The pet cloning industry received a boost in August when researchers in South Korea announced that they had produced the first cloned dog. The black and white Afghan hound is named Snuppy - short for Seoul National University Puppy
Snuppy was grown from an embryo containing DNA from the ear of a male Afghan hound. He was one of approximately 1,000 cloned embryos implanted into 123 surrogate mothers. Three pregnancies resulted; there was one miscarriage and two live births. Only Snuppy, whose surrogate mom was a Labrador, has survived.
The high embryo failure rate is an indication of the extreme scientific difficulties of cloning canines; for instance, females come into heat only once or twice a year, so the number of eggs that can be harvested and implanted is limited. The health and well being of the animals involved in the experiments is also called into question, in addition to concerns about the long-term health of the cloned animals. However, advocates of pet cloning have hailed the breakthrough in cloning canines as a ray of hope for people wanting to reproduce their cherished pets.
While the scientific researchers in South Korea emphasize that their goals are not to reproduce pets but to study human and animal disease, other entities have different priorities. A Bay Area firm, Genetics Saving & Clone Inc. (GS&C) has reportedly spent $10 million to date on its project to clone domestic pets. GS&C is the firm that sponsored the cloning of "CC" (Carbon Copy), the world's first cloned cat. It has since produced several cloned kittens, and reportedly plans to eventually clone thousands of pet cats and dogs annually.
Earlier this year GS&C mailed a promotional flyer to a number of Bay Area residents. Adorned with a molecular-shaped animal logo and photographs of smiling people hugging their cats, the text of the flyer proclaims cheerily that, "Discerning cat lovers agree; cloning is the best way to obtain another perfect cat." Critics of cloning maintain that this type of promotion preys on vulnerable pet owners. They point out that the belief that a clone will be a duplicate of the original is a fallacy. At best, cloning produces a physical replica, and it may not even do that. Nor is it known whether a pet clone will have the same personality as its genetic donor.
Nevertheless, companies like GS&C, which hopes to offer dog-cloning services in the future, have greeted the news of Snuppy's birth with satisfaction. On August 4, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that GS&C "is storing DNA samples from several hundred dogs in anticipation of producing clones for customers as early as next year."
The prospect of cloning dogs and cats may be enticing to some pet owners but it prompts a number of concerns, beginning with the urgent problem of pet overpopulation. Every year, in this country and around the world, millions of healthy, well-behaved, adoptable dogs and cats are euthanized because there just aren't enough homes for them all. With so many homeless companion animals, we believe that it is absolutely irresponsible to use extreme measures to create new ones. Granted, the number of clones is likely to be small, but the idea of cloning a pet undermines efforts to encourage adoption of the animals that are already living.
Cloning is also a questionable allocation of financial resources. Imagine how much good all the money spent of cloning experimentation, as well as on the cost of having an individual pet cloned (currently about $30,000 per cat), would do were it invested in research to cure common pet diseases, or to fund national spay/neuter programs, or to support sanctuaries and shelters for homeless companion animals.
Earlier this year California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (Democrat, Van Nuys), introduced legislation in Sacramento that would have regulated cloning technology and banned the transport and sale of cloned or genetically altered pets in California. Unfortunately, lawmakers rejected the bill. There are now moves to have the United States Department of Agriculture register, as research laboratories, companies that clone animals. These companies would then have to comply with the federal Animal Welfare Act, which sets minimum standards for animal care and use.
In the final analysis, we believe that cloning is a misguided response to the positive power of the human-animal bond, and the deep grief we experience when we lose a beloved pet. The connection we feel with our companion animals is not a product of genetics. It's the result of love given and received, of mutual support and caring, of countless shared experiences, day in and day out for years. It's about the "inside" of our pets, not the outside, the intangible but authentic qualities that constitute personality. There is no shortcut to the profound relationship we humans forge with our animal companions. Cloning circumvents that process, and shortchanges us with its simulation.
(This letter is an expanded version of an article which first appeared in the ANG newspapers.)
