November 23, 2004
SAVINGS AND CLONE SCANDAL:
Cloning kitty: A California company is selling cloning technology to pet owners. (Michael B. Farrell, 11/24/04, CS Monitor)
[P]roblems could range from health maladies resulting in the cloned pet's early death or other birth defects and shortened life spans, he says. Others say there are already too many homeless cats and dogs in shelters. Some wonder why anyone would want to spend so much money when most cats cost nothing.But Ben Carlson, vice president of communications for GSC, says those issues have been exaggerated by cloning opponents. About 23 percent of all animals born through cloning do have cloning-related health problems. The company's website says, "Fortunately, this has not yet been the case in pet-cloning research. We're investing millions in developing embryo-assessment technology to ensure that each cloned embryo we transfer to a surrogate mother is normal, and will develop into a healthy cloned pet."
Another complaint about cloning is that animals born through chromatin transfer, the process Genetic Savings & Clone uses, are perceived to have much shorter life spans. "The theory that clones would age prematurely has not proven to be correct. However, the issue has developed a life of its own, and the perception, I would go so far as to say myth, about premature aging in clones is now quite widespread." [...]
But right now, GSC is not a money-making operation, says Carlson. It is all being supported by one billionaire investor named John Sperling who loved a dog named Missy.
Mr. Sperling, founder of the Apollo Group, a for-profit educational company, wanted to clone his adopted mutt because she had "exceptional characteristics." He ended up spending $3.7 million to fund the Missyplicity Project at Texas A&M University. The project eventually cloned the first cat, CC (short for Copy Cat) in December 2001. But cloning a dog proved much too difficult then because of the unique characteristics of the canine's physiology, but GSC promises they'll be able to offer the service next year.
After the researchers perfected the technique to produce cloned cats from cell tissue, Sperling and partner Lou Hawthore, now the CEO of GSC, branched out from the laboratory to offer clones commercially.
It should surprise no one that Mr. Sperling is part of the cabal of billionaires who met in Aspen this year to plot how to defeat George Bush, whoi stands in the way of such evil practices as cloning and the drug legalization that George Soros, another participant, seeks. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 23, 2004 11:59 PM
Do you consider it evil to clone a cat?
Posted by: Timothy at November 24, 2004 12:18 AMOf course.
Posted by: oj at November 24, 2004 12:21 AMWould it be evil to tell people that you have cloned their pet, when all you really did was charge them a whole lot of money for a new pet that happens to look a lot like their old one? Because that's what I'm thinking of doing.
Posted by: carter at November 24, 2004 3:50 AMWhat is so wrong about cloning anyway?
Identical twins are basically clones aren't they?
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 24, 2004 5:46 AMM Ali
Nothing wrong with "a" clone or with the process of cloning per se. The presumption that there will be killing, dismembement, and trashing of fetuses is what makes it wrong for me. Especially when done for trite issues.
OJ
No one can accuse you of trivializing a serious issue, now can they? Are you a vegetarian? A member of PETA?
Ali:
No. People clone in order to try duplicating what are distinct beings.
Posted by: oj at November 24, 2004 8:23 AMIf a manmade clone in intended as a "replacement" or "duplicate" of another person, is that not a denial of the uniqueness of the individual?
Posted by: Mike Morley at November 24, 2004 11:12 AMCloning humans may be evil if it requires killing embryos.
Cloning animals is a scam.
Cloning anything hoping for do-it-yourself reincarnation is delusional.
Now, who can explain the connection between multiple personality disorder and cloning?
Posted by: David Cohen at November 24, 2004 12:10 PMThere is nothing evil about the process of cloning. The thing itself is fine. What is evil is that many human fetuses would be destroyed after "conception." Far more ghastly, the imperfections of the cloning process would lead to birth defects, physical and mental pain and suffering, shortened lifespans, and other maladies. No human (or cat) should have to suffer one iota for science, at least not without signing a waiver first.
Also, mostly just to pique the Judds, I would point out that it's never a good idea to limit a gene pool the way that cloning invariably would. Natural selection and all...
Posted by: Seven Machos at November 24, 2004 12:13 PMDavid:
The point being there's no other reason to clone except to try and reincarnate.
Posted by: oj at November 24, 2004 12:14 PMSeven:
Queen Elizabeth is a billionaire--the limited gene pool worked out pretty good.
Posted by: oj at November 24, 2004 12:24 PMLook at the odds:
1) Nine out of ten cloned mammal embryos will spontaneously miscarry.
2) Of the survivors that make it to term, nine out of ten will have crippling-to-fatal birth defects.
3) Of those survivors, all will be clearly abnormal, from vastly-enlarged navels to premature aging (apparently based on the age of the DNA donor) to late-surfacing birth defects.
4) And in any case, a clone is not the original. It is a completely-separate individual, a "younger twin" of the DNA donor.
But of course, none of this matters to Baby Boomers whose eyes sparkle with the idea of Immortality! I WILL LIVE FOREVER THROUGH MY CLONE WHO IS REALLY ME! (Never mind that even a perfect clone would not be them.)
And none of this matters to those who want their dead child or pet ("furkid") back as if nothing had happened. (Spielberg/Kubrick's A.I. with biologicals instead of robotics...) And what happens when the cloned kid/pet is a separate individual, NOT the original?
Posted by: Ken at November 24, 2004 12:29 PMWhat about mammoths? I want to clone a mammoth.
Posted by: Timothy at November 24, 2004 3:37 PMOJ:
"Queen Elizabeth is a billionaire--the limited gene pool worked out pretty good."
Maybe, but just look at Charles!
Posted by: Brit at November 25, 2004 3:58 AMBrit:
He's a powerful billionaire who snagged Di. That's as good as it gets.
Posted by: oj at November 25, 2004 9:39 AM