Opinion on Cloning Working Dogs

[genuinegirly]

Here is a brief, cute article on the rising popularity of cloning pets in Korea, from National Geographic:

Link to the full article: National Geographic News Photo Gallery: ANIMAL PHOTOS WEEKLY: Albino Eagle, Cloned Pups, More

Seoul, South Korea, July 1, 2008—Who's the cutest? Four puppies cloned from a Labrador retriever pose with researchers at Seoul National University's College of Veterinary Medicine.

Two South Korean labs are offering cloning services to pet owners at prices ranging between U.S. $50,000 and $100,000.

Owners of working dogs have been the best customers to date, however. To South Korea's customs service, for example, cloning champion sniffers is a more efficient option than breeding the dogs the old-fashioned way.

What do you think of when you see those pups?


- What is the reasoning behind anti-cloning regulations?
- Do you think cloning is good? Bad? Or something else?
- Do you view the practice of cloning pets as healthy for their human counterparts? - Will this practice will prevent us from accepting death and moving on?
- Is it acceptable for only working dogs with innate skill, or should cloning be available for ordinary pets as well?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My response:

I have no personal moral hang-ups over cloning. I would be concerned about senselessly narrowing down a population and cutting out potentially beneficial genes from the pool, but this would not be an issue until cloning hits on a much higher scale. I find the concept healthier than inbreeding, but less healthy than sound traditional breeding practices. I like the concept of natural selection, but I see the benefit of human selection.

We used to joke about cloning our dog because she was perfect for us. Were it available in our country at the time and/or the price not prohibitively expensive, I would have considered the procedure. But, you see, Duchie was a mutt that we picked up from the pound. Some undetermined breed, maybe some mix of cocker and lab. Today, I would not choose to clone her if given the option, simply because I realize there are a bunch of wonderful dogs out there waiting for homes, who won't mind a bit of training.

I don't see any present reason to outlaw cloning. I will not vote to prohibit the practice. I do not understand why cloning mammals does not seem to be regularly permitted in the United States and the E.U. I am likely biased by my education and experience.

[blahblah454]

While I do not see a problem with cloning animals as such, if it is more efficient to clone a life saving rescue dog than try to breed one than I am all for it.

But what worries me is that if this is the stuff that is hitting main stream media, than what is going on behind closed doors? Human cloning in top secret labs? You bet your ass they are.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by blahblah454

While I do not see a problem with cloning animals as such, if it is more efficient to clone a life saving rescue dog than try to breed one than I am all for it.

But what worries me is that if this is the stuff that is hitting main stream media, than what is going on behind closed doors? Human cloning in top secret labs? You bet your ass they are.

I am against cloning.

[stevie667]

I think the idea of cloning working dogs is a good one, afterall these animals are highly specialised and very sought after. It provides a better way to fill the gaps (such as for drugs dogs or blind dogs) that exist presently than the labourious process of breeding in the traits.

As a long term concept, i'm not so sure, one needs the genetic influx that proper breeding brings to ensure viability.

As for human cloning, they are already doing that to a limited scale for stem cells, what worries me is humanzees.

[telekinetic]

Human cloning doesn't bother me one little bit. I think people hear 'clone' they think OMG sci-fi cloning vats. The difference between cloning and current fertility techniques is, as far as I'm concerned, academic. If we had the option of our second daughter being a genetic duplicate of my wife, and it wasn't too expensive, I'd probably be all for it.

I honestly don't know...why are people against it?

[Halx]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I am against cloning.

Care to explain your stance?

I'm wondering when they're going to start cloning humans already. I believe the number 1 reason why it is not happening in broad daylight is because it would disprove the existence of a soul.

[The_Jazz]

Interesting, Hal. I think that it's because no one wants to be first. That first person to clone themselves is going to be a lightening rod. Or to clone a child. Someone is going to have to have a very good reason to do it. I think it makes sense with the dogs because that particular dog has a highly-developed sense of smell. If someone found a cow that was particularly tasty, that might be reason enough to clone it.

I think that the soul debate will be a part of what happens when a human is cloned, but I can't imagine a donor for the clone to be particularly excited about the firestorm that will ignite when it becomes public knowledge. So, if it hasn't happened yet, I think that it's fear of loss of privacy that's holding it back.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Interesting, Hal. I think that it's because no one wants to be first.

I thought it was because no one wants people to die.

Theories of the human soul aside, I don't see what's wrong with selective breeding of pups. It's been successful for several generations in certain breeds.

[sapiens]

I agree with the OP. I don't have a problem with cloning working dogs. Humans have been selectively breeding animals for thousands of years. Cloning, for all intents and purposes, seems to be an extreme version of what we already do. It also appears to be healthier than inbreeding. I do have similar concerns as genuinegirly regarding widespread cloning.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I think that the soul debate will be a part of what happens when a human is cloned, but I can't imagine a donor for the clone to be particularly excited about the firestorm that will ignite when it becomes public knowledge. So, if it hasn't happened yet, I think that it's fear of loss of privacy that's holding it back.

What is the "soul debate"? Monozygotic (Identical) twins are genetic clones. Do they have soul issues?

[Halx]

sapiens, twins are still 'born of a woman' or something like that.

[Glory's Sun]

I'm not against cloning especially when there are too many irresponsible breeders out there. I'm just curious how the dogs will really turn out though. I mean is it going to be the same as me picking up a dog and being able to train it how I see fit and develop a sense of structure with my family? Or is it just going to act completely like the dog it was cloned from?

[Manic_Skafe]

Friday makes the 1 year anniversary of the most painful and traumatic moment of my existence thus far - my father passed away. And while I certainly do find myself wishing here were still here, I have absolutely no desire to see him cloned. A person is much more than the sum of their DNA and through cloning you create someone entirely different. You can't actually bring anyone back and attempting to raise someone to believe they are someone they aren't sounds like pointless mental slavery to me.

Perhaps I've seen Blade Runner too many times but our further disrespect for the order of things will continue to bring about drastic events and the speedy end of our species.

Originally Posted by Halx

I believe the number 1 reason why it is not happening in broad daylight is because it would disprove the existence of a soul.

How so? I'm not sure that it would but even in the face of irrefutable truth, the religious would still believe and all that scientific data would preach only to the choir.

[ratbastid]

I don't think it's the soul thing so much that people object to. Maybe some religious crazies, but that's not what I mainly hear.

I mainly hear that if we can manufacture life, it devalues life. Kind of the same way gay marriage devalues marriage. Like, what I've got is less good if just ANYONE can have it. Illogical 5-year-old thinking--like my candy bar doesn't taste as good if you have one too--but there it is.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Halx

Care to explain your stance?

I'm wondering when they're going to start cloning humans already. I believe the number 1 reason why it is not happening in broad daylight is because it would disprove the existence of a soul.

If you have faith that God gives humans a soul when they are conceived (or born, or whenever,) I don't think it's a stretch to claim that he'll toss one out to the clone when it's uh, cloned.

Originally Posted by stevie667

As a long term concept, i'm not so sure, one needs the genetic influx that proper breeding brings to ensure viability.

Genetic variation concerns me. I am fine with it if cloned animals are neutered to prevent them from contaminating the gene pool. The biggest concern I have is that clones' telomerase genes have already degraded and will lead to them quickly reaching the Hayflick limit, which could seriously fuck over the population if these degraded cells are passed on. As I understand it, the problem would compound with each generation until the species would be unable to produce viable offspring.

[Willravel]

Awwww...

But seriously, cloning human's might be a bad thing but assuming that cloning animals will lead to cloning humans is a massive slippery slope. If Rover can smell out cancer or is good at finding survivors in rubble, clone him. Please. As long as it doesn't lead to more Air Bud movies, it has my full support.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Willravel

As long as it doesn't lead to more Air Bud movies, it has my full support.

Beethoven either, please.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by Halx

Care to explain your stance?

I'm wondering when they're going to start cloning humans already. I believe the number 1 reason why it is not happening in broad daylight is because it would disprove the existence of a soul.

The thing is, I can't. At least not at the moment. Something just bothers me. Maybe it's just instinct or intuition but cloning just feels wrong to me.

[Halx]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

The thing is, I can't. At least not at the moment. Something just bothers me. Maybe it's just instinct or intuition but cloning just feels wrong to me.

I think if you did, it would make a very interesting post. Post a little time into explaining those instinctual thoughts.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Halx

I think if you did, it would make a very interesting post. Post a little time into explaining those instinctual thoughts.

Actually, I thought an interesting post would be for you to explain how cloning disproves the existence of the soul. A soul is not dependent on physical matter; it uses it as a vehicle. What is your take on cloning and the human soul?

[inBOIL]

I'm all for cloning, including cloning humans, as long as it's done cautiously to minimize the negative effects (both known and unknown) that can go along with it. Like any new procedure or technology, future benefits that we can't concieve of today will probably arise from its use. Imagine what the current state of medicine would be if doctors had never been allowed to conduct autopsies (which were prohibited on moral grounds during the middle ages/renaissance).

[LoganSnake]

What's wrong with cloning humans? Unless they figure out a way to copy your thoughts and memories into the clone, it will be a whole different human being who happens to look like you. I could see a problem if we were advanced far enough like in The 6th Day where they could clone full grown humans and transfer the memories over, but if it's just going to be a twin like thing...why not?

[ASU2003]

I'd be for cloning of successful sniffer and working dogs, but not for pets, unless they died and the owners couldn't come to grips on getting a new one (and it didn't breed in it's life).

As for people...Part of the problem would be there are too many people already. The other problem is you would get people like me who would want to clone a wife. I wouldn't care if I were 46 before she was 18. She would be a hot trophy wife. :lol But that raises lots of issues about if you can buy or own a clone. Or would it just be for parents who lost a child in an accident?

[LoganSnake]

Buying or owning a clone would be slavery because clones would still be normal people. And slavery is currently illegal in most parts of the world.

[Halx]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Actually, I thought an interesting post would be for you to explain how cloning disproves the existence of the soul. A soul is not dependent on physical matter; it uses it as a vehicle. What is your take on cloning and the human soul?

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in souls. Its actually very scientific of me to use the term "disprove" because we know that religious people don't need proof to believe or not believe. Alas, the popular Christian take on the human soul is that it belongs to a human who was born of a woman. Test tube babies provided one of the first big theological vs medical debates in this area and was subsequently matched by stem cell research. Cloning a human would be CREEPY. It would also put to rest a lot of psychology debates along the lines of nature vs nurture.

There are lots of reasons to not clone a human, but none of them are good reasons. The authorities treat human cloning like that drunken night where they ended up getting butt-fucked by their best friend; "Let's but this in a bonfire and never speak of this again." The idea that a human who can be as smart, passionate and GOOD can come from a cloning chamber... or whatever the fuck they use to incubate them... will, if you use logic to explain your world, render all the mystical properties of a soul null.

The funny part will be that they will get it wrong the first few times and everyone will go, "See, you cannot replicate a human without the sacred acts of conception and birth." They will also be condemned for creating a life form that is completely useless - trying to play God. Then, they'll finally get it right and everyone won't know what to say because everything they've BEEN saying has just been thrown in their face. Actually, we know they'll say something, but it won't be honest.

But you know, I could be wrong about this whole thing, too.
-----Added 24/7/2008 at 08 : 20 : 49-----
LS, that's a funny thought. Could they be outlawing cloning simply because they don't want to spend the time coming up with laws to regulate/validate their existence?

[The Faba]

I think I've read somewhere that when an animal /person is cloned, the clone enters life at an accelerated age.

Not to say that a forty-year-old person will be born when someone clones themselves, the person born will be a baby. (Obviously)

But Dolly (I think it was Dolly) the cloned sheep showed arthritis at the same time that her parent sheep did. The only difference was that Dolly (Or other cloned animal that I'm confusing with Dolly) was a lamb (Younger version of cloned animal that is confused with Dolly) when it developed arthritis. The same for other gewnetic dispositions that occur with age.

Once again, I only vaugely remember this - it may never have happened and be only a figment of my wildly insane imagination.

[LoganSnake]

Originally Posted by Halx

LS, that's a funny thought. Could they be outlawing cloning simply because they don't want to spend the time coming up with laws to regulate/validate their existence?

I wouldn't be surprised if that was a part of it. Look at every new technology that comes out or any new invention. There are laws that regulate their usage.

However, I don't think that until human clones are grown in the thousands for specific purpose, we would require such laws. I mean, would you be able to tell the difference between a clone and a non clone? Unless the government would create a whole separate record file just for clones...but that would create a whole other set of problems. A new form of racism is very likely. Unnaturals, soulless, etc.

[jorgelito]

Well, for me it's not a religious issue at all. I never really understand how non-religious people try to twist these things into religious issues. For me, it just feels wrong somehow. I am not worried about the souls bit. It's more of an ethics thing. Do clones have rights? Can I clone myself a lot and have me in different places? Can I clone myself for spare parts? That makes the most sense. i also don't trust the science. It seems so much could go wrong. Also, do we really need to clone more people? What wrong with the normal reproductive cycle?

[Halx]

Cloning: Now your son will definitely follow in your footsteps!

[Baraka_Guru]

I don't have the energy to get into this right now, but cloning simplified is this: Subject A's egg has its nucleus removed and replaced with the nucleus of another cell from Subject B. (I think.)

A clone is a different (but same) person. It has nothing to do with thoughts, memories, etc. Unless you believe the nucleus of our cells make up our memories, which sounds akin to a soul.

....I didn't think so.

[Willravel]

That's it; I'm cloning Baraka.

[Baraka_Guru]

What?

[Reese]

I think a few human clones would help us learn about what actually makes us who we are. Imagine cloning someone like Charles Manson and seeing how his childhood and environment played a role in his developing his psyche. Clone The Beatles and see if they can put out 15 more #1 albums. See how someone's body develops when growing up with McDonald's and high fructose corn syrup vs growing up in a small farm town food in the 1950s. See the effects of smoking/non-smoking on the same genetic profile..etc..etc.. There's no limits to what we could learn.

Really, I just want to actually be able to tell that the clone looks identical.. When I see those puppies, I just see 4 black puppies.. When I see Dolly, I just saw a Dirty sheep.. I wanna see cloned Dalmatians with spots in the exact same places or better yet a 18yo kid in a WW2 uniform holding up a picture of his original wearing the same uniform taken in 1942.

I volunteer to be cloned. If the clones are ANYTHING like me, Chances of reproduction are very low

[girldetective]

Yes Willravel, lets clone The Guru! Sounds like fun, and we need something to do.


Get ready Baraka.


(Re OP : I say whatever. As others have said, weve been doing selective breeding all along.)

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by girldetective

Yes Willravel, lets clone The Guru! Sounds like fun, and we need something to do.

Get ready Baraka.

I have questionable genes. I don't know about your motives.

It's a good thing you can't clone minds, or I'd think you were after my memories or perceptions.

If I were to meet my clone on the street, I'm pretty sure I'd battle it to the death right on the spot.


FINISH HIM!


FATALITY!

[jorgelito]

Hmmm....perhaps cloning then, cheapens life.

[genuinegirly]

Didn't quite expect this thread to debate the existance of a soul, that's more along the lines of tilted philosophy. But that's ok, adds a bit of intrigue to the conversation.

I'm still looking for some input on why US policy seems to be vehemently opposed to cloning. Maybe I'll show some of the folks in Politics to this thread.

Originally Posted by MSD

... The biggest concern I have is that clones' telomerase genes have already degraded and will lead to them quickly reaching the Hayflick limit, which could seriously fuck over the population if these degraded cells are passed on. As I understand it, the problem would compound with each generation until the species would be unable to produce viable offspring.

Isn't this concern specific to an outdated method of cloning?

Stem cells have complete telomeres. We use these for cloning, ne? It's the somatic cells where you run into problems with the Hayflick limit. Even then, one should be able to mess with expression and induce telomerase. Isn't the TERT / TERC complex trans-acting?

[Willravel]

Why is cloning considered wrong? I dunno. It's probably based on the incorrect idea that a clone would be just like you in every way. In reality even if a clone were a phenotype duplicate, there's no way it'd be the same person. You have life experiences that make you who you are, they would have different life experiences.

[UKking]

I think cloning is gross which has nothing to do with being crazy or religious, but I have to wonder what the benefit of cloning working dogs really is.

A puppy whether it's in the form of a clone or not still needs to be trained and like with any natural litter, each pup is going to have his or her own personality that may or may not be acceptable for his or her given job or position. i.e- If a cop works in the K-9 unit, his dog is often his partner while on the clock. If he has a dog that has aggression issues, that dog will not be on the force long as police trained dogs have to obey rules and never use aggression as their personal outlet for built up energy or frustration.

Puppies are not robots. Puppies like any other living species is going to have his or her own experiences and issues with any given specific thing so if people think that cloning will eliminate these types of issues, they are the ones with the sanity problems. Nevermind what cloning does to the health of a animal, but everybody seems to have forgotten about what ill-effects cloning had on Dolly.

I thought genocide was a thing of the past, however it seems to be coming back in a passive/ aggressive way. If these people want to do something honorable, why don't they put their foot down on puppymills, backyard breeders, ect and clean up the canine species as we know it today. When puppies are born with severe hip dyplasia, cloning isn't going to fix that. It's a human problem that nobody is going to bother to fix as it's more important to bitch about how expensive a plasma TV is.

The Koreans are looking to cash in like the Chinese with their baby adoptions. Sadly, this like China will make lots of money only they'll have dog factories instead of foster homes everywhere...

[MSD]

Originally Posted by genuinegirly

Stem cells have complete telomeres. We use these for cloning, ne? It's the somatic cells where you run into problems with the Hayflick limit. Even then, one should be able to mess with expression and induce telomerase. Isn't the TERT / TERC complex trans-acting?

I haven't seriously looked at cloning in years. That was my main concern last time I seriously discussed it, and it seems like that's gone (also that you know a lot more than I do about it.) I guess my only issue since that's fixed is that a human clone is likely to turn into a human science experiment or a lifelong sideshow exhibit through no fault of his own.

[guthmund]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Well, for me it's not a religious issue at all. I never really understand how non-religious people try to twist these things into religious issues. For me, it just feels wrong somehow. I am not worried about the souls bit. It's more of an ethics thing. Do clones have rights? Can I clone myself a lot and have me in different places? Can I clone myself for spare parts? That makes the most sense. i also don't trust the science. It seems so much could go wrong. Also, do we really need to clone more people? What wrong with the normal reproductive cycle?

That about sums it up for me as well.

In addition, how do we decide who gets cloned and who doesn't? How do you quantify "worthy?"