FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Here we go again...

Snuppy

---

Back in the saddle!

I saw this on the news last night and was not amused. There are too many unwanted animals already, without creating new ones. I have seen a lot of curelty in my life and am not above turning some of them in - which I have on several occasions, but this is just WRONG!
My oldest dog died of melanoma in Aug. 2002. I miss her, but would not consider doing this. My other dog is nearly seventeen and I would not consider cloning her either -- a black female chow, named Sneaker Bear.
It's a wierd world we live in, is all I can say. I do hope the puppy in this article has a good life - not it's fault how it came into the world.
Take care.

My biggest concern with all this is, will they now think it's more OK to use these cloned animals for research than they normally would? I mean, we know this puppy is going to be tested quite a bit, becasue they wouldnt close an animal without studying thouroughly what the aftereffects will be. I dunno, I don't like where this all is going...

---

Back in the saddle!

I agree, just what do they plan on doing with this? I understand that they had a hard time cloning this dog with a lot of puppies that either didn't come out right (perhaps horribly deformed) or died at birth. I think it is cruel to play with life this way.

My husband just asked our dog if she would like to have a little carbon copy of herself to play with. The look she gave us said it all!

Who said it was to be utilized for commonplace use? No one has, as of yet, cloned a dog for personal enjoyment, not to say that it wouldn’t be feasible? What exactly, might I ask, is wrong with cloning a beloved pet that say, was run over by a tractor?

For the win, dogs are currently being used in laboratory testing in many places around the world. Morality issues pertaining to testing on cloned animals should be discarded thusly. Cloned dogs supply scientists with an unlimited amount of identical genetic material; efficient for many procedures.


Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 05-Aug-2005 12:01

I understand that they had a hard time cloning this dog with a lot of puppies that either didn't come out right (perhaps horribly deformed) or died at birth.

Yes, they had a hard time, but it wasn't exactly how you said. There was one miscarriage, and one puppy that died of pneumonia 22 days after birth. No horrible deformities, at least not yet.

---

They shade the glow of it with their mossy-misty costumes,
They wear masks of silk, porcelain, brass, and silver,
So as not to mislead with their own, ordinary faces.

Ah, the technology versus ethics problem looms large again.

The basic facts on the table before us here are:

[1] One successful puppy cloning has taken place;
[2] Cloning dogs is proving to be a formidable technical exercise, and one that will require a large research input (both in terms of intellect and finance) to increase the success rate;
[3] The scientists involved in the project are primarily motivated by disease research, both from the standpoint of human and veterinary medicine.

Of course it's easy to envisage nightmare scenarios in which the technology is misused. But by way of analogy, consider this: the same technology (i.e., organic chemistry) that allows usto produce antibiotics to treat human diseases, can also be used to produce nerve gases that kill thousands. Does the existence of the latter misuse mean that we should abandon the entire field of endeavour, and deny ourselves the benefits of the former use? Of course not. The same applies here.

However, one big difference (and the point where the analogy breaks down) is that we are, potentially, venturing into uncharted ethical waters. And here, I would suggest that the appropriate approach would be to devote a decent slab of intellectual resources to exploring those ethical waters before we find ourselves running aground on rocks.

Cloned and transgenic mice are now used routinely in labs for research. I have compelling reasons for supporting this (recent advances in research pertaining to Alzheimer's and autistic spectrum conditions to name two), and have no problem with carefully considered medical research involving cloned dogs. While I personally consider cloning pets to be an extravagance that we can do without, the proper process for dealing with an issue such as this is: [1] expert consuiltation; [2] release of said consultation into the public domain; [3] public debate on the issue; [4] application of the democratic political process to the foregoing. Whether cloning pets is in some sense 'wrong' is not a question with an easy yes/no answert, and careful consideration of the minutiae of detail may reveal unexpected consequences in other areas which we should be prepared to face.

Once again, I'm back to a favourite chestnut of mine. This is yet another example of where sitting down and doing some serious hard thinking - preferably in advance of the technological leap instead of after it as here - goes a long way toward avoiding messy pitfalls later. Just like setting up an aquarium. Forethought is hard work, but makes what comes after a lot less problematic and a lot more rewarding. Now, can someone please do us all a favour and drill this notion into a few heads that seem to need it, particularly among various figures in positions of power?

Thank you and goodnight.


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

In my oppinion, cloning of animals for purposes of research is fine, so long as the clones are treated decently (ie, not being treated as "less" than a normally concieved puppy).

As for pets... I hold the same oppinion for cloned dogs as I do for Glofish (as pets): It's unneccesary. Your spaniel got run over by a car? Yes, it's terrible, and I sometimes think there are pets I'd like to bring back, but at the same time my family has gotten equal amounts of joy from the animals we adopted or bought later. There is no guarantee that a cloned kitten would grow into the same cat you once had; unless it was raised in identical conditions, it would likely only LOOK the same.

But, I'm sure the rich and desperate will be clamouring for this service nonetheless.

As long as they don't clone humans, I'm content.

I'm so adjective, I verb nouns!

"Of these, one miscarried and one died soon after birth: only Snuppy remains." Hum, I wonder why?
It is all a matter of greed, and what people are willing to pay. If someone thinks something will make a profit.....
As for animals for research, don't those animals feel pain like the ones they were cloaned from?
Sneaker had it right when she gave me that look. Dogs are pretty smart creatures!

yea, i thought that it would be cool to have my dog buddy cloned so i could go back and breed him once..but...it occurred to me after reading this, that, he most likely will only look the same he probly wouldent be nearly as smart, i dont have what his life was before i adoped him, but i know it was badbut, he wouldjust be a buddy look alike, not realy a clone, just a twin...but yea, i would love to adopt another dog later after hes gone, give another dog a chance buddy's having a great run and having a look alike wont make it any easier loosing him when he dies..if anything, it will be worse always having that little puppy looking at you, not knowing...about how he came, and not having any memories...so yea changed my mind, buddy is one of a kind, and i am blessed for the time we are allowed with him buddy

Fishy Helper,
My dog is old too, so I know where you are comming from. She has a lot of problems, had to have surgery on both knees when she was younger, has really bad knees and hips, kidney disease and arthritis. I take her in every two weeks for accupuncture treatments (I highly recommend) and shots for her arthritis. She is getting cataracts and had to have surgery a couple of years ago to remove some non-cancerous tumors. I have had her since she was six weeks old, and in spite of all of these things, I would not take anything for her.
Sure, with cloneing, most of these things might have been prevented, but I don't care. I love her, warts and all, and a cloned reproduction would not be the same. I am going to miss her when she is gone, just like I miss Pookey, the blue chow, that died in 2002 - but I will always have the memories, and no one can take those away.
I don't know if I will ever get another dog once Sneaker passes on, but if I do, it will not be like her or Pookey. If you have it in you heart to take another pet, please do, as there are so many that need homes.
You are a good person Fishy Helper.
Take care.
P.S. Your Buddy, looks a little like my Sneaker.

Last edited by Two Tanks at 04-Aug-2005 20:55

thank you (aww now i feel special) he does have any pics? my budd hads a purple toungue with black spots girly legs, alot of fluffy black fur, and a curly tail

"It is all a matter of greed, and what people are willing to pay. If someone thinks something will make a profit.....
As for animals for research, don't those animals feel pain like the ones they were cloaned from?
Sneaker had it right when she gave me that look. Dogs are pretty smart creatures! "

Animals have been used for research since god knows how long, it is a fact of life, and the fruits of its labor have undoubtedly helped someone you know and love. Perhaps it may be for profit, but this profit helps save man, many lives each year. It is, IMO, unreasonable to assume that the procedure of animal testing would be any the worse should it be administered upon a cloned animal.

Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 05-Aug-2005 12:00

This is my last post of this subject, but I have one more thing to address.
If you think cloned animals will not feel any more/ less pain than non-cloned animals think again. I must warn you that these websites are not for the sensitive or those with weak stomachs:
http://stopanimaltest.com
http://iamscruelty.com
I found another site that did genetic testing that enables the person to order his dog/cat with specific genetic traits, but did not write it down. It was not cheap.
I am sorry if this upsets you, but some people really don't know what it involves.
Goodby.

"If you think cloned animals will not feel any more/ less pain than non-cloned animals think again."

Of course cloned animals feel pain; they are morphologically identical to their donors. No one here said that cloned organisms do not respond to stimuli as well as their "parent" organisms do, because that would be utterly preposterous.

"I am sorry if this upsets you, but some people really don't know what it involves."

I am not working at the radiation oncology branch of the National Institute of Health for no reason. I eradiate mice tumors with isotopes traveling via antibodies (the last part thus far has been largely speculative and is not under working order yet). Yes, we do inject mice with tumor templates (cell lines which develop into tumors). Yes, some do die. But, this research has yielded multiple research papers and has saved a fair share of human lives already.










Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 05-Aug-2005 15:47