicity accompanies cloning successes, the public rarely hears about animal cloning failures.

The greatest publicity surrounds the cloning of pets when actually the majority of cloning is intended for agriculture, biomedical research, and propagation of endangered species. But in all cases, there are potential commercial applications.

For example, HorseCloning.com will make a clone of your horse for $375,000 per 100 mares implanted plus a patent royalty fee of 15%, based on the estimated value of each clone. According to their web site information, "All sales are final," and "even though no one can guarantee a specific result, you could hit the jackpot." Last but not least, "due to the complexity of the science, results cannot be guaranteed."

The cloning science is similar in most species, although there are some challenges with the cloning of dogs. Dogs have poorly understood reproductive physiology compared to other species and fewer estrus cycles.

Basically, the cloning procedure begins with collecting the DNA of the animal to be cloned. The tissue is grown and the cells are preserved while being treated to prevent them from differentiating into a particular cell type (hair, skin, nerve cell).

Eggs are taken from random females for implantation, and the genetic material from these eggs is removed. Cells and eggs are fused together to become cloned embryos. Surrogate females are then hormonally treated to synchronize their fertile periods and are then implanted with the cloned embryos. In the best scenario, the surrogate pregnancy produces a live, healthy offspring.

While moral and ethical issues of cloning pets continue to be argued, both sides seem to be closer concerning the problem of endangered species. Betty Dresser, Director of the Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species in New Orleans says, "Saving habitat may not be enough. Any tool for saving endangered species is important. Cloning is just another reproductive tool, like in-vitro

Re:Or you could just breed your dog

Yep, it would be better just to have two dogs and let them have puppies or something.

No. It would be better to just adopt a dog. There is a massive overpopulation problem for dogs and cats, with over three million killed in shelters every year for lack of a home.

Please please please please please please spay or neuter, and don't patronize breeders.

Here is the thing...

There is no promise your pet is going to be the same pet that left you. To me this spits in the face of nature. Not that I am against cloning, but to think you can bring a loved one... even in part back from the dead is a tragic notion.

I have seen this stuff before and remember the pet may not even come back looking the same. Even if they got it looking EXACTLY THE SAME, the memories, the personality, the... soul will not be the same.

All it will do is leave you missing your loved one more. Just let it go, and keep them in your heart. Mittens / Fido will always live on inside you *Yes yes sappy but it's true and you KNOW IT*

Re:Here is the thing...

There's also the problem of genotype vs phenotype. Fido's genes may be expressed differently the next go-round, leading to subtle or possibly not-so-subtle differences. And as you intimated, how the clone is raised will be just as important as its genes.

But Fido could be brought back once we perfect that brain-scanning thingy in the 6th Day movie. Genotype, phenotype, and, uh...brainotype would be so close to the original Fido, that Fido 2.0 would seem almost identical. But without the scanner doohicky, Fido 2.0 will be just another dog.

Re:Here is the thing...

Assuming these are purebred dogs, what's the likelihood that you could just pick up another purebred that would be just as identical? How much genetic variation is there between purebred dogs? Would the differences between the cloned dog and the original be any less noticeable than between the original, and another dog of the same breed, or possibly the same lineage?

Re:Here is the thing...

There's also the problem of genotype vs phenotype. Fido's genes may be expressed differently the next go-round, leading to subtle or possibly not-so-subtle differences.

As an example, I know two women who are identical twins, but because the split was so early, they developed in two different placental sacks (*) which means they don't look like identical twins. They look very similar, but only as much as two sisters might.

They have the same genes, but their phenotypes are definitely not identical.

(*) That's how they explained it to me, but I might have misunderstood or misremembered.

Did they solve the coloring issue?

Because I was under the impression that cloning did not account for the individuality of each dog's coat. Another thread mentioned the irritability of a cloned bull but I doubt it was due to the cloning.

When it comes to dogs; my mother breeds, judges, and shows, a certain purebred; the bulk of good dog / bad dog behavior that owners see is largely governed by how much time the puppy had with its mother. Ideally it should be twelve weeks. This is not saying you can't breed in aggressiveness as it had been done to shepherds and the respectable breeders spent a generations (of dogs) trying to get it out.

The first few weeks in the care of a new owner will set the new puppy on his path to an individual personality. The key to getting a good dog versus a bad dog is : treat it nicely and give it space. If the new dog needs the reassurance of your company it will seek you out. Don't yell at the dog or around it. The pet is looking for acceptance and if you yell at your kids/spouse/tv etc it will affect the dog. About the "space" item, if a dog wants to get away the let it; provided of course its safe. I have seen more than one puppy returned as a nervous wreck to my parents because one kid or adult in the new owner family simply would not let the dog alone, the interesting side story is that these people took their kid to a psychiatrist who basically told them the kid was not mature enough for a pet but they tried anyway . They have their needs for rest too.

Am I against cloning pets or animals. Not if its used to protect a breed from extinction. I still would not have much qualms about it being done for the end owner. Now if cloning of pets is done for wholesale retail then that I would is nothing better than having mills. Worse is the number of bitches needed and who are basically abused to deliver the pups (I assume it still requires a womb)

dead puppies

So how many deformed and killed 'non viable' cloned puppies does it take to produce a successful one.

(Can you tell I am totally against this.)

Re:dead puppies

So how many deformed and killed 'non viable' cloned puppies does it take to produce a successful one. (Can you tell I am totally against this.)

Dick Cheney has to get his liquid refreshment from somewhere.

Re:

I dunno - how many non-viable fertilizations, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses and indeed 'babies' (stillborn) does it take to produce a successful one?

(Can you tell I am totally against human reproduction?)

Not lossless

The cloning process is kind of lossy. A lot of mutations can occur in the process, and as a result the cloned animal is likely to be unhealthy.

better things to do with cloning resources

I saw them try this with a bull in the first TV episode of This American Life. The results were not good.

Synopsis: The original bull was nice. The cloned bull was irritable, short-tempered and just not quite right. Also, he kicked the owner in the balls.

I suppose you could just take from that the irony that the cloned animal managed to block its cloner's own ability to reproduce conventionally. But you could also just note that cloned bull was really ugly. You probably won't get what you wanted, unless you delude yourself into thinking you have it.