This is a placeholder text
Group text
by geordiegaviino on 30 August 2010 - 15:08
We are all aware of the idea of cloning Mammoths and other extinct animals. We have got one step closer by cloning living creatures like Dolly the Sheep.
Some people prefer to not use the science of "cloning" to fix the problems that humanity has caused but to create a whole set of new problems "Pet cloning". The first commercially cloned pet was a cat named Little Nicky, produced in 2004 by Genetic Savings & Clone for a north Texas woman for the fee of US$50,000.
"Clone a Cat, Go To Jail
...or at least pay a fine. That's the goal of animal welfare activists who announced recently that they are seeking state and federal restrictions on the small but growing pet-cloning industry.
The effort has been spearheaded by the American Anti-Vivisection Society [AAVS] (in suburban Philadelphia), and takes aim at companies such as Genetic Savings and Clone Inc., the California company that began to fill orders for cloned cats last year. The clones - which have sold for $50,000 each - are genetic duplicates of a customer's deceased pet and represent the leading edge of an emerging sector that advocates predict could eventually reap billions of dollars for corporate cloners. The movie, the 6th Day , starring the erstwhile governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, features pet cloning businesses in a shopping mall during its opening sequences. It may soon be the case that life imitates art in this respect and pet cloning franchises may start popping up in common shopping venues. But not if the AAVS have their way." - http://marylandpet.com/pet-scoops-animal-news/publish/should-you-clone-your-cat.shtml
So what are your views? Would you consider this new trend?
Cloned Species
Tadpole: (1952) Many scientists questioned whether cloning had actually occurred and unpublished experiments by other labs were not able to reproduce the reported results.
Carp: (1963) In China, embryologist Tong Dizhou produced the world's first cloned fish by inserting the DNA from a cell of a male carp into an egg from a female carp. He published the findings in a Chinese science journal.
Mice: (1986) A mouse was the first successfully cloned mammal. Soviet scientists Chaylakhyan, Veprencev, Sviridova, and Nikitin had the mouse "Masha" cloned. Research was published in the magazine "Biofizika" volume ХХХII, issue 5 of 1987.
Sheep: (1996) From early embryonic cells by Steen Willadsen. Megan and Morag cloned from differentiated embryonic cells in June 1995 and Dolly the sheep from a somatic cell in 1997.
Rhesus Monkey: Tetra (January 2000) from embryo splitting
Gaur: (2001) was the first endangered species cloned.
Cattle: Alpha and Beta (males, 2001) and (2005) Brazil
Cat: CopyCat "CC" (female, late 2001), Little Nicky, 2004, was the first cat cloned for commercial reasons
Dog: Snuppy, a male Afghan hound was the first cloned dog (2005).
Rat: Ralph, the first cloned rat (2003)
Mule: Idaho Gem, a john mule born 4 May 2003, was the first horse-family clone.
Horse: Prometea, a Haflinger female born 28 May 2003, was the first horse clone.
Water Buffalo: Samrupa was the first cloned water buffalo. It was born on February 6, 2009, at India's Karnal National Diary Research Institute but died five days later due to lung infection.
Camel: (2009) Injaz, is the first cloned camel.
by jc.carroll on 30 August 2010 - 19:08
I think people may very well wind up sorely disappointed with the new pet neither acts, nor looks!, identically to the old one.
Ethically, I have no problems with animals getting cloned. I'm on the fence about cloning people. I don't know if cloned pets will ever become common-place, and if they do certainly a whole new set of rules would have to be established for showing/breeding in animal competitions. I am not sure I'd want a clone of an animal, because that animal was the sum of his experiences, not just his genetics, that made him "great."
One can duplicate his genes, but no one can duplicate who he was.
by bobby999 on 30 August 2010 - 19:08
by muldoon on 30 August 2010 - 21:08
by geordiegaviino on 30 August 2010 - 22:08
Cloning shouldnt be played with. I did some more research after doing this topic and i found that some companies are claiming they can give people clones of themselves and help them start a "modern" family by using cloning technology.
www.clonaid.com is one of these companies!
by muldoon on 30 August 2010 - 22:08
'Cloning shouldn't be played with' LMAO. You may want to do some more research then into what is involved in cloning. You clearly don't have a clue. Your use of the internet highlights a lack of critical thinking. 'Scientific research' as you call it - what the hell is that? It needs defined. We can hide behind such terms, but when you get down to it this is still a bigger topic than your thread even touches on. We can all cut and paste off websites and post threads, but it doesn't necessarily make for intelligent discussion, so I'm out.
by geordiegaviino on 30 August 2010 - 22:08
Never said i had more knowledge of cloning than the basics. I made this topic out of interest from a pet owners point of view. It wasnt meant to be post about the science behind it but the morals about what is right and wrong.
So Muldoon considering you dont need any sites to copy off or read up on then let us all know your personally views and educated views. Cause am almost certain your claiming you have some level education in this area. Let look into this from a educated point and not a personal "view"
by muldoon on 30 August 2010 - 22:08
by geordiegaviino on 31 August 2010 - 00:08
Muldoon your, your own worse enemy. You judge others but fail to prove that you personally have any better knowledge of the facts. Am sorry if i dont get your logic but am guessing you want specific posts about specific things but when you have the same posts they get boring and no one would use the site. A little versatile post here and there wont do this site any harm and "pet" cloning can happen and so deserves a place to be discussed. You didnt have to comment. You could of just ignored this post. You might aswell finish it and express your views personally and "if" you have a educated mind in this matter then please go ahead and explain your views from a educated individual.
by darylehret on 31 August 2010 - 04:08
Who better to determine the fallacy of hoping for an exact clone of character and temperament than the former owner of the said pet? Let it be done, and people will sooner catch on that it's just not the same "Fluffy" that once was, without having to dream and wonder "what if"?
The science of cloning is young, and because of the imaginary worlds and oversimplified teachings of entertainment media, most people don't grasp that it's not "just" dna, but also the environment and experience that shape the composition of character and behavior. Even the clones will be composed of dna transcription errors, or the regulation of gene expression at various chomosome loci isn't guaranteed to be switched on/off exactly as the parent clone's.
The science of evolutionary development (evo-devo) is only a couple decades young. And while there's dozens of books, tv specials and school textbooks teaching the latest knowledge, look how long anything takes to become commonly acceptable doctrine in science. Dispatching of "old school" beliefs is usually the biggest hindrance for fabulous breakthroughs. We have members of this very forum belittling others for their lack of knowlege, when their own understanding of genetics is very base, and at times, incorrect. It's a lot easier to teach something than it is to un-teach it.
Cloning isn't a threat, and it isn't a promise either. It's just another form of artificial selection, and a new step in evolution.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top