• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

California company sells cloned cat, generating ethics debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

goodcow

Member
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...004/12/22/state1724EST0109.DTL&type=printable

(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/state1724EST0109.DTL
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
RePet!
movie-the-sixth-day.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
That kitten will die quite quickly right? Like if the DNA was taken from a 15 year old cat, the kitten should start breaking down very shortly? I hope my family can just grab another me from the closet and restore my mind from backup when I die.
 

Dujour

Banned
The animated dolls in The Sixth Day were the scariest things I've ever seen on film. Aside from any movie that involved the removal of someone's fingernails.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Some of the arguments presented in this article are really lame.

How, exactly, is $50,000 going to provide homes for strays? Is she going to make a shelter that thousands of strays can stay in with no real owners? Is it going to somehow increase demand for those strays among normal people?

And buyer beware is not some new concept. If people are expecting a complete clone, that's their own fault for being retarded and not listening to the people who tell them the truth.
 

nitewulf

Member
catfish said:
That kitten will die quite quickly right? Like if the DNA was taken from a 15 year old cat, the kitten should start breaking down very shortly? I hope my family can just grab another me from the closet and restore my mind from backup when I die.
im not sure if you are being serious, but no. DNA is basically a set of biological information.
 

Saturnman

Banned
nitewulf said:
im not sure if you are being serious, but no. DNA is basically a set of biological information.

He meant that cloned DNA used from elderly animals carried over the advanced age to the clones. It's an unexpected problem cloning technology will have to solve otherwise cloning will be stuck to cells taken very early in the life of an organism.

So an old cat will produce clones that won't live longer than the the original cat at the time of DNA extraction. The pet owners are better off freezing the DNA of their favorite pets and wait for better cloning techniques.
 
maharg said:
How, exactly, is $50,000 going to provide homes for strays? Is she going to make a shelter that thousands of strays can stay in with no real owners? Is it going to somehow increase demand for those strays among normal people?
Donate it to someone taking care of cats? Get a dozen cats and hire a maid for them for a couple years? Any number of ways.
 

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
DNA degradation is caused by continously making copies of a copy. Not that i think my saying this is profound or anything, but i fail to see a way to correct the genetic information. After the information is lost what can you do? I think the only way to get good result will be to obtain DNA from when the animal was young.
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
nitewulf said:
im not sure if you are being serious, but no. DNA is basically a set of biological information.

Yup serious, I have read (and don't know the specifics of) that dna retains some information of the age of the animal, I think it happened with dolly the sheep, one of the first critters cloned.

It went something like this (made up numbers)

DNA sample taken at age 5
Original sheep got some bone problems at 8
cloned sheep exhibited those same sorts of problems at age 3, being that some age information seems to be retained in the dna.

Someone probably knows more specifically than me about it.
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
why do we need homes for strays.

There is somebody on this board that, given 50 grand could probably take care of the strays much faster.
 

Saturnman

Banned
oxrock said:
DNA degradation is caused by continously making copies of a copy. Not that i think my saying this is profound or anything, but i fail to see a way to correct the genetic information. After the information is lost what can you do? I think the only way to get good result will be to obtain DNA from when the animal was young.

But that's not really the problem here. Maybe it would be if talking about an animal cloned generations after generations for centuries, but not in this case.

Aging has many components, but one of them is cells can only divide a certain rough number of times. I don't know the exact terms in English, but there is sort of a natural counter that keep tracks of each replication. Imagine a MP3 file with a hidden routine that keeps track of each time it is copied and sabotages itself in the process, on purpose, to prevent too much file sharing. The copying is not the issue, it's the routine itself; You need to re-set it.
 

Saturnman

Banned
catfish said:
why do we need homes for strays.

There is somebody on this board that, given 50 grand could probably take care of the strays much faster.

I love cats and would take care of some stray cats for money. It's a win-win situation. :)
 

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
Actually it has a lot to do with us being carbon based as well. If we were composed of a material that didn't break down aging would be drastically reduced. From what i remember the copying process was also a huge factor in the aging process. I also agree a certain amount of it is determined by how high the "counter" goes.But interestingly enough I've seen reports on insects where they forced the animals to wait as long as possible to mate over many generations. A long way down the line the insects had noticibly longer life spans. And by noticibly i mean 2 or 3 times as long.
 

nitewulf

Member
catfish said:
why do we need homes for strays.

There is somebody on this board that, given 50 grand could probably take care of the strays much faster.
uh, i think i know which person you're talking about.
and i wasnt aware of this DNA age problem, but i could see that happening I suppose.
I guess the DNA retains the age information.
 

Saturnman

Banned
Cells, especially stem cells, can completely rejuvenate themselves. Normal cells also have the ability to repair and maintain DNA.

If the copying was really the issue, there's no way life would have survived for hundreds of millions of years if it was doomed from the start on a molecular level. Aging is not the manifestation of a flaw, it's a natural, fail-safe process that ensures new generations can replace older generations.
 

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
Dude, i'll try to break it down for you. If you make a copy of a house key, it'll probly work fine. But if you continously make copies of a copied key, structural errors will soon appear.It doesn't matter how good your copying system is, it will not be perfect.
 

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
Also from what I understand after DNA degrades past a certain point the immune system will start to attack the body mistaking it as a foreign object.
 

Kuramu

Member
i believe the problem is not from compounding errors from making copies of copies, but because of the Telomeres at the end of DNA strands. IIRC, one is shed each time it is duplicated, and when they are all gone, fraying occurs, like a shoestring that's lost its little plastic whatever thingy.
 

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
I haven't been trying to say that copying errors is the ONLY reason for degradation of DNA. I believe one of my previous posts lists two other problems.
 

Saturnman

Banned
It doesn't need to be perfect at all. The imperfection is part of a evolutionary mechanism in itself. Natural selection takes care of bad copies that may somehow pop up.

The key analogy is slightly flawed because you're talking about a blind process. DNA replication is copy and repair at the same time. An organism, say a shark (basically everything in this animal is regenerated, even the teeth), with all its aging processes eliminated, could theoritically live forever. Life on Earth has gone on for hundreds of millions of years because DNA has been able to maintain itself.
 

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
No, life has gone on for millions of years because of reproduction. Any way let's say we go with your shark suggestion. If it does perfectly copy it's dna why doesn't it live forever?Explain if you would.
 
oxrock said:
Any way let's say we go with your shark suggestion. If it does perfectly copy it's dna why doesn't it live forever?Explain if you would.
roy_scheider.jpg


maharg said:
Ok, which cats?
First come first serve? Doesn't make much difference. Whether one thinks it's an important point or not, I don't see how the basic point of "$50,000 used differently could more efficiently create happy cat-years." is debatable.
 

Saturnman

Banned
It doesn't live forever because nature makes sure it will die, either by aging, accident, a rival shark or by another predator. But in a controlled enviroment where all those variables are eliminated, it could theoritically live forever.

Sexual reproduction is just a mixing of genes to create a new organism. The DNA is the same on a molecular level and so is the copying process. We share genes with nearly every organisms on Earth because we have a common ancestor that gave us the same damned genes. It was copied billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of times in other to reach us.

To use your key analogy again, if you portray the lock as the key's sole purpose in life and if the copying is imperfect/slightly random (meaning not all copies will be the same) then if you use one key and copy it 500 hundreds times and keep only the best ones (that ones that work best) and copy them 500 times and only keep the keys that work and repeat that process over and over again, you will always have keys that work.
 

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
First of all, you're explanation on how a shark could live forever but doesn't is complete bullshit. Secondly, in a single organism the "bad" copies aren't being thrown out, they're being copied as well. THEREFORE degradation occurs.
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
Using the argument that the woman could've theoretically used her $50,000 to help existing cats is utterly irrelevant.

I could use the money I will spend raising my own child to adopt an existing child and raise him. I could use the $500 I was going to spend on a dog to adopt several dogs and take care of them. But I'm not going to, because I don't want to.

Jesus, who the hell cares what this woman is spending her money on? It's scary to think that there could be such a debate over what a private citizen is legally doing with their own money.
 

Saturnman

Banned
oxrock said:
First of all, you're explanation on how a shark could live forever but doesn't is complete bullshit. Secondly, in a single organism the "bad" copies aren't being thrown out, they're being copied as well. THEREFORE degradation occurs.

Nothing lives forever, that's not how nature works, the only thing that does is the DNA it passes on to its children (unless it can't mate). In that light and in the strictest sense, organisms are merely vehicules in which DNA is stored and transfered. Your argument is a non-issue.

In a single organism, the bad copies aren't thrown out? WTF? If it can't survive, it is thrown out. If it carries a flaw that makes it survive but barely, its copies are unlikely to survive in the long run in competition with other organisms.
 

Sergenth

Member
The long-lived shark still undergoes structural failure over it's long lifetime, eventually over-riding the usefulness of tissue regeneration. Scarring is an imperfect form of flaw-fixing, necessary for a shark's day-to-day lifestyle because scarring is a method quick enough to repair a wound, but imperfect enough to alter the form of the creature.

There aren't many creatures that can regenerate entire limbs and organs from scratch. Very few in that selection are even chordates.
 

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
My part in this discussion was pertaining to how/why a single organism was affected by time. NOT AN ENTIRE SPECIES or all living organisms. I have no clue where you're taking this, it seams to me that you've been changing the subject in your head just to hide the fact that you're wrong.
 

oxrock

Gravity is a myth, the Earth SUCKS!
Saturnman said:
He meant that cloned DNA used from elderly animals carried over the advanced age to the clones. It's an unexpected problem cloning technology will have to solve otherwise cloning will be stuck to cells taken very early in the life of an organism.

So an old cat will produce clones that won't live longer than the the original cat at the time of DNA extraction. The pet owners are better off freezing the DNA of their favorite pets and wait for better cloning techniques.

this is where it started yes? Where is this whole organic world bullshit?
 

Saturnman

Banned
Tretrapods and crabs can. I know, I had some as a kid. :)

The point of the shark example is its DNA could practically go on replicating forever, theoritically, if its aging process was completely overridden. So if it would still die at one point, you could not point the finger of its DNA breaking apart.
 

Saturnman

Banned
oxrock said:
My part in this discussion was pertaining to how/why a single organism was affected by time. NOT AN ENTIRE SPECIES or all living organisms. I have no clue where you're taking this, it seams to me that you've been changing the subject in your head just to hide the fact that you're wrong.

I'm wrong? Really? Show me. :)

Organisms are affected by time but its either by the elements (accident/predators/rivals) or pre-coded aging that kills them. If you can show me proof that a 200-year-old tortoise has more DNA degradation than a two-week old ant at the end of its life, I'd be happy to see it, buth both animals have the potential of genetics allowing them much shorter or longer lifespans. Errors in cells dividing is irrelevant.

this is where it started yes? Where is this whole organic world bullshit?

Qué?
 

Phoenix

Member
Teflar said:
I wonder how much of this is just power of suggestion.

100%. Personality isn't a genetic trait. You'd have to mind meld the cats together to get their personalities the same.
 
human5892 said:
Using the argument that the woman could've theoretically used her $50,000 to help existing cats is utterly irrelevant.

I could use the money I will spend raising my own child to adopt an existing child and raise him. I could use the $500 I was going to spend on a dog to adopt several dogs and take care of them. But I'm not going to, because I don't want to.

Jesus, who the hell cares what this woman is spending her money on? It's scary to think that there could be such a debate over what a private citizen is legally doing with their own money.
Sure... but I think it's worth pointing out the alternatives for reference by other people considering the same options. For similar reasons I'd feel bad about going through a lot of time/trouble/money with a fertility clinic to make sure I'd get something genetically more similar to myself than with adoption, but obviously many people feel differently.
 

maharg

idspispopd
It's not really a comparable situation. Spending $50,000 on a shelter for cats is not going to get her a new cat. At least not in particular. If she wanted to save a cat from a shelter, she could just go get one for like $50 with immunization and spay/neutering. If she then spent another $49950 on a cat shelter, it wouldn't be to help her get her new cat. And she's not going to get $50k worth of cats to take care of herself.

My point wasn't so much that it's an impractical thing to spend $50k on saving a bunch of cats, it was that it was a retarded argument to begin with. There are many ways you can reach the conclusion that it's a stupid thing to bring up (it's impractical or it's irrelevant), but the end result is the same, it doesn't make any sense.

This is not deciding between adoption and assisted impregnation. This is deciding between assisted impregnation and funding several hundred foster homes.
 
I don't think the quoted person was meaning to be taken that literally. I could say "Hey, for the price of a PSP you could get 2.5 GBA SP's." But of course it's true nobody would literally buy themselves 2.5 GBA SPs as an alternative to a PSP. Just a statement of opportunity cost.
 

Azrael

Member
Spending $50,000 on a cloned cat is stupid and wasteful. But it's no worse than buying a sports car or a yacht or any of the other things people waste their money on. There shouldn't be any controversy about this at all.
 
Azrael said:
Spending $50,000 on a cloned cat is stupid and wasteful. But it's no worse than buying a sports car or a yacht or any of the other things people waste their money on. There shouldn't be any controversy about this at all.


I often clone my speed boat when the original explodes
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
Azrael said:
Spending $50,000 on a cloned cat is stupid and wasteful. But it's no worse than buying a sports car or a yacht or any of the other things people waste their money on. There shouldn't be any controversy about this at all.
Yes, exactly.

And JoshuaJSlone: I think that person was intending to be taken literally, as he implied that the woman's money would be better spent elsewhere:

"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."

Either way, introducing a cash value comparison to the equation is not relevant to the conversation at all. The woman could've done a lot of things with her money. She chose to clone her cat. That is all.
 

Minotauro

Finds Purchase on Dog Nutz
Is this article even for real? I mean, the name "Genetic Savings and Clone" sounds a little suspicious...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom