Question:
<snip Imagine a new disease, against which no remaining humans possessed the inborn capacity to build anti-bodies.
Unfortunately, I suffer from the burden of a reasonably decent knowledge of immunology. Mildly ignoring there are multiple types of antibody, I suggest that such a radical change in immune system response would be incompatible with life.
Response:
On 2004-12-23, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned: "Surgery" on an embryo to eliminate genetically linked diseases like cystic fibrosis makes sense. Preventing birth defects is certainly a desireable goal, too. But to carry it further than that – to enable the prospective parents to "choose" for hair and eye color, height or other unimportant physical attributes – IMO perverts the purpose of science! One of the "techniques" for successful survival of a species is its ability to adapt to changing conditions. In creating a world where all creatures were merely carbon copies of their predecessors, would that "adaptability" not quickly disappear?
As I understand it, the functionality of individual genes is so poorly understood that by eliminating certain diseases, we could also be eliminating positive traits. What if Stephen Hawkings were healthy of body, but had none of his current genius? Would that be better or worse for humanity? (Not saying that he wouldn’t be a genius if he were sound of body; but what if that were the tradeoff?) — monique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 2004-12-23, jmcquown penned: I agree, and most of us know what happened at the end of that book! I find it hard to believe this woman’s cloned cat is "exactly" like her other cat. Genetically, perhaps, but at the slightest change in personality is she going to say "but it ISN’T just like my other cat!" and get all upset? Yeah, I wonder about that too. Even if the genetics for personality are identical (possible but not guaranteed), the cat will undergo different experiences that will mold the personality. I don’t know what happened at the end of the book =/ — You don’t want to know. Joy
"Darling" it said. bwahahahahaha! Jill
Response:
The fact that so many people don’t understand cloning really bugs me. It’s really "twinning," just done with human interference instead of occuring naturally, but people act like there are issues about their souls, about personality, etc. Clones will be just as similar as "identical" twins, which is to say, some will be quite similar and some will not. People who don’t want to face the loss of their departed pet are happy to perpetuate their denial by believing that their lost pet has come back to them in a new body. And really, that’s all it is – denial. You can’t bring back a specific individual no matter how similar it looks or even behaves. You are right, we already have people with identical genes – they’re called twins (or triplets, or more). They are not identical people. You have to wonder about the spiritual condition of a person who believes they can "cheat" death and clone their pet back into existence! Still, it’s true that it’s their business if that’s how they wish to deal with death. But it sure is a waste of resources, and horribly unfair to the kitties languishing in shelters waiting for a human to adopt them. Joyce
Response:
California company sells cloned cat, generating ethics debate – PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer Wednesday, December 22, 2004
<snip The woman and the kitten were on the CBS evening news tonight!
Response:
rec.pets.cats.anecdotes: <snip Imagine a new disease, against which no remaining humans possessed the inborn capacity to build anti-bodies. Plagues have managed to wipe out large portions of populations as it is (consider what smallpox did to the native Americans), but always there were a few whose personal heriditary make-up rendered them immune (a trait passed on to their offspring). What happens if, in "selectively breeding" better humans (or whatever) we unknowingly breed OUT those unknown factors that might provide immunity to yet unknown dieseases?
Simple. Neo-Nazi Dominionist fever-dreams of a revived Master Race of /ubermenschen/ emerging on American soil will have to die the death, likely amid much coughing and unexpected emission of random highly infectious bodily fluids. But we will see (and our "defective" brown-haired, rainbow-eyed children may even be shipped off to) eugenic detention/disposal camps in America’s Heartland before anyone of that ilk admits they were wrong. But by that time all but the most remote regions will likely have Gone Blonde. (The Midwest’s mass-detention infrastructure is already in place, I gather.) From the Ancient Wisdom Traditions of a few different cultures: There will always be a Saving Remnant. Unless the monkeys-with-money that run the research labs decide to throw it away along with their souls. (Bad monkeys.) It’s not good to dis’ (let alone ditch) the Ancient Wisdom IMHO. — Reverend Pastor Charlene Mann (ULC) First Peoples’ Church of the Forbidden Truth A Global Funny Hat Medicine Society affiliate and an Inner City KR Curmudgeonry Licensure Agency
Response:
California company sells cloned cat, generating ethics debate – PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer Wednesday, December 22, 2004 (12-22) 14:24 PST SAN FRANCISCO (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.
(snip) I’m fundamentally against it. For one thing, we are learning how to insulate ourselves from too many things that just come with life– aging, loss, etc. I also can’t support the making of more animals by any means when there are already too many of them who don’t have homes and love. But dammit, when I see kittens, I get KF, no matter the means of production <sigh. Theresa Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com
Response:
I’m fundamentally against it. For one thing, we are learning how to insulate ourselves from too many things that just come with life– aging, loss, etc. I also can’t support the making of more animals by any means when there are already too many of them who don’t have homes and love.
I am fundamentally against it also. Even more so now after I read the part about "gruesome failures" in cloning research. Besides, it’s just too Pet Semetary-ish. Sherry
Response:
I’m fundamentally against it. For one thing, we are learning how to insulate ourselves from too many things that just come with life– aging, loss, etc. I also can’t support the making of more animals by any means when there are already too many of them who don’t have homes and love. I am fundamentally against it also. Even more so now after I read the part about "gruesome failures" in cloning research. Besides, it’s just too Pet Semetary-ish. Sherry
I agree, and most of us know what happened at the end of that book! I find it hard to believe this woman’s cloned cat is "exactly" like her other cat. Genetically, perhaps, but at the slightest change in personality is she going to say "but it ISN’T just like my other cat!" and get all upset? Like Monique, I don’t care what you do with your money. But this is just creepy. Jill
Response:
On 2004-12-23, jmcquown penned: I agree, and most of us know what happened at the end of that book! I find it hard to believe this woman’s cloned cat is "exactly" like her other cat. Genetically, perhaps, but at the slightest change in personality is she going to say "but it ISN’T just like my other cat!" and get all upset?
Yeah, I wonder about that too. Even if the genetics for personality are identical (possible but not guaranteed), the cat will undergo different experiences that will mold the personality. I don’t know what happened at the end of the book =/ — monique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude!
Response:
I agree. To me there’s something gruesome about cloning a dead animal. Joy
The great question becomes, do we embrace this kind of technology or outlaw it? I recently read a book called ‘Redesigning Humans’, in which the author argued that these advances were coming whether we like it or not, so we should embrace them rather than push them underground. I’m not sure how I feel about that… A ‘Gattica’ style world seems frightening. But, if this kind of technology became cheap, could’nt we reduce the number of strays? Imagine a world where all domestic animals were cloned & there was no unplanned/unwanted breeding… Not sure how I feel about that either. Opinions? —
Mathew Butler to 2 kittens: Chablis & Muscat En Vino Veritas
Response:
On 2004-12-23, Mathew Kagis penned: The great question becomes, do we embrace this kind of technology or outlaw it? I recently read a book called ‘Redesigning Humans’, in which the author argued that these advances were coming whether we like it or not, so we should embrace them rather than push them underground. I’m not sure how I feel about that… A ‘Gattica’ style world seems frightening. But, if this kind of technology became cheap, could’nt we reduce the number of strays? Imagine a world where all domestic animals were cloned & there was no unplanned/unwanted breeding… Not sure how I feel about that either. Opinions?
Even if some countries ban cloning, others will happily take up the slack. However, my understanding is that artificial cloning (as opposed to naturally-occuring twins) is still a very iffy business, with many failed attempts and possible health issues for the "successful" clones. (I don’t know if there have been enough successful clones to have statistically significant data on them.) It’s not a perfect technology, yet, and I don’t know if it ever will be. — monique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude!
Response:
Death is a part of life. Paying $50K for a cloned cat means you can’t accept death. Kinda sad, really. That’s exactly how I feel about it. And what happens when people are able to replace their *children*? With cats at least, the new Fluffy isn’t going to end up in therapy because she "didn’t live up to her human’s expectations to be a replacement for the original". A child, however, would be quite damaged by those expectations. Well, one good thing about the high price tag: there won’t be a whole *lot* of them being ordered. How many people have $50K in disposable income? Joyce
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 2004-12-23, jmcquown penned: I agree, and most of us know what happened at the end of that book! I find it hard to believe this woman’s cloned cat is "exactly" like her other cat. Genetically, perhaps, but at the slightest change in personality is she going to say "but it ISN’T just like my other cat!" and get all upset? Yeah, I wonder about that too. Even if the genetics for personality are identical (possible but not guaranteed), the cat will undergo different experiences that will mold the personality. I don’t know what happened at the end of the book =/ —
You don’t want to know. Joy
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree. To me there’s something gruesome about cloning a dead animal. Joy The great question becomes, do we embrace this kind of technology or outlaw it? I recently read a book called ‘Redesigning Humans’, in which the author argued that these advances were coming whether we like it or not, so we should embrace them rather than push them underground. I’m not sure how I feel about that… A ‘Gattica’ style world seems frightening. But, if this kind of technology became cheap, could’nt we reduce the number of strays? Imagine a world where all domestic animals were cloned & there was no unplanned/unwanted breeding… Not sure how I feel about that either. Opinions? — Mathew Butler to 2 kittens: Chablis & Muscat En Vino Veritas
Animal cloning will lead to human cloning. Religious issues aside, it seems to me that before "we" go about creating new animals and new humans, it behooves us to make sure that the current population of both doesn’t outgrow the supply of food, clean water and living space. We seem to be losing on all those fronts. Maybe cloning would be okay (IMNSHO) if it were used only on endangered species. However, we know that limitation (or any limitation, for that matter) would never stick. If every country in the world agreed on the limitations, or outlawed cloning altogether, it would be done underground. I’m afraid Pandora’s box has been opened. I just pray that "hope" is still there, because the other things that have escaped are frightening. Joy
Response:
Death is a part of life. Paying $50K for a cloned cat means you can’t accept death. Kinda sad, really. That’s exactly how I feel about it. And what happens when people are able to replace their *children*? With cats at least, the new Fluffy isn’t going to end up in therapy because she "didn’t live up to her human’s expectations to be a replacement for the original". A child, however, would be quite damaged by those expectations.
That is just one aspect of the situation. I believe I heard that there were over 100 failures before "Dolly" (the sheep) was successfully cloned. With animals, the scientists no doubt euthanized the failures (those that didn’t die on their own) without worrying about it. What will they do with human "failures"? Joy
Response:
The fact that so many people don’t understand cloning really bugs me. It’s really "twinning," just done with human interference instead of occuring naturally, but people act like there are issues about their souls, about personality, etc. Clones will be just as similar as "identical" twins, which is to say, some will be quite similar and some will not.
As I understand it, "identical" twins are the result of a single egg splitting and becoming two embryos AFTER fertilization – meaning that they both have identical heredity. That cannot possibly be the case when an adult’s DNA has been implanted into an unrelated egg, can it?
Response:
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.
How can she possibly KNOW that, when it’s still a kitten? Same sex and similar markings (which may change as he matures – I’ve had several cats whose mature markings were not identical to those they had as a kitten), but personality? Cats and people and ALL living creatures develop their "personality" as they grow and mature – without identical experiences throughout its life time, it CANNOT be identical to the cat it’s "replacing". "Clones" in science-fiction are EXACT duplicates of their original at the time of cloning (age and all), not raised from infancy with similar (not identical) germ-plasm! We have a long way to go before we have THAT kind of technology – which I’m SURE would be illegal, even if ever became possible. Some people have a lot more money than sense! As some of the people approached for comment said, $50,000 would feed and house and save from "euthanasia" a lot of otherwise unwanted kittens (every one of them as cute and lovable as her "cloned" one). I don’t care HOW much she "loved" the original Nicky, death is a natural part of life (for all of us – human and feline alike). It’s tragic when a life is cut short before the end of its "natural" span, but seventeen is a fairly ripe old age for a cat. IMO, time to mourn Nicky and move on, not try to "replace" him at enormous expense!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m fundamentally against it. For one thing, we are learning how to insulate ourselves from too many things that just come with life– aging, loss, etc. I also can’t support the making of more animals by any means when there are already too many of them who don’t have homes and love. I am fundamentally against it also. Even more so now after I read the part about "gruesome failures" in cloning research. Besides, it’s just too Pet Semetary-ish. Sherry I agree, and most of us know what happened at the end of that book! I find it hard to believe this woman’s cloned cat is "exactly" like her other cat. Genetically, perhaps, but at the slightest change in personality is she going to say "but it ISN’T just like my other cat!" and get all upset?
Probably not – apparently she has already managed to convince herself that it really IS a "duplicate" of her cat. (And how well do you think she actually remembers the original’s kittenhood, or will remember its formative years as the new kitten grows and matures?)
Response:
On 2004-12-23, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned: The fact that so many people don’t understand cloning really bugs me. It’s really "twinning," just done with human interference instead of occuring naturally, but people act like there are issues about their souls, about personality, etc. Clones will be just as similar as "identical" twins, which is to say, some will be quite similar and some will not. As I understand it, "identical" twins are the result of a single egg splitting and becoming two embryos AFTER fertilization – meaning that they both have identical heredity. That cannot possibly be the case when an adult’s DNA has been implanted into an unrelated egg, can it?
Ummm drat … Doesn’t cloning use a "blank" egg? I’ll have to do some research =/ I’m pretty sure that a clone’s genes will have the same range of possibilities as a twin’s would, but I can’t recall the research I did in deciding that. — monique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude!
Response:
The great question becomes, do we embrace this kind of technology or outlaw it? I recently read a book called ‘Redesigning Humans’, in which the author argued that these advances were coming whether we like it or not, so we should embrace them rather than push them underground. I’m not sure how I feel about that… A ‘Gattica’ style world seems frightening. But, if this kind of technology became cheap, could’nt we reduce the number of strays? Imagine a world where all domestic animals were cloned & there was no unplanned/unwanted breeding… Not sure how I feel about that either. Opinions?
"Surgery" on an embryo to eliminate genetically linked diseases like cystic fibrosis makes sense. Preventing birth defects is certainly a desireable goal, too. But to carry it further than that – to enable the prospective parents to "choose" for hair and eye color, height or other unimportant physical attributes – IMO perverts the purpose of science! One of the "techniques" for successful survival of a species is its ability to adapt to changing conditions. In creating a world where all creatures were merely carbon copies of their predecessors, would that "adaptability" not quickly disappear? Imagine a new disease, against which no remaining humans possessed the inborn capacity to build anti-bodies. Plagues have managed to wipe out large portions of populations as it is (consider what smallpox did to the native Americans), but always there were a few whose personal heriditary make-up rendered them immune (a trait passed on to their offspring). What happens if, in "selectively breeding" better humans (or whatever) we unknowingly breed OUT those unknown factors that might provide immunity to yet unknown dieseases?
Response:
On 2004-12-23, Zorin the Lynx penned: Arrrgh. I don’t understand why people with too much money on their hands don’t use it for more useful purposes. Death is a part of life. Paying $50K for a cloned cat means you can’t accept death. Kinda sad, really. Like someone in the article said, those $50K coulda gone a long way towards helping save cats that currently don’t have a home. Sad, really.
While I agree that she would have done better to get a new kitten, I really do think that people have a right to spend their money as they please. That she spent $50K doesn’t bother me; that she chose to produce a new kitten rather than adopting an existing one does. I also wonder about how healthy this "little" nicky will be. The fact that so many people don’t understand cloning really bugs me. It’s really "twinning," just done with human interference instead of occuring naturally, but people act like there are issues about their souls, about personality, etc. Clones will be just as similar as "identical" twins, which is to say, some will be quite similar and some will not. — monique, who is sometimes allowed to pet Oscar, a grey^H^H^H^Hblue-cream DLH with an attitude!
Response:
I agree. To me there’s something gruesome about cloning a dead animal. Joy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Arrrgh. I don’t understand why people with too much money on their hands don’t use it for more useful purposes. Death is a part of life. Paying $50K for a cloned cat means you can’t accept death. Kinda sad, really. Like someone in the article said, those $50K coulda gone a long way towards helping save cats that currently don’t have a home. Sad, really. -Z California company sells cloned cat, generating ethics debate – PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer Wednesday, December 22, 2004 (12-22) 14:24 PST SAN FRANCISCO (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. "Nicky loved water, which is an unusual characteristic of cats. Little Nicky jumped into my bath," said the woman, who said she is in her early 40s and employed in the airline industry. The company delivered Little Nicky two weeks ago and was expected to publicly announced the news Thursday. While Little Nicky frolics in his new home, the kitten’s creation and sale has reignited fierce ethical and scientific debate over cloning technology, which is rapidly advancing. By May, the company said it hopes to have produced the world’s first cloned dog — a much more lucrative market than cats. While it is based in the San Francisco Bay area, the company’s cloning work will be done at its new lab in Madison, Wis. Commercial interests already are cloning prized cattle for about $20,000 each, and scientists have cloned mice, rabbits, goats, pigs, horses — and even the endangered banteng, a wild bull that is found mostly in Indonesia. Several research teams around the world, meanwhile, are racing to create the first cloned monkey. Aside from human cloning, which has been achieved only at the microscopic embryo stage, no cloning project has fueled more debate than the marketing plans of Genetic Savings and Clone. "It’s morally problematic and a little reprehensible," said David Magnus, co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford. "For $50,000, she could have provided homes for a lot of strays." Animals rights activists complain that new feline production systems aren’t needed because thousands of stray cats are euthanized each year for want of homes. Genetic Savings and Clone chief executive Lou Hawthorne said his company purchases thousands of ovaries from spay clinics across the country. It extracts the eggs, which are combined with the genetic material from the animals to be cloned. Critics also complain the technology is available only to the wealthy, that using it to create house pets is frivolous and that customers grieving over lost pets have unrealistic expectations of what they’re buying. In fact, the first cat cloned in 2001 had a different coat from its genetic donor, underscoring that environment and other biological variables make it impossible to exactly duplicate animals. "The thing that many people do not realize is that the cloned cat is not the same as the original," said Bonnie Beaver, a Texas A&M animal behaviorist who heads the American Veterinary Medical Association, which has no position on the issue. "It has a different personality. It has different life experiences. They want Fluffy, but it’s not Fluffy." The company says it carefully counsels its customers about what they’ll receive, but insists myriad personality and physical traits will be passed from genetic donor to cloned offspring. Little Nicky’s owner said the company "under promised and over delivered" her cat, which is of the Maine coon variety. A native New England breed, the Maine coon gets its name from the resemblance of a tabby Maine coon’s tail to that of a raccoon. Still other scientists warn cloned animals suffer from more health problems than their traditionally bred peers and that cloning is still a very inexact science. It takes many gruesome failures to produce just a single clone. Genetic Savings and Clone said its new cloning technique, developed by animal cloning pioneer James Robl has improved survival rates, health and appearance. The new technique seeks to condense and transfer only the donor’s genetic material to a surrogate’s egg instead of an entire cell nucleus. "Within the next five years, it’s going to be known as the healthiest animals to get," Hawthorne said. Between 15 percent and 45 percent of cloned cats born alive die within the first 30 days, Hawthorne said. But he said that range is consistent with natural births, depending on the breed of cat. Austin-based ViaGen Inc., which has cloned hundreds of cows, pigs and goats, also is experimenting with the new cloning technique. "The jury is still out, but the research shows it to be promising," company president Sara Davis said. "The technology is improving all the time." 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. URL:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/22/s… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 724EST0109.DTL — Ned Flat: "Why are you acting like this??" Yakko: "We’re not acting. We really are like this." Wakko: "Aren’t we lucky?" — Friends don’t let friends run Windows. —
Response:
Arrrgh. I don’t understand why people with too much money on their hands don’t use it for more useful purposes. Death is a part of life. Paying $50K for a cloned cat means you can’t accept death. Kinda sad, really. Like someone in the article said, those $50K coulda gone a long way towards helping save cats that currently don’t have a home. Sad, really. -Z – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – California company sells cloned cat, generating ethics debate – PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer Wednesday, December 22, 2004 (12-22) 14:24 PST SAN FRANCISCO (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. "Nicky loved water, which is an unusual characteristic of cats. Little Nicky jumped into my bath," said the woman, who said she is in her early 40s and employed in the airline industry. The company delivered Little Nicky two weeks ago and was expected to publicly announced the news Thursday. While Little Nicky frolics in his new home, the kitten’s creation and sale has reignited fierce ethical and scientific debate over cloning technology, which is rapidly advancing. By May, the company said it hopes to have produced the world’s first cloned dog — a much more lucrative market than cats. While it is based in the San Francisco Bay area, the company’s cloning work will be done at its new lab in Madison, Wis. Commercial interests already are cloning prized cattle for about $20,000 each, and scientists have cloned mice, rabbits, goats, pigs, horses — and even the endangered banteng, a wild bull that is found mostly in Indonesia. Several research teams around the world, meanwhile, are racing to create the first cloned monkey. Aside from human cloning, which has been achieved only at the microscopic embryo stage, no cloning project has fueled more debate than the marketing plans of Genetic Savings and Clone. "It’s morally problematic and a little reprehensible," said David Magnus, co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford. "For $50,000, she could have provided homes for a lot of strays." Animals rights activists complain that new feline production systems aren’t needed because thousands of stray cats are euthanized each year for want of homes. Genetic Savings and Clone chief executive Lou Hawthorne said his company purchases thousands of ovaries from spay clinics across the country. It extracts the eggs, which are combined with the genetic material from the animals to be cloned. Critics also complain the technology is available only to the wealthy, that using it to create house pets is frivolous and that customers grieving over lost pets have unrealistic expectations of what they’re buying. In fact, the first cat cloned in 2001 had a different coat from its genetic donor, underscoring that environment and other biological variables make it impossible to exactly duplicate animals. "The thing that many people do not realize is that the cloned cat is not the same as the original," said Bonnie Beaver, a Texas A&M animal behaviorist who heads the American Veterinary Medical Association, which has no position on the issue. "It has a different personality. It has different life experiences. They want Fluffy, but it’s not Fluffy." The company says it carefully counsels its customers about what they’ll receive, but insists myriad personality and physical traits will be passed from genetic donor to cloned offspring. Little Nicky’s owner said the company "under promised and over delivered" her cat, which is of the Maine coon variety. A native New England breed, the Maine coon gets its name from the resemblance of a tabby Maine coon’s tail to that of a raccoon. Still other scientists warn cloned animals suffer from more health problems than their traditionally bred peers and that cloning is still a very inexact science. It takes many gruesome failures to produce just a single clone. Genetic Savings and Clone said its new cloning technique, developed by animal cloning pioneer James Robl has improved survival rates, health and appearance. The new technique seeks to condense and transfer only the donor’s genetic material to a surrogate’s egg instead of an entire cell nucleus. "Within the next five years, it’s going to be known as the healthiest animals to get," Hawthorne said. Between 15 percent and 45 percent of cloned cats born alive die within the first 30 days, Hawthorne said. But he said that range is consistent with natural births, depending on the breed of cat. Austin-based ViaGen Inc., which has cloned hundreds of cows, pigs and goats, also is experimenting with the new cloning technique. "The jury is still out, but the research shows it to be promising," company president Sara Davis said. "The technology is improving all the time." 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. URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/22/s… 724EST0109.DTL
– Ned Flat: "Why are you acting like this??" Yakko: "We’re not acting. We really are like this." Wakko: "Aren’t we lucky?" — Friends don’t let friends run Windows. —
Response:
California company sells cloned cat, generating ethics debate – PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology Writer Wednesday, December 22, 2004 (12-22) 14:24 PST SAN FRANCISCO (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. "Nicky loved water, which is an unusual characteristic of cats. Little Nicky jumped into my bath," said the woman, who said she is in her early 40s and employed in the airline industry. The company delivered Little Nicky two weeks ago and was expected to publicly announced the news Thursday. While Little Nicky frolics in his new home, the kitten’s creation and sale has reignited fierce ethical and scientific debate over cloning technology, which is rapidly advancing. By May, the company said it hopes to have produced the world’s first cloned dog — a much more lucrative market than cats. While it is based in the San Francisco Bay area, the company’s cloning work will be done at its new lab in Madison, Wis. Commercial interests already are cloning prized cattle for about $20,000 each, and scientists have cloned mice, rabbits, goats, pigs, horses — and even the endangered banteng, a wild bull that is found mostly in Indonesia. Several research teams around the world, meanwhile, are racing to create the first cloned monkey. Aside from human cloning, which has been achieved only at the microscopic embryo stage, no cloning project has fueled more debate than the marketing plans of Genetic Savings and Clone. "It’s morally problematic and a little reprehensible," said David Magnus, co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford. "For $50,000, she could have provided homes for a lot of strays." Animals rights activists complain that new feline production systems aren’t needed because thousands of stray cats are euthanized each year for want of homes. Genetic Savings and Clone chief executive Lou Hawthorne said his company purchases thousands of ovaries from spay clinics across the country. It extracts the eggs, which are combined with the genetic material from the animals to be cloned. Critics also complain the technology is available only to the wealthy, that using it to create house pets is frivolous and that customers grieving over lost pets have unrealistic expectations of what they’re buying. In fact, the first cat cloned in 2001 had a different coat from its genetic donor, underscoring that environment and other biological variables make it impossible to exactly duplicate animals. "The thing that many people do not realize is that the cloned cat is not the same as the original," said Bonnie Beaver, a Texas A&M animal behaviorist who heads the American Veterinary Medical Association, which has no position on the issue. "It has a different personality. It has different life experiences. They want Fluffy, but it’s not Fluffy." The company says it carefully counsels its customers about what they’ll receive, but insists myriad personality and physical traits will be passed from genetic donor to cloned offspring. Little Nicky’s owner said the company "under promised and over delivered" her cat, which is of the Maine coon variety. A native New England breed, the Maine coon gets its name from the resemblance of a tabby Maine coon’s tail to that of a raccoon. Still other scientists warn cloned animals suffer from more health problems than their traditionally bred peers and that cloning is still a very inexact science. It takes many gruesome failures to produce just a single clone. Genetic Savings and Clone said its new cloning technique, developed by animal cloning pioneer James Robl has improved survival rates, health and appearance. The new technique seeks to condense and transfer only the donor’s genetic material to a surrogate’s egg instead of an entire cell nucleus. "Within the next five years, it’s going to be known as the healthiest animals to get," Hawthorne said. Between 15 percent and 45 percent of cloned cats born alive die within the first 30 days, Hawthorne said. But he said that range is consistent with natural births, depending on the breed of cat. Austin-based ViaGen Inc., which has cloned hundreds of cows, pigs and goats, also is experimenting with the new cloning technique. "The jury is still out, but the research shows it to be promising," company president Sara Davis said. "The technology is improving all the time." 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. URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/22/s… 724EST0109.DTL
Response:
And if I’m dead or otherwise incapacitated in my house for any period of time, my neighbor or landlord or brother or the police will check in on me. So in the end, you’re still offering nothing. As a side note… we will be offering very nice "print them yourself" customized window placards. It’s been on the drawing board for a couple of months now. Too bad you’re about 3 years too late on that window placard idea. LOL Jill 