Letting the Cat Out of the Bag:

AAVS Exposes the Truth About Pet Cloning

By Nicole Perry, AAVS Outreach Coordinator

AV Magazine Spring 2007, Cloning for Biomedical Research

It began with a dog named Missy.

On a whim in 1997, an Arizona billionaire asked his entrepreneurial friend to help him find a team of scientists who could clone his beloved companion, a border collie husky mix. He poured millions of dollars into what became both the “Missyplicity Project” and a now-defunct, California-based company called Genetic Savings & Clone, Inc. (GSC Inc.).

GSC Inc. funded a number of cloning experiments at Texas A&M University but was unsuccessful in cloning Missy or any other dog. One result of the Missyplicity Project, however, was a small tabby cat named CC, short for Copy Cat.

The news of CC sparked the inception of the notorious pet cloning industry, and GSC Inc. intended to capitalize on it. Soon, this company and others began ‘banking’ DNA from companion dogs and cats for future cloning, demanding anywhere between $295 to $1,395, plus $100-$150 annually for storage fees. However, GSC Inc. surpassed other pet cloning companies by going beyond just DNA banking and started advertising that it could actually clone cats. GSC Inc. sought six orders from members of the public who wished to have a cloned version of their feline companions. The price? Fifty thousand dollars.

Cruelty and Deception

From the outset, AAVS opposed this excessive and exploitative business, a mere moneymaking scheme that harmed both humans and animals. Pet cloning companies like GSC, Inc. exploited tender emotions, such as grief, and led the public to believe that deceased pets could be ‘resurrected’ through new cloning technology. Additionally, most people assumed that cloned animals were virtual ‘carbon-copies,’ but, in truth, animal cloning experiments have revealed otherwise.

While a cloned animal is almost genetically identical to the original animal, there is no guarantee that he or she will physically resemble the original animal.^[1][2] Even CC, the first cloned cat, did not have the orange markings of her calico clone. In addition, there is no assurance that a clone will share any behavioral traits with the original animal, unless a behavior is breed-specific. Cloning scientists at Texas A&M University compared the behavior of cloned and naturally bred pigs and found that, “…the goal of using nuclear transfer to replicate animals to reproduce certain behavioral characteristics is an unrealistic expectation.”^[3]

Further, those who sought to clone a companion animal were likely unaware of the experimental nature of cloning and the animal suffering it inevitably involves. The public hardly hears about animal cloning failures. However, in discussions and papers published about cloning, it has become apparent that animals suffer a variety of consequences in cloning experiments.

Scientists routinely refer to cloning as a new and “inefficient” technology citing low average survival rates of between 0.5-4.0 percent for cloned embryos.^[4] Cloned animals who actually survive birth can suffer unpredictable, serious health consequences (e.g. early onset of cancer, developmental problems, sudden death).^[5][6][7] In addition, animal cloning technologies are still very new, and the long-term effects on cloned animals, particularly animals such as cats, who live long lives, have yet to be adequately measured. Therefore, each time a company attempts to clone an animal, it must be recognized as experimental.

AAVS Responds

AAVS sought to bring forth the truth about pet cloning. If the public recognized the hypocrisy involved in an industry claiming to value companion animals yet caused them tremendous harm, AAVS predicted public support would drop significantly.

To begin the process, AAVS launched an educational website, www.NoPetCloning.org, which explains the science and ethics involved in pet cloning, using expert opinions, news articles, and a unique “Adopt a Clone” feature. Matching real companion animals with their shelter look-alikes, AAVS sought to draw attention to the numerous animals waiting for adoption in animal shelters.

Many people do not realize the connection between pet cloning and the crisis of dog and cat overpopulation. Although cloning essentially requires three animals—the individual to be cloned, the surrogate mother, and the cloned offspring—many, many more are used in the process. If they are not euthanized, these ‘surplus’ animals may be adopted into private homes after use, but companies are not required to have them spayed and neutered. U.S. shelters are already teeming with animals, and an estimated 3-4 million are euthanized each year for lack of homes.^[8] By creating even more companion animals, pet cloning companies are adding to the overpopulation problem.

In a further effort to educate the public, AAVS released a report, Pet Cloning: Separating Facts from Fluff. The report includes references to scientific literature and the results of an independent public survey commissioned by AAVS, which found that 80 percent of people in the U.S. are opposed to pet cloning.

AAVS worked with some of these concerned citizens in California to help establish Californians Against Pet Cloning (CAPC). With the help of California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, CAPC introduced a bill to ban the retail sale and transfer of cloned and genetically modified pets in California. Although this bill died in committee, the fact that it was championed by 21 groups and numerous individuals adds support to public opposition to pet cloning.

Next, AAVS broadened its endeavors by seeking federal regulation. AAVS filed a legal petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asking the agency to regulate companies that clone and genetically modify pet animals. Maintaining that companies attempting to clone pet animals are research facilities, AAVS argued that they should be held to the same standards as laboratories. Specifically, AAVS demanded that animals used in pet cloning experiments be covered under the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA).

As a result of AAVS’s public outcry, the USDA now requires pet cloning companies that exhibit clones at trade shows to apply for animal exhibitor licenses, and those who sell to pet stores must register as animal dealers. Although USDA did not comply with the primary reason AAVS filed the petition, the agency did revise its Policy #10 to clarify that animal cloning facilities are not automatically exempt from registering as research facilities. Instead, USDA will review a facility’s cloning activities on a case by case basis to determine its regulatory status. As licensed dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities, animal clone producers are required to meet the AWA’s humane care regulations that include providing adequate veterinary care.

Conclusion

The pet cloning industry has treated companion animals as nothing more than commodities: producers and products. Companies have even offered gift certificates and a refund or exchange if an animal becomes ‘defective.’ Cloning a companion animal exploits many animals—from the colony of surrogate mothers who are injected with hormones and implanted with cloned embryos, to the cloned offspring, who may or may not survive. With its No Pet Cloning campaign, AAVS let the cat out of the bag.

Thankfully, at the end of last year, GSC Inc. shut its doors forever. Not surprisingly, the company claimed there was little demand for cloned cats and dogs.

Resources

[1] Piedrahita, Jorge A. and Thomas, Greg. "Cloned Pigs Differ from Originals in Looks and Behavior" North Carolina State University. Retrieved on February 27, 2007, from http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/03_04/113.htm.
[2] Archer, G.S., Dindot, S., Friend, T.H., Walker, S., Zaunbrecher, G., Lawhorn, B., & Piedrahita, J.A. (2003). Hierarchical Phenotypic and Epigenetic Variation in Cloned Swine. Biology of Reproduction, 69:430–436.
[3] Archer, G.S., Friend, T.H., Piedrahita, J., Nevill, C.H., & Walker, S. (2003). Behavioral variation among cloned pigs [Erratum]. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 82(2):151-161.
[4] Paterson, L., DeSousa, P., Ritchie, W., King, T., and Wilmut, I. (2003). Application of reproductive biotechnology in animals: implications and potentials. Animal Reproduction Science, 79(3-4):137-143.
[5] Rideout, W.M., Eggan, K., and Jaenisch, R. (2001). Nuclear Cloning and Epigenetic Reprogramming of the Genome. Science. 293: 1093-1098
[6] Schatten, G., Prather, R., and Wilmut, I. (2003). Cloning Claim Is Science Fiction, Not Science. Science. 299:344.
[7] Wilmut I., Beaujean N., de Sousa P. A., Dinnyes A., King T. J., Paterson L. A., Wells D. N., & Young L.E. (2002). Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. Nature. 419(6907):583-6.
[8] HSUS Pet Overpopulation Estimates. (2006). Retrieved on March 20, 2007, from http://www.hsus.org.

Perry, Nicole. (Spring 2007). AV Magazine. Page 22-23.

Print View

Web ViewText Size: