Puppy Cloning: Why Clone When You Can Adopt?
In recent news, a commercial animal laboratory located in Korea developed a procedure that involves using tissue from an adult dog to create cloned puppies. While the article did not go into much detail about the actual process, its main focus was major opposing and supporting sides of the issue.
Lou Hawthorne, head of BioArts International, spent approximately 10 years and $25 million creating clones of his mother’s adored mixed-breed dog. Although the dog died in 2002, a sample of tissue was collected in the ‘90s, and this tissue was then used to make three cloned dogs. These dogs are not only physically similar with the same coloring and markings, but also exhibit similar behavioral characteristics. With this recent technology, Hawthorne is now “auctioning� off the opportunity for five pet owners to clone their beloved dogs, thus creating a sort of elixir of life – at a cost. The bidders ended up paying a price somewhere between $140,000 and $170,000.
Supporters of pet cloning argue that “canine fabrication� is not a new idea. For the last 15,000, humans have shaped dogs to better serve human interests. Dogs evolved from wolves, so it is their ability to be easily domesticated and shaped that makes them dogs. Originally, there weren’t different purebred breeds or popular mixed breeds. These are “modern inventions� that were made by breed standards in order to make dogs more useful, physically attractive, compatible, and enjoyable to be around. Supporters also assure that the dogs are treated well. They say the surgeries are quick and less invasive than common procedures, such as spaying and neutering, and the animals are sedated to avoid pain. Hawthorne’s biotech firm includes a clause in the contract ensuring that the lab either keep and take care of the animal or it must be adopted, so euthanasia is not an occurrence.
However, the opposing side, mainly the Humane Society and the American Anti-Vivisection (AAVS), argues that pet cloning is “cruel, manipulative, and pointless.� They feel it is wrong to reap financial benefit by “exploiting grieving pet widows.� Furthermore, taking an animal and simply duplicating it demoralizes the animal and compares it to an “object that can be manufactured.� Most importantly, the opposing side is concerned with the welfare of the animals, arguing that no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors. Cloning just one animal actually involves many, and, according to the Humane Society and the AAVS, all of these animals are confined and “subjected to painful hormone treatments and invasive surgeries.� In addition, animals also often suffer from birth defects and have high mortality rates. In response the cloning, foes have called upon legislative action to, at the very least, regulate the process.
I have mixed emotions on the morality of cloning pets. First and foremost, I think it is important to uphold strict regulations that ensure the welfare of the animal. If that is taken care of, I do not see anything ethically wrong with allowing pet owners to, in essence, have their dog to live forever. It doesn’t seem to hurt anyone. Using the technology for profit seems like an everyday part of life – everyone has to make money. However, I do feel that animals deserve at least comparable rights to humans. We do not allow human cloning, so why should we allow the cloning of pets?
Despite my mixed emotions on the ethics of pet cloning, I felt the opposition overlooked one glaring fact, and this fact is the basis of my disagreement with pet cloning. America makes the general claim of loving pets – millions of homes have household pets (63%), and billions of dollars are used to care for those pets (2). However, according to the Humane Society of the United States, more than 3-4 million cats and dogs are euthanized in shelters nationwide (1). Often times, they are perfectly healthy, friendly animals that would make adorable pets. Furthermore, the Humane Society estimates that 25% of these animals are purebred. Sadly enough, these animals never get a chance to be the great companions they could be. Instead, they are tossed away like a piece of a trash.
For those who aren’t as heartfelt about the overpopulation crisis’s affect on animals, know that it also affects humans. Each year, 4.5 million people suffer from dog bites (3). These bites are not caused by “bad dogs,� but rather dogs that are simply unfamiliar with and frightened by humans. If they had loveable homes, they would likely not exhibit such behavioral problems. Furthermore, each year cities spend millions of taxpayer (meaning you) dollars to the control population crisis (3).
It seems illogical that, in order to combat the pet overpopulation crisis, we are going to introduce new techniques to clone pets, thus creating even more. I understand that, as of now, cloning plays virtually no role in the population problem - it is too new and way too expensive. However, if this cloning continues, eventually it will become mainstream, and who’s to say that millions of animals will not be produced? This will leave even more unwanted animals that die each year due to lack of a home and food. Rather than allowing pet owners to create replicas of their already adored pets, we should encourage people to save a life and adopt a new, loveable pet.
Pets have proven benefits for humans. Pets teach people of all age virtuous traits, such as responsibility, loyalty, empathy, sharing, and love (4). Development of these traits is especially important in children, who, through the process of caring for a pet, also learn to care for other humans. Pets serve in many animal-assisted therapies, and they also help people who have medical or physical ailments (4). People with dogs are often healthier with lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels, since they experience increased physical activity by walking their dog (4). Pets can lessen feelings of isolation and loneliness, while reducing stress and depression (4). Happier people are healthier people.
With all of these benefits, I encourage everyone to have a pet. Furthermore, adopting a pet can add new meaning to one’s life, and the experience can be extremely rewarding. It is completely unnecessary, and even somewhat selfish, to clone your dog because you feel it is the only one that give you satisfaction, especially when there are millions of pets waiting to be adopted.
Sources:
1. “Why You Should Spay and Neuter Your Pet.� 9 Feb 2008. Humane Society of the United States. 13 Nov 2008. http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/why_you_should_spay_or_neuter_your_pet.html.
2. “Pet Overpopulation and Ownership Statistics.� 7 Jul 2008. Humane Society of the United States. 13 Nov 2008. http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/
3. “The Crisis of Pet Overpopulation.� 4 May 2007. Humane Society of the United States. 13 Nov 2008. http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/the_crisis_of_pet_overpopulation.html
4. “How Pets Help People.� 11 Apr 2008. Human Society of the United States. 13 Nov 2008. http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/how_pets_help_people/
Comments
The ethics behind pet cloning are very complex, to say the least. I was very impressed by the author's ability to widely cover the said complexities of such cloning, and it was very comprehensive. However, I am in disagreement with the author's motives behind their stance against pet cloning.
It may be true that pet cloning is relatively harmless these days albeit one can never really know what truly happens, "no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors" (1). In this light, I find it impossible to believe that there are absolutely no mistakes in the cloning process. Perhaps it is my imagination, but whenever I think about it I see puppies with two heads or six legs. It may be a bit over the top, but small genetic abnormalities (e.g. internal organ or psychological defects) that are not visible to the naked eye may be present.
I do believe that cloning a pet can be good, given the right circumstances. If a pet will truly be missed by its owner, why not bring it back? I can understand the propensity for a pet owner to want to clone their pet, but on a personal note, it is simply not for me. It may be confusing to see a a pet's life cycle two times or more within one's own, and perhaps depressing if the pet was not healthy or happy the second or third time around.
The author claimed that increases in pet cloning would be causal to increases in pet overpopulation. This is not logical, and there are many ways to dissect this argument. While pet overpopulation is a true problem (3-4 million euthanized pets a year is absurd), there is no reason to believe that increases in cloning would exacerbate this problem. If pet cloning were to be commercialized, the price for such a procedure would go down, but it is unlikely that that price would dip below the cost for a spay/neuter procedure. If a person is interested in cloning their pet, it is very likely that they would have the interest and resources in order to spay or neuter their pet as well. Obviously, a spayed or neutered pet is less likely to contribute to overpopulation, as it cannot reproduce. Furthermore, a pet owner(s) is more likely to be able to handle one pet versus however many more as a result of reproduction.
By the author's logic, it is to be assumed that millions of pets will be produced by commercialized cloning. Perhaps, by similar logic, it can be assumed that commercialized cloning will lead to millions of new, intimate and cherished relationships with pets that will be spayed or neutered, and given a home for multiple lifetimes -- out of a respect for that animal as an individual. Frankly, it is impossible to say either way. I would like to conclude that I do support pet adoption in the meantime, it is a very wise decision instead of supporting commercialized pet retail.
1. harpe174 - "Puppy Cloning: Why Clone When You Can Adopt" (The above document).
Posted by: Reid Olson | November 17, 2008 12:33 AM
Reading this article made me keep thinking about my dog that I had to leave behind at home for my parents to take care of. Her name is Windsor and she is a yellow lab. She will be turning 7 this January. I realize that her time is coming in the next couple of years and I do not want to start thinking that about right now. I got her for my 12th birthday. I know later on in my life I will have many other dogs. As stated, dogs bring happiness and even proven health benefits. I do not think I would ever want to clone Windsor. It would be weird just looking at her because really she is dead but she is not at the same time.
Now I am not going to go through all of the different author’s articles and fisk them. Really I do not have any problem against cloning pets. Some people love their pet and if they could have it forever, I am sure most would choose that. In my opinion there shouldn’t be any laws against it. Why would government need to interfere in a subject matter such as this? Also the pet owner will have to live with any defects that the pet might experience through the cloning procedure. Personally, I would not pay $140,000 to have my pet cloned. At that point I say sorry Windsor, I love you but that is a ton of money.
Thus, pet owners should have the right to choose if they want to clone their pet. It is not for me but other pet owners find this information very intriguing. Their decision should not affect anyone else besides themselves. Maybe they will start naming these new cloned pets “Fluffy 2.0.�
Beato, Greg. "Man's Best Friend Forever." Reasononline. Oct. 2008. 17 Nov. 2008 http://www.reason.com/news/show/128654.html.
Masterson, Ursula O. "Cloning pets: In search of Fluffy 2.0." MSNBC. 2008. 17 Nov. 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076926/.
Posted by: Nate Miller | November 17, 2008 8:50 PM
This is a very interesting subject, but the answer in my opinion is very clear. We should not be cloning our pets, for any reason. In fact while reading the position statement, I couldn’t stop thinking about how ridiculous it was that people would actually want to make their pets immortal. My point has barely anything to do with cruelty or animal injustice. Even though I will agree that cloning is hardly the most natural procedure. I just can’t understand why someone would want the same exact pet that they had before. In fact, I think that it blemishes and ruins the memories of the original dog.
My parents got my dog Bonnie just before I was born. I grew up with that dog, and was deeply saddened when she died about five years ago. Just recently my family got a new puppy of a different breed. While I still miss Bonnie, I love my new dog in a different but just as sincere way. It would just be way too weird for me, if my family was to pay for a new clone dog of Bonnie. The dog would probably look exactly like Bonnie, and probably even act like Bonnie. However, on the inside I would know that that dog was not the Bonnie I knew, and this would bother me very much. It is human to have a loss, and to grieve for that loss however long it takes. But I think that it is also human to move on from the loss and make something good out of it.
Posted by: Dan Tipping | November 19, 2008 8:26 PM
agree that the idea of a person cloning his or her current pet rather than simply adopting a homeless pet from an animal shelter or humane society is unnecessary and somewhat selfish. As you stated, there are many perfectly good pets in need of adoption, that would make someone a really good pet. There is nothing wrong with these pets, they are usually attractive, well-behaved animals that due to circumstances, have no home or owners to care for them. There is no need for a person to clone his or her pet, when there are many pets waiting in shelters to be adopted. The simple fact that many pets are being euthanized because the shelters are unable to find a home for them should be enough to encourage any true animal lover to adopt, rather than clone. Countering one problem with another problem simply leads to more problems. There is already an overpopulation issue with many animals, as stated in your position statement, and I agree entirely that it is entirely irrational to clone pets, thus making for an even larger population. This idea will continue to be promoted for its capability to bring in potentially large amounts of revenue, however, this reason alone should not be a legitimate means of making such a practice acceptable. So-called “research ethics� are considered when regulating what sorts of scientific research receive federal funding and government approval. Such an idea should be applied to, not only the cloning of humans, but also the cloning of animals and processes such as these should not be allowed to become commonplace.
Posted by: megan lampert | November 20, 2008 11:47 AM
my dog is 10
she will die soon
i will miss her
but i shall not clone her
Posted by: anonomous | April 6, 2009 12:59 PM