A cloning contest...? Cloning is becoming more "the norm" anymore

Don't usually visit this forum, but I thought this was interesting.

Not a huge story, but kinda controversial.

Cloning Contest Seeks Worthiest UK Dog

Puppy lovers in the United Kingdom may soon get a chance to extend their dog years, thanks to an odd new contest: A South Korean company wants to clone the most beloved U.K. pooch — again raising ethical questions about the practice of pet cloning.

Headed by a former stem-cell researcher named Woo-Suk Hwang, the Sooam Biotech Research Foundation has been cloning dogs and other animals for years, mostly for U.S. customers. Now, in an effort to expand into the British market, the lab has asked U.K. canine owners to submit a 500-word essay, along with photos and videos, demonstrating why their best friend's genes should live on, Sooam researcher Hanna Heejin Song wrote in an email to LiveScience.

The chosen dog owner gets 70 percent off the usual $100,000 price tag for replicating Rufus.

Full article here.

Kinda weird.

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX


So it will only cost 30K for their cloned dog, at least that's not too ridiculous. People are crazy.

Still, it's cool stuff. I'm just not paying that much for any dog, cloned or otherwise.

reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX


I think that cloning ones pet against the possibility that the original might die, is a bloody stupid idea. For a start, here in the UK our dog and cat homes are FULL , on a pretty much constant basis, to overflowing with animals who have been either abused or not properly cared for. If one is missing a four legged companion, one has only to visit one of these fine establishments, and give ones heart to a new friend, one who already exists, and needs help.

How anyone could prefer to have a copy of thier previous furry pal, which might not psychologically resemble the original, rather than rescue an animal from a shelter is utterly beyond me.

I think cloning has its place in the present and future of science, technology, and maybe even society at somepoint, but this is not the way forward, not least because it ignores the needs of pre-existing animals, which no pet owner ought to be able to do without a sick feeling in thier gut.

My friend had a cat called April. When ever I used to visit with my friend, April became MY cat. She would sit on my chest, and nuzzle my beard, and fall asleep right then and there, or sit there having a conversation with me, meowing at me from her perch on my sternum. I used to look after her when my friend was away on holiday also. She is dead now. She had a brain bleed, right behind one eye, and despite treatment and a course of medication, off she went. It was very sad. But, I would rather get myself a different furry friend than try and replicate one who had been so dear to me as April was. There could never be a substitue, not for that cat. But there could be a totally new friendship, which would be unique and special in its own way. Messing about in the middle though? Not for me.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by XxNightAngelusxX

 

I think that cloning ones pet against the possibility that the original might die, is a bloody stupid idea. For a start, here in the UK our dog and cat homes are FULL , on a pretty much constant basis, to overflowing with animals who have been either abused or not properly cared for. If one is missing a four legged companion, one has only to visit one of these fine establishments, and give ones heart to a new friend, one who already exists, and needs help.

This is a very good point and exactly the reason why I disagree with the proposal also.

I think cloning has its place in the present and future of science, technology, and maybe even society at somepoint, but this is not the way forward, not least because it ignores the needs of pre-existing animals, which no pet owner ought to be able to do without a sick feeling in thier gut.

In fact, cloning represents a huge part of science and is very important to both past and modern developments in medicine and in other areas, though it may not be very obvious. The things that are routinely cloned in almost all biology labs are bacteria. We use these for a large number of reasons, such as protein expression and deducing the functionality of certain genes (to name only a few). There are also monoclonal human cancer cell lines (as well as other human cell lines) that are integral to various studies and the passing of drug candidates onto clinical trials. The idea of cloning is by no means restricted to whole animals.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


I should have been more specific, and for that I apologise. What I mean is, that cloning of whole, complex lifeforms with the intent of having them wander about, serves no purpose unless that animal happens to be totally extinct, and is a risky game even then.

All I am saying is that cloning, as it relates to the subject matter in the OP is not warranted or the smart thing to do.

Look in popular media, your movies, umm the Baldwins, actors the Baldwins, music artists, the Baldwins, and many people in public spotlight ( BALDWINS ) are clones in my opinion.

Look at them, I understand people can resemble one another, but I have seen identical twins had more individuality than many of these clones I see in the Social elite.

Like they are created to usher in Agendas and Propagandas.