Good Dog, Bad Cloning

Advances in technology and science amaze me constantly. The Internet alone has revolutionized work and play for me, enabling me to find virtually any article or photo I could ever think of or need. Science also astounds me everyday with the way it can change people’s lives for the better. I would’ve never thought it was possible to create flood resistant rice or disease resistant corn to help withstand a disaster or assist with a famine. However sometimes science can undergo certain endeavors purely focused on profitability without regard to ethics. One such endeavor is the cloning of a deceased or terminally ill dog. The risks and complications to clone a dog far outweigh the benefit of replacing the precious member of your family.

Most of us have had pets at one time or another. Chances are we have become extremely emotionally attached to these same pets to the point where some people even regard them as their children. Whether or not a dog carries the same emotional attachment as a child is an argument for another day, or another blog post. The fact is many people are invested emotionally in a dog in the very same way people are invested in their children and can be equally as devastated when their beloved Fido passes away. When my childhood dog passed died I missed several days of school and for months everything reminded me of her. I would have done anything to bring her back at the time and in my grief i even would've considered having her cloned. That was before I did research and realized what it really takes to clone a dog.

There are many reasons why I am against the cloning of a dog for profit but it mainly involves the actual cruel process to produce a genetic clone. To clone a dog, a cell with genetic material from a parent (dog to be cloned) is implanted into an egg and grown in a surrogate mother. Cloning companies are exploiting the grief of these dog owners to get them to pay between $50,000 to $155,000 to have their dog cloned without ever educating them to the process. According to a Humane Society report of pet cloning attempts published in scientific journals, “99 percent of cloning attempts published in scientific journals fail to produce a healthy animal. In these studies, researchers created 3,656 genetically manipulated embryos and used more than 530 dogs and cats to produce just five cloned dogs and 11 cloned cats surviving beyond 30 days.” This doesn’t even take into account the affects and toll on the surrogate dog mother who may have multiple aborted fetuses before a successful birth. Success rates of less than four tenths of one percent do not justify the pain and suffering involved in this invasive procedure.

Another issue is whether the resulting cloned dog will be the same as the dog it was cloned from. I think, just like with human twins, cloned dogs are more than just a collection of genetic instructions. They are individuals whose personalities are shaped by their life experiences, interactions and relationships with their environment. I found an interesting statement from Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer at Advanced Cell technology and cloning expert, “We cloned a herd of cattle several years ago--they were all cloned from a single individual. The cloned animals exhibit the full spectrum of behavioral traits, from curious and inquisitive to timid and shy. There's no doubt about it: each cloned animal has its own unique, individual personality.” Through their grief many dog owners don’t realize they will not get an exact replica of their dog.

Lou Hawthorne of biotech cloning company, BioArts had his mother’s dog Missy cloned by his company in South Korea. The cloning produced four puppies, one he kept, another he gave to his mother and two he gave to friends. He loves the way the dogs turned out and takes every chance to show how much they are like the original Missy. His mother, owner of the original Missy is not so sure,” They’re not at all alike. In looks, they are a little bit, of course. But, I mean, the puppy is delicate and aggressive. Missy was robust and completely calm.” In fact she doesn’t even want the clone her son made because she adopted a shelter animal after Missy died stating, “I already have a dog-a real dog.”

The fact is there are many other “real dogs” out there that need good homes. I called and spoke with Jordan Crump, Media Relations Director with the Human Society of America to get an idea just how many dogs are in need of a home. She told me that approximately 7-8 million dogs were rescued and sheltered by the various state humane societies across the United States last year. Four million of these dogs were euthanized due to lack of adoptable homes and overcrowding. With so many dogs being euthanized each year we need to abandon the cruel practice that is dog cloning and realize the other alternatives for a grieving dog owner. Next time someone you know is contemplating cloning, let them know the real facts. Tell them exactly how many clones that look the same as their dog will suffer and die for one to live. Let them know how ineffective the cloning process is and how much precious life it wastes. Who knows maybe it will change their minds and save their dog from dying again.

Sources:

Crump, Jordan. “Questions About Humane Society Statistics.” E-mail to the Author.
13 Feb. 2009.

“HSUS/AAVS Report Warns Consumers of Problems With Pet Cloning.” The Humane
Society of the United States. 22 May 2008. 11 Feb. 2009http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/report_warns_consumers_of_problems_with_pet_cloning_052208.html

Inbar, Michael. “Encore! Couple Spend $155,000 to Clone Dead Dog.” MSNBC.com 28 Jan. 2008. 13 Feb. 2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28892792/

Konigsberg, Eric. “Beloved Pets Everlasting?” New York Times 31 Dec. 2008. 11 Feb.
2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/garden/01clones.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Singer, Emily. “The Dark Side of Pet Cloning.” Weblog Post. Technology Review.
1 Jan. 2009. TechnologyReview.com. 13 Feb. 2009
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/22545/

Photo:

http://www.stonebriarvets.com/images/RedDogMask.png

Clone Dogs (DRAFT)

Advances in technology and science amaze me constantly. The Internet alone has revolutionized work and play for me, enabling me to find virtually any article or photo I could ever think of or need. Science also astounds me everyday with the way it can change people’s lives for the better. I would’ve never thought it was possible to create flood resistant rice or disease resistant corn to help withstand a disaster or assist with a famine. However sometimes science can undergo certain endeavors purely focused on profitability without regard to ethics. One such endeavor is the cloning of a deceased or terminally ill dog. The risks and complications to clone a dog far outweigh the benefit of replacing the precious member of your family.

Most of us have had pets at one time or another. Chances are we have become extremely emotionally attached to these same pets to the point where some people even regard them as their children. Whether or not a dog carries the same emotional attachment as a child is an argument for another day, or another blog post. The fact is many people are invested emotionally in a dog in the very same way people are invested in their children and can be equally as devastated when their beloved Fido passes away. When my childhood dog died, I missed several days of school and for months everything reminded me of her. I would have done anything to bring her back at the time, perhaps even had her cloned, but not anymore.

There are many reasons why I am against the cloning of a dog for profit but it mainly involves the actual process to produce a genetic clone. To clone a dog, a cell with genetic material from a parent (dog to be cloned) is implanted into an egg and grown in a surrogate mother. Cloning companies are exploiting the grief of these dog owners to get them to pay between $50,000 to $150,000 to have their dog cloned without ever educating them to the process. According to a Humane Society report about pet cloning attempts published in scientific journals, “99 percent of cloning attempts published in scientific journals fail to produce a healthy animal. In these studies, researchers created 3,656 genetically manipulated embryos and used more than 530 dogs and cats to produce just five cloned dogs and 11 cloned cats surviving beyond 30 days.” This doesn’t even take into account the affects and toll on the surrogate dog mother who may have multiple aborted fetuses before a successful birth. Success rates of less than four tenths of one percent do not justify the pain and suffering involved in this invasive procedure.

Another issue is whether the resulting cloned dog will be the same as the dog it was cloned from. I think, just like with human twins, cloned dogs are more than just a collection of genetic instructions. They are individuals whose personalities are shaped by their life experiences, interactions and relationships with their environment. I found an interesting statement from Dr. Robert Lanza, Chief Scientific Officer at Advanced Cell Technology, and a cloning expert, “We cloned a herd of cattle several years ago--they were all cloned from a single individual. The cloned animals exhibit the full spectrum of behavioral traits, from curious and inquisitive to timid and shy. There's no doubt about it: each cloned animal has its own unique, individual personality.” Through their grief many dog owners don’t realize they will not get an exact replica of their dog.

Lou Hawthorne of the biotech cloning company BioArts had his mother’s dog Missy cloned by his company in South Korea. The cloning produced four puppies, one he kept, another he gave to his mother and two he gave to friends. He loves the way the dogs turned out and takes every chance to show how much they are like the original Missy. His mother Joan quoted in a New York Times article and the owner of the original Missy is not so sure, “They’re not at all alike. In looks, they are a little bit, of course. But, I mean, the puppy is delicate and aggressive. Missy was robust and completely calm.” In fact she doesn’t even want the clone her son made because she adopted a shelter animal after Missy died stating, “I already have a dog - a real dog.”

The fact is there are many other “real dogs” out there that need good homes. I emailed Jordan Crump, Media Relations Director with the Humane Society of America, to get an idea just how many dogs are in need of a home. She told me that approximately 7-8 million dogs were rescued and sheltered by the various state humane societies across the United States last year. Four million of these dogs were euthanized due to lack of adoptable homes and overcrowding. That’s four million Missy’s that needed a loving caring home but couldn’t find one.

Tamil Tigers Research Exercise

1. The Tamil Tigers are an independent guerilla group that seeks an independent Tamil state in northern and eastern Sri Lanka.
"Tamil Tigers." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica. Feb. 2 2008
<http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9383771>.

2. The member of British Parliament accused of supporting the Tamil Tigers is Keith Vaz the MP for Leicester East and former Labour Minister.
Hennesy, Patrick. "Terror Police Probe Rally Attended By MP." The Sunday Telegraph [London] 23 Dec. 2003: P1. http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/

3. Tamil Nadu is a state in India which has a large Tamil population which in the 1980’s helped train, finance and arm Sri Lankan Tamil militants.
Economist; 11/10/2007, Vol. 385 Issue 8554, p54-54, 8/9p, 1 color. http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27504828&site=ehost-live

4. The 2007 first ever air strike by the Tamil Tigers utilized two light fixed-wing aircraft and possibly another small single engine aircraft.
Pasricha, Anjana. “Sri Lanka: Tamil Tigers Launch First Ever Airstrike.” 2007. Global Security. 2 Feb. 2008. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/03/mil-070326-voa01.htm

5. The United States does not support an independent Tamil state until the Tamil Tigers lay down their arms and stop their terrorist activities.
Kronstadt, K. Alan. “Sri Lanka: Background and US Relations.” Jan. 2008. LexisNexis Congressional. 2 Feb. 2008. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/congcomp/getdoc?CRDC-ID=CRS-2008-FDT-0123

My Thoughts on Ace of Spades...

In looking for a blog to analyze I felt it best to look at one that I normally wouldn’t read . Therefore I reviewed some posts on the conservative Ace of Spades blog. I found the perfect post from Ace on February 1, 2009.

Unlikely: Kossacks Seek to Bring Limbaugh Down, by Bringin’ The Funnay, which actually contained a excerpt from Daily Kos and commented on it. I figured this was the perfect article to critique seeing how it was basically a conservative blogs response to a liberal blogs post. In fact the phrase “Kossack” is a term coined in reference, and reverence no doubt, to readers and posters of the Daily Kos blog.

The first section of the blog post addresses a post on the Daily Kos on how to deal with Rush Limbaugh and his perceived attacking of Democrats and President Obama in particular. It basically states that the best way to deal with Limbaugh and his popularity amongst the GOP is to attack him with humor and/or satire. In their eyes the only dip in Limbaugh’s popularity came when Al Franken released his lampooning book, “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.” The Daily Kos is saying that the only way to do this is to take it mainstream and not just “preach to the choir”, i.e. other liberals who already cannot stand Limbaugh. They use Tina Fey’s portrayal of Sarah Palin as a good example of how a public political figure’s image can be dramatically altered.

Ace responds to this post by simply saying that liberals cannot successfully use this method because that would require self-deprecation, something he thinks they are incapable of. He then goes on to talk about how some liberal comedy writers such as Jon Stewart are capable of pantomiming self-deprecation, but really it’s just a transparent counterfeit in Ace’s views. Ace also points out that “95% of liberals are incapable of the ego deflation necessary for humor, and I’d expand that to 99% of Internet liberals.” He then shows how good Limbaugh is at self-deprecating in comparison to liberals in general.

Although I do not completely agree with the Daily Kos post, I really find flaws in Ace’s argument against their Humor/Satire angle. He basically states no liberal is even capable of satire or even any humor in general because their egos are so large. Stating absolutes and thus polarizing your argument makes no sense to me at all. He furthers this attack by finding a funny liberal, Jon Stewart, then immediately discredits him, all the while building up the initial target of the Daily Kos post about Rush Limbaugh. He also uses an obvious made up statistic to nail the point home claiming “99% of Internet liberals” are incapable of humor. Obviously this post is not aiming to convert anybody over to his viewpoints but to slander and attack the Daily Kos to the delight of the readers and commenter's.

The most disturbing part of the post is that the comments on the site are very attacking and sometimes directly racist with nothing to do with the actual post many times. They vary from “Effective satire is far beyond the reach of these mental dwarfs,” to “BTW, that black lady singing the anthem at the (Super) Bowl should be taken out behind the shed and beaten to death,” which is quite an inappropriate comment about Jennifer Hudson whose mother, sister and nephew were just murdered a few months ago. I read the original Daily Kos post and the Ace of Spades post and found both site’s comments to be heavily biased but the venom on Ace of Spades was alarming to say the least.

However, the fact is that neither comment section on either post really advanced or debated the argument in any sort of rational way. They both ended up resorting to jokes and name calling, which in the end shows both blogs are pandering to a specific readership that is already their audience.