December 24, 2004


California company sells cloned cat, generating ethics debate (PAUL ELIAS, December 22, 2004, AP)

The first cloned-to-order pet sold in the United States is named Little Nicky, an eight-week-old kitten delivered to a Texas woman saddened by the loss of a cat she had owned for 17 years.

The kitten cost its owner $50,000 and was cloned from a beloved cat, named Nicky, that died last year. Nicky's owner banked the cat's DNA, which was used to create the clone.

"He is identical. His personality is the same," the woman told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

The company, Sausalito-based Genetic Savings and Clone, made her available to speak to reporters only on condition that her name or hometown not be used. The woman said she fears being the target of groups opposed to cloning. [...]

Genetic Savings and Clone has been behind the creation of at least five cats since 2001, including the first one created. It hopes to deliver as many as five more clones to customers who have paid the company's $50,000 fee. By the end of next year, it hopes to have cloned as many as 50 cats.

The company is backed by John Sterling, founder of the University of Phoenix, who has funneled more than $10 million into the company, which has yet to turn a profit.

It'll surprise no one to hear that Mr. Sterling is part of the cabal, along with George Soros and the rest, who spent tens of millions trying to defeat George W. Bush so that they can impose their amoral agenda on America.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 24, 2004 8:58 AM

A fool and her money . . .

The oddest thing about this story is that they probably did go through the bother of cloning the cat, rather than find a stray with a passing resemblance, as any self-respecting swindler would do.

Posted by: David Cohen at December 24, 2004 9:26 AM

You have to admit though, "Genetic Savings and Clone" is a great name for a business. It's much more clever than the babble that businessmen usually come up with.

Posted by: Brandon at December 24, 2004 9:43 AM

Well, they could have called the place "Copy Cat" I suppose, but that would have given the public a limited idea of how many species they were willing to Xerox in a test tube for the right price (and I would guess unless the Teaxs woman got a five-legged, twin-tailed feline back from California, she's probably going to convince herself it's an exact duplicate of her original puss, whether it is or not).

Posted by: John at December 24, 2004 10:12 AM

Is it amoral to clone a cat?

Posted by: Bret at December 24, 2004 12:08 PM


Posted by: oj at December 24, 2004 12:11 PM

That's news to me. Is it amoral to clone a seedless orange tree too? I'd better stop eating fruit.

Posted by: Bret at December 24, 2004 12:22 PM

Oops. It's early. I read amoral as immoral. Sure, I'll agree that cloning is neither moral nor immoral. Ignore last questions. Sorry.

Posted by: Bret at December 24, 2004 12:26 PM

In what way is it immoral? (or amoral or whatever)
Just an animal, after all.

Posted by: h-man at December 24, 2004 12:51 PM


Because it's being done without consideration for the being so created. When the cat turns out not to have its predecesors disposition, how will she react?

Posted by: oj at December 24, 2004 1:01 PM

How is the University of Phoenix in business? It is merely a diploma mill, scaming its customers. Sterling is a fraudster along the lines of Professor Harold Hill.

Thankfully one doesn't need to clone Corgis. They shed enough in a month to manufacture another Corgi, should it become necessary. If I did clone George, I'd be so concerned about monitoring changed behavior that I wouldn't enjoy his presence like I do now and it would make him almost as neurotic as I am.

Posted by: Bart at December 24, 2004 5:47 PM

This is just practice.

These guys want to live forever.

Posted by: Uncle Bill at December 24, 2004 6:03 PM