Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Back From the Dead: What Dog Cloning Means for Our Human Future

By Osagie K. Obasogie, AlterNet. Posted June 16, 2008.


Humans could be on a slippery slope towards Gattaca-like eugenics.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Good Morning America recently televised a world exclusive that caught many pet owners' attention: Dog cloning is now commercially available for people who want to bring their dead and dying companions back to life. Brought to you by BioArts International, a Northern California biotech startup, man and his dead best friend can now be, as the company's marketing slogan states, "Best Friends Again." And again. And again.

But it'll cost you. Rather than taking orders, BioArts will auction off five dog cloning slots in mid-June. Bids start at $100,000.

Despite Good Morning America's numerous awards for excellence in televised journalism, its coverage of this story was not its finest moment. A number of omissions and oversights led the segment to present dog cloning as a largely unproblematic way to deal with the grief of our pets' inevitable deaths. But several untold stories behind this story need to be put front and center.

The ABC morning show presented BioArts' CEO Lou Hawthorne as the next in a long line of pioneering Californian bio executives. But rather than being a new venture worthy of a televised exclusive, Hawthorne's company is an old dog's old trick. As recently as three years ago, Hawthorne headed a pet cloning company that offered $50,000 cloned cats. The effort was stunningly unsuccessful: After swallowing millions of investor dollars and being forced to refund many thousands to unsatisfied customers, the company folded and Hawthorne's career as pet cloner extraordinaire seemed firmly in the graveyard.

Good Morning America's lack of due diligence concerning Hawthorne's past carried over to its coverage of his dog cloning boutique. The segment failed to mention one of the most scandalous aspects of his business plan: partnering with Hwang Woo Suk. This former South Korean celebrity-scientist turned outcast has been indicted for embezzlement and numerous ethics violations in connection to his fraudulent 2005 claim that he had derived stem cells from cloned human embryos.

Put simply, Hwang Woo Suk is biotech's Barry Bonds: someone who cheated his way to stardom and has been ostracized for it. Though Hwang legitimately cloned the first dog three years ago, going into business with him is as questionable as starting a business with former Enron executive Jeff Skilling. The very fact that Hawthorne would partner with Hwang raises red flags about his commitment to using cloning technologies ethically, which bodes poorly for the dogs involved. And Good Morning America's glossing over such grave ethical concerns is troubling to say the least.

There are concerns beyond these two men trying to resurrect their careers by resurrecting people's dead pets. In the wake of Michael Vick's conviction for abusing dogs and the numerous questions surrounding Eight Belles' broken ankles at this year's Kentucky Derby, Good Morning America paid surprisingly little attention to how reproductive cloning endangers animal welfare.

While pet cloning entrepreneurs like to flaunt cute pictures of frolicking cloned puppies, the realities of cloning are sobering. According to a review of published scientific reports on animal cloning by the Humane Society and the American Anti-Vivisection Society -- two major animal welfare groups that strongly oppose pet cloning -- "3,656 cloned embryos, more than 319 egg donors, and 214 surrogate mothers have been used to produce just five cloned dogs ... able to survive 30 days past birth."

With such high failure rates, hundreds of surrogate dogs must endure significant pain and suffering to produce one cloned puppy. And the surviving cloned animals are typically riddled with serious health problems such as kidney failure, lung problems, and premature death. In discussing the abnormal gene expression thought to cause clones' health problems and abysmal survival rate, MIT cloning expert Rudolph Jaenisch put the matter succinctly: "There may be no normal clones." Good Morning America's failure to provide dog owners this perspective is astonishing.

Pet cloning abuses animals. Period. But its implications for humans are just as grave. If cloning becomes an accepted way to deal with the death of "man's best friend" -- who is often also considered a family member -- will we start to see entrepreneurs offering this technology to deal with the grief stemming from the loss of human life, perhaps to "replace" a son or daughter? If humans lose their individuality and come to be considered replicable to suit preexisting expectations, we may very well slide down the slippery slope towards Gattaca-like eugenics.

The way to prevent a Brave New World in which these and other related technologies are used to reconfigure basic human relationships is through vigorous public debate and sensible oversight. The United States currently does not have any federal laws governing the powerful new convergence of reproductive and genetic technologies -- including human reproductive cloning. The media can play an indispensable role in educating the public on these technologies' promise and perils while providing a forum for a robust exchange of thoughts. Sadly, Good Morning America missed this opportunity by a mile.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, eugenics, cloning, dog cloning, good morning america

Osagie K. Obasogie directs the project on Bioethics, Law, and Society at the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland, Calif. He also contributes regularly to the blog Biopolitical Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The rest of the story
Posted by: Crazy H on Jun 16, 2008 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fido's gone and they can't bring him back. Even though his clone has the same genes, he's not the same "person" - he's got different experiences and he sure as heck isn't going to have the same memories as Fido.

I worry that the distraught people shelling out their money won't understand that in their grief. (and the purveyors won't bother to point that up.)

He won't even look the same. Markings are partly due to random chance and partly due to the position he's in in the womb. You'll never see the same spots on another Dalmatian, nor the same distinctive markings on another Calico.

As they hinted at in the article, today they need to make scores of clones to get one good one. Do you want to think of those other maybe-Fido's as you're bringing yours home?

I've had pets all my life. It hurts when they go on, at least as much as when humans do. (At least humans understand what's happening.)

Even if they perfect the technology, Fido's still gone. Instead of trying to recapture a past you'll never have again, adopt a brand new puppy with a brand new life ahead of him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But the little souls...
Posted by: lioralourie on Jun 16, 2008 9:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The body will be pretty much the same, but the soul will not.

The eyes will not have the same glimmer of love their first beloved pet had....and the second one will most likely be beset by mysterious health problems to boot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Facts About BioArts
Posted by: liza8 on Jun 17, 2008 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To start, BioArts is cloning six dogs total. This project is completely unrelated to human cloning. In fact, BioArts is involved in cloning endangered species who otherwise could cease to exist.

Behavioral similarities are difficult to quantify. Genes influence two key components of behavior—intelligence and temperament—which is why golden retrievers tend to behave differently than pit bulls. Of course a clone doesn't inherit the memories and experiences of its genetic donor; it's a unique individual, like an identical twin born later. But if a clone is raised in a similar way as its genetic donor, you’ll probably see behavioral similarities, just as the late Missy's family has seen with Missy's clones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More...
Posted by: liza8 on Jun 17, 2008 11:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Additionally, allegations that dogs are mistreated during the cloning process have no basis in fact. The cloning of dogs, unlike that of livestock, entails only the highest veterinary and animal care protocols.

Scientific research takes time and resources—that shouldn’t be news to anyone. However over time methods are becoming increasingly efficient, which corresponds to higher success rates with a minimal adverse effects on dogs.

Consider the process of cloning dogs—the clone is a later born twin. Cloned dogs are as healthy as human babies produced via in vitro fertilization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hwang, Woo Suk is a good man
Posted by: juanperin on Jun 19, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a shame that articles like this perpetuate the bad image created by the media of this brilliant scientist. The scandals that he has been associated with were quite obviously setup and framed around Dr. Hwang. He was a poor country boy, who grew up surrounded by very difficult circumstances. His achievements are incredible, and he is truly one of the most amazing scientists of our time.

The scandals associated with Dr. Hwang stem from abuses that had occurred in association with his work, and unfortunately were ultimately all pinned on him. Much like many other Korean scandals, one honorable man will take the blame for all. His work is ground-breaking, and has the potential to change the world, more than it already has, and in a positive way.

I hope people will not read articles like this one, without understanding who the person really is, before jumping to conclusions. The comparisons made in this article are obviously made by someone who knows little fact about who Dr. Hwang really is. I've met him in person, and know he is incapable of such atrocities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement