just curious/ thoughts on cloning

[Barbrae]

just wondering what the skeptics thoughts are on this

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041223001009990002

I am just curious.

[Skeptical Greg]

Your link requires AOL membership..


Any other sources?

[Rolfe]

Is this what you're talking about? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4120179.stm)

It seems like a lot of money, but it was the woman's own money and I suppose she's entitled to spend it any way she likes."For $50,000 (£26,000) she could have provided homes for a lot of strays."

Animal rights activists say there is no need to produce cloned cats when there are thousands of stray cats put to death ever year.I don't think this is a relevant argument. For the price of a Rolex watch or a diamond necklace or a house in Beverley Hills with a swimming pool you could provide homes for a heck of a lot of stray cats, or anti-retroviral drugs for a lot of children with AIDS, or fed a lot of starving people in Somalia, etc. etc. But people don't.

And while we're at it, you could say that there is no need to breed (pedigree) cats for exactly the same reason. Darat and Claus Larsen (just for a start) could have provided homes for a lot of strays for what they paid for the pedigree cats they've proudly shown us pictures of.

Spending money on expensive luxuries is something people do, even in the face of world hunger, or disease, or homeless pussycats, and it's not condemned out of hand. Do we have no opera until all the homeless are housed? Can any of us say we eschew luxury of any kind because we acknowledge that there are deserving charities who need our money? I don't think so.

This lady wanted to clone her pet, and she chose to spend some money on it. For all we know she also donated $100,000 to the local cat shelter, would that make the critics quieten down?

So, having disposed of that one, what about the rest?

Well, we don't know much yet about the potential health problems of cloned animals. I understand that this company claims to be using an improved technique which is supposed to get round the problems reported for earlier techniques. The only way to do it is to try it. And I'd far rather try it on animals than people!

You could criticise the woman's motives, but who knows? If it was cheap, and I had the requisite preserved DNA, I'd be tempted to clone Rolfe out of sheer scientific curiosity to see how much like the original the kitten would turn out to be. And because the idea of possibly getting another cat with the extraordinary personality he had is really quite attractive.

Would that make me a bad person? If not, then why should someone rich who can afford it be criticised for having a go?

OK, she might be heading for grief, there might be trouble ahead, but hey, life's trouble in any case and kittens can get sick and die even if they aren't clones, so go for it I say.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Barbrae
just wondering what the skeptics thoughts are on this

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20041223001009990002

I am just curious. "Skeptics"?? What makes you think "skeptics" have some particular group-think opinion of that?

Hans

[Skeptical Greg]

Never mind.. I have read the story now...

[Rolfe]

Was I wrong? Was it about something else entirely? Was my pro-cute-kitten rant completely wasted?

Was there another cloning story around today?

Rolfe.

[Barbrae]

No Rolfe - you were correct. Thanks for answering btw and sorry about providing a bad link.

Hans, I was just curious what the individual opinions of the skeptics here was regarding the issue since it is a scientific issue, no? I didn't mean to imply I thought all of you had the same thoughts on it. I was looking for opinions, like Rolfe was kind enough to provide.

[Eos of the Eons]

My thoughts? It was a frivolous use, but not a bad use of cloning. It will further the technololgy, and therefore information about cloning.

Have they tried just cloning a heart or something though? It would be harder since you want only part of the dna and not the whole dna of a whole animal being expressed.

There are much more practical uses, and life saving uses for cloning needed parts for animals. Skin for grafting, kidneys for those on dialysis, etc.

I say it's good if we can increase the information and knowledge of cloning technology.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Is this what you're talking about? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4120179.stm)

It seems like a lot of money, but it was the woman's own money and I suppose she's entitled to spend it any way she likes.I don't think this is a relevant argument. For the price of a Rolex watch or a diamond necklace or a house in Beverley Hills with a swimming pool you could provide homes for a heck of a lot of stray cats, or anti-retroviral drugs for a lot of children with AIDS, or fed a lot of starving people in Somalia, etc. etc. But people don't.

And while we're at it, you could say that there is no need to breed (pedigree) cats for exactly the same reason. Darat and Claus Larsen (just for a start) could have provided homes for a lot of strays for what they paid for the pedigree cats they've proudly shown us pictures of.

Spending money on expensive luxuries is something people do, even in the face of world hunger, or disease, or homeless pussycats, and it's not condemned out of hand. Do we have no opera until all the homeless are housed? Can any of us say we eschew luxury of any kind because we acknowledge that there are deserving charities who need our money? I don't think so.

This lady wanted to clone her pet, and she chose to spend some money on it. For all we know she also donated $100,000 to the local cat shelter, would that make the critics quieten down?

So, having disposed of that one, what about the rest?

Well, we don't know much yet about the potential health problems of cloned animals. I understand that this company claims to be using an improved technique which is supposed to get round the problems reported for earlier techniques. The only way to do it is to try it. And I'd far rather try it on animals than people!

You could criticise the woman's motives, but who knows? If it was cheap, and I had the requisite preserved DNA, I'd be tempted to clone Rolfe out of sheer scientific curiosity to see how much like the original the kitten would turn out to be. And because the idea of possibly getting another cat with the extraordinary personality he had is really quite attractive.

Would that make me a bad person? If not, then why should someone rich who can afford it be criticised for having a go?

OK, she might be heading for grief, there might be trouble ahead, but hey, life's trouble in any case and kittens can get sick and die even if they aren't clones, so go for it I say.

Rolfe.



Well first of all,It's not about what people do..It's about what people should be doing.

It's really pointless to clone a cat when it's obvious that it won't be the same cat as before,Just the same cat genetically. It would of gone through different experiences therefor it whould have a different personality.I could clone myself 1000 times and have my clones spread all across the world,abut that does not mean every clown would have the same personality as Me...Or have personality's alike.
Obviolsly a clone living in a nigerian village would have a different personality than a clone living in a newyork skyline apartment.Even if they are genetically Identacal.
The fact is...Cloning your cat or dog or whatever does not mean it will be the same in personality. That cat's experiences shaped it's personality.


Originally posted by Rolfe For the price of a Rolex watch or a diamond necklace or a house in Beverley Hills with a swimming pool you could provide homes for a heck of a lot of stray cats, or anti-retroviral drugs for a lot of children with AIDS, or fed a lot of starving people in Somalia, etc. etc. But people don't.

Yes,But you don't get a house in beverly hills with a swimming pool if you spend it on drugs for kids.
But she DOES still get a cat if she spends 20$ to adopt a homeless one.This new cat of her's is not the same as her old cat,Genetically yes..But that's all. It's personality is shaped by input and it's experiences,Since this cat will not have the exact same input or experience,It will not turnout the same in personality.So basically it's a waste of money.



The person's point is that it would be much better to get a homless cat rather than clone a dead cat.

Nothing is "out of the way"..you have not proven anything by saying "well this is what people do". There is STILL a need for homes for all of these cats,Therefor she obviously would of spent her money better by just adopting a homless cat for 20$ rather than spending 50,000 for cloning a cat.

The only need is her desire to do this,Which is outweighed by the need for homes for millions of cats throughout the world.

We can not tell her how to spend her money,all we can do is say it would of been better to do something else with it.And there is nothing wrong with saying that..Because it's true.

[Eos of the Eons]

Some parts of personality are shaped by genetics. The chances the clone has of getting those same genes expressed as the original cat in the same way are quite slim, but it might have some similarities yet. The owner is claiming some similarities already, but she is clearly biased. How different can cat personalities be anyway? I clearly don't know much about cats, being allergic...

I've had dogs though, and there can be distinct differences.

Not only that, but experiences do shape personality as well, and it is impossible for that cat to have the exact same ones as the original.

The cat might have some similiarities to orginal, but I think the owner will try to tell people it is very similar.

But so what? Like I said, another cat would be just as lovable.

Frivolous. They should be doing more, but I already said that anything might help the technology to advance, and hopefully this did help somehow.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Dustin
.... she obviously would of spent her money better by just adopting a homless cat for 20$ rather than spending 50,000 for cloning a cat.

The only need is her desire to do this,Which is outweighed by the need for homes for millions of cats throughout the world.

We can not tell her how to spend her money,all we can do is say it would of been better to do something else with it.And there is nothing wrong with saying that..Because it's true. So, where do you draw the line. Do you live at the plainest standard possible so you can give every surplus penny to charity? Do you lecture everyone who spent a penny this Christmas that wasn't on a "necessity" that the money could have been better spent? Who defines where necessity ends and luxury begins? Come to that, who defines the priorities of the charities?

Do we declare that it's wrong to spend money rescuing homeless cats because there are children with AIDS who still don't have access to anti-retroviral drugs? That it's wrong to spend many thousands of pounds in mobility aids for privileged disabled people in the west, while people are dying in their thousands from malaria?

What I'm trying to say is that the debate about conspicuously frivolous consumption in the face of evident need is a huge subject, worthy of much philosophical discussion, and which massively transcends the tiny issue of cloning pets. If that's all the critics can muster on their side of the argument, I don't think they've got much going for them.It's really pointless to clone a cat when it's obvious that it won't be the same cat as before,Just the same cat genetically. It would of gone through different experiences therefor it whould have a different personality.I could clone myself 1000 times and have my clones spread all across the world,abut that does not mean every clown would have the same personality as Me...Or have personality's alike.How do we know? Has anyone cloned a human? There was a big TV debate the other night about how much of a person's tendency to violence was genetic and how much upbringing, and no firm conclusions could be drawn. It might prove that genetic factors are stronger than any of us thinks.

The only way to find out it to try it, and pet animals is as good a way to try it as any. If the lady believes she's certain to get the original cat back, she's a fool. If she believes she's taking a good chance of getting a kitten as similar as possible to her previous cat, then she's probably right.

Yes, she may exaggerate the similarities, so what, if she's happy. It's an example of conspicuous frivolous consumption, just like many others from diamond necklaces to sports cars. Forget about what else the money might have been spent on, and discuss the matter on its own merits (or lack of them).

Rolfe.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Rolfe


And while we're at it, you could say that there is no need to breed (pedigree) cats for exactly the same reason. Darat and Claus Larsen (just for a start) could have provided homes for a lot of strays for what they paid for the pedigree cats they've proudly shown us pictures of.



Yup.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Rolfe
So, where do you draw the line. Do you live at the plainest standard possible so you can give every surplus penny to charity? Do you lecture everyone who spent a penny this Christmas that wasn't on a "necessity" that the money could have been better spent? Who defines where necessity ends and luxury begins? Come to that, who defines the priorities of the charities?

Do we declare that it's wrong to spend money rescuing homeless cats because there are children with AIDS who still don't have access to anti-retroviral drugs? That it's wrong to spend many thousands of pounds in mobility aids for privileged disabled people in the west, while people are dying in their thousands from malaria?

What I'm trying to say is that the debate about conspicuously frivolous consumption in the face of evident need is a huge subject, worthy of much philosophical discussion, and which massively transcends the tiny issue of cloning pets. If that's all the critics can muster on their side of the argument, I don't think they've got much going for them.How do we know? Has anyone cloned a human? There was a big TV debate the other night about how much of a person's tendency to violence was genetic and how much upbringing, and no firm conclusions could be drawn. It might prove that genetic factors are stronger than any of us thinks.

The only way to find out it to try it, and pet animals is as good a way to try it as any. If the lady believes she's certain to get the original cat back, she's a fool. If she believes she's taking a good chance of getting a kitten as similar as possible to her previous cat, then she's probably right.

Yes, she may exaggerate the similarities, so what, if she's happy. It's an example of conspicuous frivolous consumption, just like many others from diamond necklaces to sports cars. Forget about what else the money might have been spent on, and discuss the matter on its own merits (or lack of them).

Rolfe.


I draw the line on spending 50 grand for cloning a cat.

The money COULD of been spent better...But it was not.

That's about all there is to it.
Nothing else really matters.
I don't just forget about it when it's an obvious waste of money.Im also not the type to "just forget about it" when America is spending billions on a war in iraq when it has more important things at home to deal with.I don't say "just forget about it" when money goes to waste when it could of been spent on a better cause that helped thousands opposed to one womans desire to clone her cat.
Maybe You can,But I can't and don't.


I say she should of adopted a homeless cat.

[Rolfe]

But is that the only point you have to make on the matter? Surely the question of the rights and wrongs of cloning goes way beyond simply taking it as an example of conspicuous frivolous consumption?

If the only criticism of this matter is the same criticism as might be raised against the purchase of ocean-going yachts or diamond necklaces or Rolex watches, then it's not much of a specific argument against cloning.

Rolfe.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Rolfe
But is that the only point you have to make on the matter? Surely the question of the rights and wrongs of cloning goes way beyond simply taking it as an example of conspicuous frivolous consumption?

If the only criticism of this matter is the same criticism as might be raised against the purchase of ocean-going yachts or diamond necklaces or Rolex watches, then it's not much of a specific argument against cloning.

Rolfe.


That's my only point.


I have nothing against cloning IF it is used correctly,and used to benefit mankind.Obviously cloning pets and making a business out of it in the first few years that cloning is getting a start is not the right way to go about doing things.I would like to see them bring the florida panter's numbers back up to several thousand along with all of the other endangered animals,or extinct animals.

Unless they use the money to fund further research into cloning so that they may be able to bring endangered animals numbers back,There is not much point to it.


And Still....She should of gotten a cat at a shelter.

[geni]

Originally posted by Dustin
And Still....She should of gotten a cat at a shelter.

And the 50K would proably have ended up sitting in a bankl account. much better that it be spent and keep the economy going.

[Barbrae]

Rolfe, the article states that cloned cats have a mortality rate of 15-45 % 30 days after birth. That seems like an awfully big margin 15-45. But it also says that uncloned cats have the same rate - is this correct?

[BillyJoe]

have

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Barbrae
*snip*Hans, I was just curious what the individual opinions of the skeptics here was regarding the issue since it is a scientific issue, no? I didn't mean to imply I thought all of you had the same thoughts on it. I was looking for opinions, like Rolfe was kind enough to provide. OK, sorry for being defensive. It's just... well you know what it is..

Hans

[Soapy Sam]

Remember how people used the "Give it to the poor "argument about project Apollo?

The poor ye will have with you alway, even unto the ends of the Earth, but 363 feet of exploding firework ripping into space like a cat with it's tail on fire; that's something you don't get to see everyday.

It's a poor argument, though the moral force varies depending on who makes it , to my mind.

I do feel anyone who spends this kind of money on a cat needs his / her head examined.

A dog I could understand.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Rolfe, the article states that cloned cats have a mortality rate of 15-45 % 30 days after birth. That seems like an awfully big margin 15-45. But it also says that uncloned cats have the same rate - is this correct? This is a much more relevant point, and one which I've been pondering on since I read some more detailed articles. No, the mortality seems too high to me. I think you'd have trouble finding a breeder who admitted to such high losses.

I'm also rather concerned about the welfare of the surrogate mothers. I was assuming that US animal welfare and experimentation laws would take care of that, but on more sober reflection, I'm maybe not so sure.

However, my main question relates to duplicates. How many embryos do they start off? More than one at a time, I'll bet. Like IVF - they implant several embryos in the hope that at least one will "take". And look at the rate of multiple births that come out of that method.

If you end up with precisely one successful live kitten, well, OK maybe. But what if you actually get two? Or three? And I can't see that's impossible, in fact I think it's quite likely. Do you quietly rehome them to your mates, or slip them to the local rescue cattery or what?

I was just thinking, if I really had the tissue stored (which I haven't), and Rolfe hadn't been FIV-positive (which he was, and which I suspect would be a total no-no to cloning), and I had the money, what would I want to know? For a start, I'd want to know that the surrogate mothers lived a life of feline luxury, and that if more than one Rolfie-clone resulted, I'd get the lot at no extra charge.

Yes, the one-to-one relationship I had with that cat was very special, but I'd far rather have several of him than know (or fear) that my pampered pet's clone-brother was in an orphanage somewhere. Or even put down as surplus to requirements.

I wonder if these questions have been asked, and if so, were the answers satisfactory? Criticising the "waste" of £27,000 is a complete side-track to the real issues.

Rolfe.

[John Bentley]

Rolfe,
I didn't read the article, so I am replying in complete ignorance. That said, the 15 - 45% mortality rate is probably an estimate of the mortality rate of all cats born, not just those resulting from breeders. I've heard this figure before, and I suspect it is accurate for feral cats in my neck of the woods.

edited to include:

The high figure is from predation and parasites in the feral cat population, not from genetic defects.

edited again:

And I agree with you that she has the right to spend her money however she sees fit. My question to the critics would be: "Have you taken a vow of poverty?"

As far as cloning goes, and the similarities in personality, just look at the research done on twins separated at birth for the answer.

[Barbrae]

Originally posted by Rolfe

I'm also rather concerned about the welfare of the surrogate mothers. I was assuming that US animal welfare and experimentation laws would take care of that, but on more sober reflection, I'm maybe not so sure.

Rolfe.

I also would be interested to know just what effect the health, environment, lifestyle of the surrogate has on the resulting newborn.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Remember how people used the "Give it to the poor "argument about project Apollo?

The poor ye will have with you alway, even unto the ends of the Earth, but 363 feet of exploding firework ripping into space like a cat with it's tail on fire; that's something you don't get to see everyday.

It's a poor argument, though the moral force varies depending on who makes it , to my mind.

I do feel anyone who spends this kind of money on a cat needs his / her head examined.

A dog I could understand.

It appears the fissure between the "haves" and the "have-nots" has been noticed again.
Bottom line about that is that it's the buyer's d@mn money, and she can spend it any way she wants. No one 's gonna tell her how to spend it; I doubt anyone would blink an eye if she had paid to have her cat mummified and then built into a huge egyptian tomb of worship.
Criticize her, tell her she wasted her money, it's no chicken's business, no matter how many cluck about her not giving it to buy a cat she could adopt for far less money. (It's almost like saying "buy the bargain cat because the more expensive one isn't worth the money." Putting a price on sentimental things is pretty tricky.)

I also would be interested to know just what effect the health, environment, lifestyle of the surrogate has on the resulting newborn.

I would like to know the baseline standards one would use in order to perform a comparative study between surrogates and non-surrogate situations, including health, environment, etc.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Barbrae
I also would be interested to know just what effect the health, environment, lifestyle of the surrogate has on the resulting newborn. Given the money involved, I'd be confident that the health, environment and welfare of the surrogate were exemplary during pregnancy and lactation. Nobody is going to want a badly socialised, unhealthy kitten at £27,000 a pop. I'd be interested to know what precautions they take regarding FIP and similar infections too - I think the breeding colony must be essentially maintained as SPF.

However, is welfare ensured before conception and after weaning? That's where I'd like to get a bit probing.

And I also want to know about the duplicates matter.

However, given satisfactory answers to all this stuff, it's the lady's own money. Maybe people who have taken that vow of poverty are in a position to criticise, but nobody else.

How much is everybody who is getting all holy about that going to donate to the tsunami disaster fund, and how much spending money will they have left at the end of it?

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

How common is mammal cloning anyway? The human cloners seem to have gone quiet of late. For a while there it seemed like everybody with a test tube and a P.R. agency was about to produce one next month.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Maybe people who have taken that vow of poverty are in a position to criticise, but nobody else.


Et Tu quoque, Brutus?



N/A

[Mojo]

I have no particular objection to someone spending their money on this if they want to, although I suspect they're wasting their money if they are expecting a perfect replica. Environment is bound to have an effect, epecially on personality.

But are there any health issues for the cat? I remember it being reported (and a quick Google search confirms this) that Dolly the sheep showed signs of premature ageing. Has this been confirmed as a side effect of the cloning?

[Lithrael]

Originally posted by geni
And the 50K would proably have ended up sitting in a bank account. much better that it be spent and keep the economy going.

Got to agree with this actually. I'd have to applaud this nut for giving that kind of cash to a lab full of people doing interesting stuff, given what sorts of absolute crap I see the rich dropping money on. This money isn't wasted, it's going somewhere, and rewarding the cloners for their hard work.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
How common is mammal cloning anyway? The human cloners seem to have gone quiet of late. For a while there it seemed like everybody with a test tube and a P.R. agency was about to produce one next month.

http://skepdic.com/raelian.html

Eh, the raelians have moved on; Intelligent Design is all the rage now, and it's not a god that made life on earth, it was aliens.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Mojo

But are there any health issues for the cat? I remember it being reported (and a quick Google search confirms this) that Dolly the sheep showed signs of premature ageing. Has this been confirmed as a side effect of the cloning?

Good question. Any answers? It makes sense, but is it true, and can it be remedied?

[BillyJoe]

On a related topic, we are having a record $30 million dollar lottery soon and there is already an expectation that the winner will donate a portion to the tsunami fund.

It's easy to spend someone else's money!

BJ