.jpg)
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.

1. The title states the topic. I would recommend a more creative one that gives your emotional response. “Clone Dogs” does not state your position towards the topic until you begin reading.
ReplyDelete2. “The risks and complications to clone a dog far outweigh the benefit of replacing the precious member of your family.” The thesis is well-thought out and planned. It states your position very clearly.
3. The author’s audience is the general population. Mainly families or people that have pets.
4. The personal story was used to emotionally captivate the audience.
5. Position was clear by the second paragraph.
6. Very clear and concise definitions. Even the scientific info is spelled out for all to understand.
7. The style and tone used gets the point across. Basically it is that no matter how much one misses their pet, it is not worth the complications to recreate. Accept the loss because there will be even more heartache and pain involved if you attempt to clone it.
8. The author found common ground with assuming that all readers have/had pets.
9. The lab experiment failures and the story of Missy are god examples. They are however missing citations.
10. The ending feels very abrupt. It does not even end with cloning, but with adopting pets. I am not sure if I missed what was supposed to be related to it, but it would make more sense to leave with a powerful message against cloning.
11. No sources were hyperlinked... Remember to give credit to those that researched it first.
12. Quotations were used properly.
13. There is not a section that involves a rebuttal or an acknowledgement of the opposition. What would be the benefits of cloning? Is there any use to it rather than resurrecting deceased pets?
14. Language is casual and non-offensive.
15. I enjoy how your blog is very personal. It does not seem to be like a research project, but rather a message to warn people of the harm caused by the desire to not accept the loss of their pet. It was very enjoyable.
-It looks like I wasn't the first one to think of it, but a more creative title might help make it more effective (even though I would still make it something about cloning so that the picture of the dogs makes sense still).
ReplyDelete-Good intro to lead into your thesis, it definitely gives more personality and starts slow instead of just jumping into the issue.
-For your audience, are you trying to make an argument against cloning in general or just against the cloning of pets? That might be something to just clarify at some point.
-Good explanation of scientific terms for people that do not know what some of those terms mean. Definitely helps to broaden your audience.
-The stats you used really help your argument, but you should add links to the sites where you got the information.
-The conclusion was good for the most part, but it might make it a little better if you change the last sentence just a little bit to bring it back to the issue of cloning.
-Your whole argument is very clear and easy to understand. On top of that, you have interesting and convincing points that really help make your perspective a lot more persuasive. Other than needing to add links to your sources, I didn't really see anything major that needs to be fixed.