Cloning for Dollars:

Companion Animals and Genetic Technology

By Crystal Schaeffer, AAVS Outreach Director

AV Magazine Spring 2007, Cloning for Biomedical Research

A relatively new branch of the cloning industry is burgeoning, claiming virtuous ambitions while it banks companion animal DNA and thousands of dollars. Biotechnology companies such as Genetic Savings & Clone, Inc., Lazaron BioTechnologies, and PerPETuate, Inc. have established programs geared specifically towards cloning companion animals. The first cloned companion animal is a cat named CC, who was born in December 2001 at Texas A&M University. Although dogs have yet to be cloned, all three companies are accepting tissue samples from canines as well as felines, and, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, these ‘pet cloning’ operations are unregulated.

Genetic Savings & Clone touts arguably the most ostentatious program, with the launch of its The First Nine Lives Extravaganza, a one-year project that aims to clone nine companion cats, three of whom share(d) a home with employees and six whose guardians are clients of the company. The package includes an all-expense paid trip to a party in California where guardians will be 'presented' their cloned companion and will also receive a special remembrance video of the cloning process to have as a keepsake.

The cloning process utilized by Genetic Savings & Clone (and others) begins with gene banking, a process in which an animal's cells are cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen and stored. Once the genetic material is transferred into a donor cell, the cell is then surgically implanted into the oviduct of a surrogate mother who is in heat. Not only does the surgery itself pose possible complications and pain, but when the procedure is performed while the cat is in heat, the risk of complications increases because the reproductive tissue is friable, making it extremely difficult to control bleeding and secure sutures.

It is difficult to estimate how many animals will be utilized to 'create' one clone. For each cloned animal 'created,' at least two animals are needed, one to provide the donor cell and another to be the surrogate mother. An untold number of cloned embryos are produced; some are destroyed since they are used to test for the procedure's viability, and most never establish themselves in the surrogate mother. Researchers who 'created' CC first 'produced' 82 cloned embryos that were implanted into seven surrogate mothers, but no kittens survived. Another methodology was then implemented that 'produced' three cloned embryos, one of whom was CC. Additionally, it is impossible to vouch for the health of cloned companion animals, as Genetic Savings & Clone admits, saying, "...clones do have a higher incidence of health problems than animals produced by conventional reproduction." Numerous scientific papers also note that cloned animals are often deformed or suffer from other complications.

The biotech company, which does not appear to have an on-staff veterinarian, also claims on its website that it is not perpetuating the dog and cat overpopulation crisis in cloning companion animals, boldly stating that it is actually helping to reduce unwanted animals by purchasing eggs from spay clinics, which "then use the cash we provide to spay more dogs and cats." This statement clearly embodies a lack of understanding of this issue. Anyone who reproduces a dog or cat, whether by traditional breeding or genetic manipulation, brings another companion animal into the world and denies a potential home for an animal who is up for adoption at a shelter or rescue group, thus aiding in the sustainability of the overpopulation of dogs and cats.

Despite this and the fact that commercial cloning of cats and dogs has not yet become a reality, biotech companies are currently reaping the financial benefits that this technology may bring. For example, Genetic Savings & Clone lists its all-inclusive price for a cloned cat at $50,000, an amount equal to the budget of a small shelter or rescue group and the total household income of many Americans. The company’s treatment of animals as commodities is obvious in the tell-tale statement on their website that “we aim to produce dog clones for less than the price of a second car, and cat clones for roughly half the cost of dog clones.” For those who just wish to bank their companion's genes with the hope of one day having their deceased companion ‘return to life,’ there is an $895 charge. Lazaron charges $700 to process genetic material plus a monthly fee to store the collection of cells, as does PerPETuate, which also bills its clients an additional $790 just to submit a tissue sample.

It is also important to note that biotech companies are forging ahead in their desire to commercially clone cats and dogs while the general public has expressed disapproval of these types of endeavors. A May 2002 Gallup poll found that 82 percent of Americans disapprove of "cloning dogs, cats, or other animals that people keep as pets." A Fox News February 2002 survey reported that 84 percent of those polled believe it is not acceptable "to use cloning to reproduce a beloved pet such as a dog or cat." A 2001 ABC News/Beliefnet poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe it should be illegal to clone animals in the United States. These findings echo a February 2004 poll commissioned by AAVS which reported that 80 percent of those surveyed "oppose cloning of companion animals, such as dogs and cats." These data are significant as the public remains steadfast in its opposition to cloning companion animals, despite there being an increase in the promotion of this unnecessary industry.

Print View

Web ViewText Size: