Seeing Double: Pet Cloning
In 1996, the scientific community saw a breakthrough when Dolly the sheep was deemed the first animal cloned from an adult sheep cell. With the breakthrough came a slew of moral questions asked by any number of groups. Were we playing God? Were we going too far? What kinds of problems could arise through cloning? What did we hope to accomplish by duplicating a set of DNA, and was this the first step towards losing sight of what makes us unique?
Dolly the sheep died in February 2003, a few months shy of her 7th birthday. She was euthanized because she suffered from an incurable lung disease, linked to a condition of premature aging that was believed to be a result of the cloning process. Dr. Harry Griffin, a scientist at the Roslin Institute in Scotland which was responsible for the cloning process, says that lung infections are more common in sheep housed primarily indoors and about 11 or 12 years old. You can read more about this remarkable animal on the Reuters.com web site, starting with “Dolly the sheep dies young,” published on February 14th, 2003.
From my own perspective, I was hoping that this kind of science would be relegated to the mind of Mary Shelly and other great authors of our past. At least, I was hoping cloning would be used to better understand the creation of life perhaps, but not to be subverted into a private commercial enterprise. A South Korean biotechnology company, however, has other thoughts. RNL Bio expects to deliver its first cloned canine in February 2009 to a US woman who had saved biological material from her pit bull that recently died, according to another Reuters article from February 14th entitled, “Retrieve a retriever from a Korean dog clone firm.”
When I first read about this new “service,” I was immediately reminded of Stephen King’s “Pet Semetary,” where the main character resurrects a pet cat by burying it in a local, somewhat magical cemetery. The cat does, in fact, rise again, but it is an empty shell of what it once was, changed into something more sinister, and a somewhat ominous sign of things to come. Now, I’m sure the US woman who ordered this clone will end up getting a pit bull that is every bit as lovable as the original, but the article doesn’t express her expectations from this animal that will be delivered to her. Is she expecting the exact same dog? How can that be even possible, when the environment in which the dog grew up cannot be replicated?
The most astounding part of all of this is the price tag: up to $148,000 for a puppy. While the article indicates that there are people who would rather clone a pet than to adopt a new one, it’s difficult for me to understand how strong that connection must be in order to justify such a cost. As I was reading this article, I remember asking my wife whether, cost notwithstanding, she would consider using the service herself. I asked her because she lost two dogs in the last four years to which she was strongly attached. She responded “no” quickly and decisively. She indicated that despite the fact the dogs would be genetically the same, they would not be hers, essentially lacking the souls that allowed her to connect with them in the first place.
In reaching out and attempting to transcend the death of a beloved animal through cloning, what does RNL Bio hope to accomplish? Are they promoting a service that will help people to avoid the pain of death? You may remember in my post, “Appreciating Happiness through Melancholy,” that the cost of eliminating pain in life might be the very happiness that we seek to preserve. I wouldn’t be willing to risk that happiness by preserving the physical presence of an old pet through cloning. I’d rather let them live more powerfully in my mind through cherished memories.
What do you think?
