Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning Be Ethically Justified

University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Center for Bioethics Papers Center for Bioethics August 2005 Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning be Ethically Justified Autumn Fiester University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/bioethics_papers Recommended Citation Fiester, A. (2005). Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning be Ethically Justified. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/bioethics_papers/30 © The Hastings Center. Reprinted by permission. This article originally appeared in the Hastings Center Report, Volume 35, Issue 4, August 2005, pages 34-39. Publisher's URL: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/publications/ hcr/hcr.asp This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/bioethics_papers/30 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning be Ethically Justified Abstract Taken at face value, pet cloning may seem at best a frivolous practice, costly both to the cloned pet's health and its owner's pocket. At worst, its critics say, it is misguided and unhealthy - way of exploiting grief to the detriment of the animal, its owner, and perhaps even animal welfare in general. But if the great pains we are willing to take to clone Fido raise the status of companion animals in the public eye, then the practice might be defensible. Comments © The Hastings Center. Reprinted by permission. This article originally appeared in the Hastings Center Report, Volume 35, Issue 4, August 2005, pages 34-39. Publisher's URL: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/publications/hcr/hcr.asp This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/bioethics_papers/30 Creating Fido’s Twin Can Pet Cloning Be Ethically Justified? by AUTUMN F IESTER Photograph courtesy of William Secord Gallery, NY, www.dogpainting.com. NY, Secord Gallery, Photograph courtesy of William ommercial pet cloning—currently cats A True Reflection, by Christine Merrill, American 20th Century, oil on can- only—is now available from the firm Genetic vas, 16 x18 inches. CSavings and Clone for the small price of $30,000. In December 2004, a nine-week-old cat clone was delivered to its owner, the first of six cus- Taken at face value, pet cloning may seem at best a tomers waiting for the identical twin of a beloved pet.1 “Little Nicky,” as he’s known, has stirred up a great frivolous practice, costly both to the cloned pet’s health and its deal of ethical controversy, with more to come as the firm expands to dog cloning sometime in 2005. owner’s pocket. At worst, its critics say, it is misguided and For many, the cloning of companion animals seems morally suspect in a way that the cloning of an- unhealthy—a way of exploiting grief to the detriment of the imals for agricultural purposes or for biomedical research does not. In judging the ethics of cloning ani- animal, its owner, and perhaps even animal welfare in general. mals that will be healthier to eat or will advance sci- But if the great pains we are willing to take to clone ence or medicine, there is a natural argument to be made that the technique will serve the greater human Fido raise the status of companion animals in the public eye, good. But in the case of pet cloning, there is really no analogous argument, however wonderful the original then the practice might be defensible. “Missy,” the mixed-breed dog whose owner funded the now-famous Missyplicity Project at Texas A&M to make pet cloning possible. Cloned companion animals will not significantly enhance general human well-being. In balancing the cost to animals against the possible benefit to humans, the ethics of pet cloning seems to be a simple equation: a concern for Autumn Fiester, “Creating Fido’s Twin: Can Pet Cloning Be Ethically Justified?” Hastings Center Report 35, no. 4 (2005): 34-39. 34 HASTINGS CENTER REPORT July-August 2005 animal welfare equals an anticloning for clearly important ends—like med- ed to clone “CC” the calico cat, one stance. ical or pharmaceutical advances—is hundred and eighty-eight eggs were But what if there were benefits to morally permissible. If one rejects harvested, eighty-seven cloned em- animals, and what if these benefits those types of cloning, the argument bryos were transferred into eight fe- outweighed the pain and suffering about pet cloning cannot get off the male cats, two of the females became they endure from cloning research ground. pregnant, and one live kitten was and procedures? Then there would be born.4 an argument in favor of pet cloning at The Anti-Cloning Case Further, of the live clones born, least as strong as those offered for many have experienced compromised cloning conducted for agriculture or ritics of pet cloning typically health status or early death. In one medical research. The idea of animals Coffer three objections: (1) the study of cloned pigs, researchers re- suffering for animal benefit makes a cloning process causes animals to suf- ported a 50% mortality rate for the tidy moral case that just might justify fer; (2) widely available pet cloning live offspring, with five out of ten the practice. could have bad consequences for the dying between three and one hundred Of course, making this case will be overwhelming numbers of unwanted and thirty days of age from ailments a challenge given the serious anti- companion animals; and, (3) compa- including chronic diarrhea, conges- cloning objections raised by animal nies that offer pet cloning are deceiv- tive heart failure, and decreased advocacy organizations and cloning ing and exploiting grieving pet own- growth rate.5 A study published last critics. But the benefit to animals that ers. year showed that cloned mice experi- I will consider is this: the practice of pet cloning—like advanced veterinary care such as transplants, neurosurgery, It is no longer appropriate to say to a orthopedics, and psychopharmaceuti- cals—might improve the public’s per- grieving pet owner, “What’s the fuss about? ception of the moral status of companion animals because it puts ani- Just get another pet.” News of an ill pet now mals in the category of being worthy of a very high level of expense and engenders concern and sympathy. concern. Something that warrants this level of commitment and invest- Animal Suffering. Animal welfare ence early death due to liver failure ment seems valuable intrinsically, not advocates have been quick to point and lung problems.6 Another study merely instrumentally, and this out the cost of animal cloning to the showed that cloned mice had a high change in the public’s perception animals involved in the procedures.2 tendency to morbid obesity.7 could have far-reaching benefits for A large body of literature documents Cloning scientists respond that all animals. high rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, both efficiency rates and health out- Of course, even if this controver- early death, genetic abnormalities, comes are radically improving, and sial claim is true—that pet cloning and chronic diseases among the first that we can reasonably expect in the might contribute to an increase in the cloned animals. These problems very near future to see fewer animals public’s esteem for companion ani- occur against a backdrop of what in involved in the cloning process and mals—it can justify pet cloning only cloning science is called “efficiency,” better health status for the clones that for those who already find some the percentage of live offspring from are born.8 Although the process that forms of animal cloning morally ac- the number of transferred embryos. produced “CC” was inefficient, there ceptable. My case rests on the premise The efficiency of animal cloning has were no kittens born with compro- that some types of cloning are moral- typically been about 1 to 2 percent, mised health status. Research on ly justified by the benefits that will re- meaning that of every one hundred cloned cattle published last year sult from them. People opposed in embryos implanted in surrogate ani- showed that once the animals sur- principle to all forms of animal mals, ninety-eight or ninety-nine fail vived infancy, they had no health cloning—for example, because this to produce live offspring.3 Given the problems when compared with non- type of biotechnology is “playing invasive techniques used to implant clones.9 Genetics Savings and Clone God” or because animals should the embryos in the surrogate, these claims that it has pioneered a new never be used in research—will not numbers represent a certain amount cloning technique that not only im- accept this consequentialist starting of suffering on the part of the donor proves the health status of clones but point. The most straightforward way animals: for every one or two live an- greatly increases cloning efficiency, to make the point is this: we can talk imals, one hundred eggs must be har- achieving pregnancy loss rates on par about justifying pet cloning only on vested and one hundred embryos im- with those of breeders.10 Although in- the assumption that animal cloning planted. In the experiments conduct- formation is limited, the company July-August 2005 HASTINGS CENTER REPORT 35 claims that six healthy kittens have the breeders and puppy farms that as different as any identical twins? been born with no deformities. If this produce millions of dogs and cats There are two separate charges here: proves to be true, then the animal suf- each year. By comparison, pet one is about false advertising or ex- fering caused by the process is limited cloning, even if it becomes a viable ploitation on the part of the cloning to that of the surrogate mothers.

Load more