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 Photograph courtesy of William Secord Gallery, NY, www.dogpainting.com. A True Reflection True A vas, 16x18inches. frivolous practice,costlybothtotheclonedpet’shealthandits animal, itsowner, andperhapsevenanimalwelfareingeneral. 34 Fido raisethestatusofcompanionanimalsinpubliceye, unhealthy—a wayofexploitinggrieftothedetriment owner’s pocket.Atworst,itscriticssay,owner’s itismisguidedand HASTINGS CENTER REPORT But ifthegreatpainswearewillingtotakeclone Taken atfacevalue,petcloningmayseembesta , byChristineMerrill,American20thCentury, oiloncan- Creating Fido’sT then thepracticemightbedefensible. yA by Justified? Be Ethically Can PetCloning C cloning seemstobeasimple equation: aconcernfor the possiblebenefittohumans, theethicsofpet well-being. In balancingthecosttoanimalsagainst mals willnotsignificantlyenhancegeneralhuman to makepetcloningpossible.Clonedcompanionani- the now-famous Missyplicity Project at Texas A&M “Missy,” themixed-breed dogwhoseowner funded analogous argument,however theoriginal wonderful good. But inthecaseofpetcloning,there isreally no thegreater human made thatthetechniquewillserve ence ormedicine,there isanaturalargumenttobe mals thatwillbehealthiertoeatoradvance sci- search doesnot.In judgingtheethicsofcloningani- imals foragriculturalpurposesorbiomedicalre- seems morallysuspectinawaythatthecloningofan- firm expandstodogcloningsometimein2005. deal ofethicalcontroversy, withmore tocomeasthe “Little Nicky,” ashe’s known, hasstirred upagreat tomers waitingfortheidenticaltwinofabeloved pet. clone wasdelivered toitsowner, thefirstofsixcus- $30,000. In December 2004,anine-week-old cat Justified?” Autumn Fiester, “Creating Fido’s Twin: CanPet CloningBe Ethically For many, thecloningofcompanionanimals UTUMN Savings andCloneforthesmallpriceof only—is now available from thefirmGenetic ommercial petcloning—currently cats Hastings Center Report F IESTER 35, no. 4(2005):34-39. win July-August 2005 1 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. industry, will produce only trivial firm; the other is about the pet There aren’t even any donor animals numbers of animals. owner’s self-deception. involved, since the company uses eggs Critics of pet cloning say that pet Take the cloning firm first. Oppo- harvested from ovaries purchased owners who are so devoted to their nents argue that grieving pet owners from spay clinics. And the suffering animal companions that they would are deceived by companies like Ge- of the surrogates is surely not greater spend thousands of dollars to clone netic Savings and Clone into believ- than that of cats who “donate” kid- one are precisely the type of adoptive ing that cloning is a way of resurrect- neys for feline kidney transplants, a parents who could save an already-ex- ing a deceased and beloved pet. They practice that has not received wide- isting animal’s life through pet adop- argue that the business of pet cloning spread criticism on grounds of inordi- tion, sparing one more dog or cat assumes genetic determinism—that nate feline suffering.11 from euthanasia.15 But why should a genes alone determine all physical Unwanted Pets. A second objec- person devoted to a particular animal and behavioral characteristics— tion to pet cloning is that there are be more obligated than anyone else to which is false. For example, criticizing millions of unwanted pets in the save others of that same species? the practice of companion animal United States. How can we justify the Being a parent doesn’t obligate me cloning, bioethicist David Magnus creation of designer companion ani- more than childless folks to help par- argues, “The people who want this mals when so many wonderful ani- entless children. Critics will say this are spending huge sums of money to mals languish in shelters? This is the comparison is outrageous. We can’t get their pet immortalized or to guar- main argument behind the Humane compare animals and children. But antee they’re getting a pet exactly like Society’s anticloning position. Says for the pet owner willing to clone a the one they had before—and it’s Senior Vice President Wayne Pacelle, deceased pet, there is one analogy be- simply not possible.”16 If pet cloning “The Humane Society of the United tween a child and a companion ani- firms are contributing to this false be- States opposes pet cloning because it mal: you can’t substitute or exchange lief, then they are engaging in a type is dangerous for the animals involved, one for another. Pet owners grieving a of fraud and are certainly exploiting it serves no compelling social pur- lost animal see their animal as unique the grief of the devoted pet owner. pose, and it threatens to add to the and irreplaceable, so they can’t just go Genetic Savings and Clone argues pet overpopulation problem. It does- to a shelter and get any old animal as that they have an informed consent n’t sit well with us to create animals a replacement pet. Naturally, this in- process that educates clients about the through such extreme and experi- vites the third criticism, which we will environmental and in utero factors mental means when there are so discuss below, that this clone isn’t ac- that influence personality and behav- many animals desperate for homes.”12 tually the original pet. But the point ior—maybe even physical characteris- To be sure, the data on the number of is that what these pet owners are after tics. But whatever policies need to be companion animals euthanized in cannot be found in a shelter or pur- put in place to make sure the owner American shelters are sobering. The chased from a breeder. has realistic expectations, how 2001 Human Society report on the What about the money involved? cloning firms market pet cloning and state of animals in the United States Isn’t there something wrong with educate potential customers does not found that four to six million dogs spending $30,000 on an animal? Per- bear on the moral legitimacy of pet and cats were euthanized in shelters haps so, but the problem certainly cloning itself. There is a clear need to in 2001.13 These figures do not in- isn’t limited to pet cloning—think of regulate this emerging industry to en- clude the millions of stray animals in race horses, for example. And if the sure truth in advertising, but that the country: the ASPCA estimates charge is really that pet cloning is a could be achieved without eliminat- that 70 million stray dogs and cats frivolous use of money that could be ing the product. live in the United States.14 better spent on noble causes, then As for the self-deception of the pet But what is the connection be- this is just a universal attack on all owner, this is a psychological, not an tween the sorry state of unwanted luxury goods. It doesn’t make pet ethical concern. Again, Magnus: companion animals in this country cloning any morally worse than boat- I can completely sympathize with and the anti-pet-cloning stance? Sure- buying. people who become so attached to ly one cannot hold that no new ani- Exploitation and Deception. But their pet that they want to bring it mals ought to be intentionally created what about the concern that pet own- back at any cost, but there is noth- until all shelter animals are adopted. ers are being tricked into believing ing that can bring that animal Anticloners would then have bigger that they are getting Fido back, when back. Attempting to do so is un- fish to fry than pet cloning—namely, in truth, Fido and the clone could be

36 HASTINGS CENTER REPORT July-August 2005 healthy. It’s trying to pretend that ing facts: a 2001 ABC News poll for animals that would have been eu- death doesn’t exist, which speaks found that 41 percent of Americans thanized a decade ago. to a larger symptom in our culture believe that animals go to heaven,19 These figures represent what has of not dealing with death. It’s bet- and a May 2003 Gallup poll found been called the “pet as family” ter to just move on.17 that a full 33 percent of Americans trend.28 While it is difficult to empir- are at least somewhat supportive of an ically document that these figures There are two responses here. First, if all-out ban on medical research in- correspond to an increase in status of the customers don’t feel betrayed or volving laboratory animals.20 Atti- companion animals, experts in the deceived (and indeed, they do not) tudes among pet owners are even field believe they do. Robert Gilbert, and are satisfied with their invest- more interesting. For example, a associate dean for clinical programs at ment and comforted by the clone’s 1999 survey by the American Animal Cornell Hospital for Animals, de- existence, then it is hard to get this Hospital Association found that 84 scribes pet owners’ attitudes toward psychological concern going. Second, this argument assumes that there is no good reason to clone a pet unless What is happening to the public’s attitude one were deceived18—and this is false. The bereft pet owner might know full toward companion animals if specialized well that the clone will be nothing more than a genetic twin, and the de- treatments seem like reasonable measures? cision to clone might be merely an attempt to preserve something impor- Their expense easily exceeds the price of the tant from the original animal, rather than resurrect it. In the human con- animal, but few would tell a pet owner to cut text, we think of offspring this way. We say things like, “I am so glad my her losses and buy a new pet. son had children before he died.” For animals that were neutered at an early percent of pet owners refer to them- pets as somewhat like parents’ atti- age, who have no offspring, it is per- selves as their pet’s “mommy” or tudes toward children; when he start- fectly rational to desire the genetic “daddy,” 63 percent celebrate the pet’s ed practicing veterinary medicine in “starting blocks” Fido had, even birthday, and 72 percent of married 1977, “a pet was a pet.”29 Thomas under complete comprehension that respondents greet their pet first when Cusick, president of the American this animal will not be Fido. Wanting they return home.21 There are also Animal Hospital Association, de- to get as close as possible to the origi- more pet owners now than ever be- clares, “Pets are clearly becoming an nal animal is not irrational. In the ab- fore; 62 percent of households in the integral part of the American family, sence of immortality, genetic identity United States own pets in 2005,22 up enjoying much of the same attention, is the next best thing. from 50 percent in 1975.23 care, and treatment that is given to a The dramatic shift in the status of child or spouse.”30 Pet Cloning and “Rising American pets can also be seen in the There is also anecdotal evidence Status” resources devoted to them. Americans that those who don’t own pets are be- spent over $30 billion on small ani- ginning to acknowledge and adopt ow consider an argument in mal companions in 2003,24 a 10 per- the changing attitudes of their pet- Nfavor of pet cloning: pet cloning cent increase over 2002 spending,25 owning friends and relatives. It is no may change common views of what and two and a half times the spend- longer appropriate, for example, to in philosophy is called the “moral sta- ing levels of 1978 (in adjusted dollars, say to a grieving pet owner, “What’s tus” of animals. The fact that com- Americans spent $11 billion in 1978 the fuss about? Just get another pet.” panion animals are deemed worthy vs. $30 billion today).26 A large part News of an ill pet now engenders recipients of this level of effort and of this figure represents a surge in vet- concern and sympathy. expense might encourage people to erinary service spending: Americans The argument I want to advance is view animals as having intrinsic value are spending more not only on rou- that the treatment of companion ani- and uniqueness. tine care for companion animals, but mals by their caretakers alters what The public’s perception of the on specialty care as well, reflecting a the public in general thinks about value of animals is not fixed. In fact, change in priorities and values. For them. Attitudes toward companion the public’s estimation of animals’ sta- example, pain management expendi- animals are heavily influenced by the tus is arguably rising fast. Getting at tures have increased 275 percent in dominant view and mainstream prac- perceptions of animal status is diffi- the last six years.27 Pet owners are now tice (indeed it is the majority of cult, but consider some of the follow- investing in pain control medicines Americans who currently have pets).

July-August 2005 HASTINGS CENTER REPORT 37 More specifically, I want to offer a monplace treatments, such as daily death of an animal, the societal ef- hypothesis about one mechanism by shots of insulin, arthritis medicines, fect—as with advanced veterinary which this kind of cultural change corrective surgery for orthopedic care—will be to enhance the com- takes place, namely, that the rou- problems, or antianxiety medicines. panion animal’s position on the tinization of certain practices and ex- These expenses easily exceed the orig- moral map through the public’s penses on the part of pet owners nor- inal price of the animal, but few peo- recognition that these entities have malizes that behavior, which affects ple would now tell a pet owner to cut high value. the general view of what care animals her losses and buy a new pet. What is One possible rejoinder is that the deserve; and this in turn enhances the happening to the public’s attitude to- dignity and uniqueness of the origi- public’s estimation of the value of ward companion animals if these ad- nal pet is degraded by an attempt to companion animals because it en- vance treatments seem like reasonable obtain a clone. Believing that we can courages the public to view animals measures and expenses to protect ani- replace a companion animal with its as entities worthy enough to merit mal lives and well-being? At a mini- clone demonstrates that animals are, this attention and care. One of the mum, the normalization of advanced in fact, mere objects, not at all like most significant influences on the veterinary care indicates the public’s children, and the effect of widespread public’s perceptions is the effort ex- recognition of the “irreplaceability” use of pet cloning will be to down- pended to improve the health and ex- for the pet owner of one animal with grade animals’ status, not raise it. But tend the lives of companion animals. some other. We no longer think of whether pet cloning will have this ef- Pet cloning is just the extreme form companion animals as disposable or fect will depend on how society inter- of pet owners’ attempts to extend the interchangeable, despite the ready prets it. A pet-cloning-as-mass-pro- life (in this case, in the form of the supply of homeless animals. duction view will undoubtedly rein- genome) of a beloved animal. Of course, this argument may suf- force the idea that companion ani- Advanced veterinary care is the fer from the classic “chicken or the mals are replaceable consumer goods, paradigm case. Veterinary services are egg” question: is the attention given and this will have a deleterious effect the fastest-growing segment of the to animals raising public perceptions on perceptions of their status. In the companion animal industry, increas- of animals’ status, or is the perception cloning-as-solace view as I have de- ing at an annual rate of 4.7 percent, of animals’ status rising independent- scribed above, however, companion with current expenditures pegged at ly of the actions of pet owners? In animal cloning will be seen as a trib- close to $8 billion.31 As noted earlier, fact, it can go both ways. To the pet ute to the value of the original ani- much of the spending increase is di- owner, the intrinsic value of the com- mal. There are parents who desper- rected at services unheard of a few panion animal is already recognized, ately want to clone their lost chil- decades ago. Veterinary medicine has which is why she expends the re- dren.33 Pet owners, mirroring their specialized into surgery, dermatology, sources and energy to treat the ani- feelings, are making a statement ophthalmology, orthopedics, neurol- mal. To someone observing that prac- about both the animal’s immeasur- ogy, oncology, and even transplant tice, the effect is to affirm or alter the able value and the level of loss and surgery. At a price estimated to be be- perception of value that companion grief they feel at its death. Whatever tween $5,000 and $15,000 (plus animals have—or ought to have. So one thinks of human cloning, no one $50-$150 per month in immunosup- while only a handful of people may argues that the parents who request it pressant drugs for life), one’s dog or value their pets enough to go through don’t assign the highest possible cat can receive a renal transplant at the expense of an organ transplant, worth to the deceased child; the sen- one of the country’s new transplant the effect of employing “pet organ timent to clone is a testimony to the centers.32 Kidney transplants are still transplants” is much more wide- parents’ belief in the infinite value of rare, but many other specialty services spread. As this type of practice be- that unique person. If this becomes are not, including x-rays, psy- comes reasonable, it becomes a state- widely understood, the cloning-as-so- chopharmaceuticals, and insulin ther- ment about the intrinsic value and lace interpretation may indeed win apy. worth of its recipients. out. As each new procedure or service It is plausible that pet cloning will If pet cloning bolsters even slight- is incorporated into veterinary care, have a parallel effect. Pet cloning ly a perception that companion ani- pet owners’ acceptance of the new makes the statement that one’s com- mals have intrinsic value, then the standard of care alters the overall panion animal is so important that it positive consequences for companion public’s attitude toward those proce- is worth trying to come as close as animals will far outweigh the mini- dures. No longer seen as a bizarre or possible to preserving it by investing mal suffering the animals undergo exorbitant waste of money and rein a genetic twin. The hypothesis is through the cloning process. The ris- sources, the new procedure starts to that when pet cloning is seen as a ra- ing status of companion animals has seem entirely warranted. Think of the tional, justifiable activity for pet own- already begun to translate into laws public’s attitude toward now com- ers as a response to the (impending) that offer more protection for them,

38 HASTINGS CENTER REPORT July-August 2005 including changes in the designation 12. Humane Society of the United 24. DVM News Magazine, “Pet Spend- States, “Cat Cloning Is Wrong-Headed,” ing to Top $37 Billion by ’08”; available at: of pet owners to “animal guardians” February 14, 2002; available at: http://hsus. http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/c 34 in some areas. If companion ani- org/ace/13214. ontent/pringContentPopup.jsp?id=85154. mals’ status continues to rise, and if 13. P.G. Irwin, “Overview: The State of 25. S. Aschoff, “Pet RX,” Floridian, June pet cloning contributes at all to that Animals in 2001,” in The State of Animals 10, 2003. trend, then there is an argument for 2001, ed. D.J. Salem and A.N. Rowan, 26. Schwabe et al., Veterinary Medicine the moral legitimacy of pet cloning. (Washington, D.C.: Humane Society Press, and Human Health. 2001). 27. Aschoff, “Pet RX.” 14. American Society for the Prevention References 28. J.E. Brody. “V.I.P. Medical Treatment of Cruelty to Animals, “Annual Shelter Sta- Adds Meaning to Dog’s (or Cat’s) Life.” 1. P. Fimrite, “Cat Has 10 Lives, Thanks tistics”; available at http://www.aspca.org. New York Times, August 14, 2001: Section to $50,000 Cloning,” San Francisco Chroni- 15. The pet owners most likely to request F; Page 4; Column 2. cle, December 23, 2004. a clone of a deceased pet are those who orig- 29. J.E. Brody. “V.I.P. Medical Treatment 2. See H. Bok, “Cloning Animals Is inally adopted pets from shelters, because Adds Meaning to Dog’s (or Cat’s) Life,” Wrong,” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare these animals are often mixed-breed animals New York Times, August 14, 2001. whose personality traits or other features Science 5, no. 3 (2002), 233-38. 30. American Veterinary Medical Associ- 3. A. Coleman, “Somatic Cell Nuclear cannot be generated by conventional breed- ing. It was the owner of a mixed-breed dog, ation, “Survey Says: Owners Taking Good Transfer in Mammals: Progress and Appli- Care of Their Pets,” Journal of the American cation,” Cloning 1 (1999), 185-200. See “Missy,” that funded the now-famous Mis- syplicity Project at Texas A&M, which re- Veterinary Medical Association; available at also L. Paterson, “Somatic Cell Nuclear http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/ Transfer (Cloning) Efficiency,” available at: sulted in the cloning of “CC” the cat. But the owner of Missy chose to invest $3.7 feb00/s020100d.asp. http://www.roslin.ac.uk/public/webtables- 31. DVM News Magazine, “Pet Spending GR.pdf. million in trying to create Missy’s twin; he did not invest the $3.7 million in improv- to Top $37 Billion by ’08”; available at 4. T. Shin et al., “Cell Biology: A Cat ing the lives of shelter animals, the original http://www.dvmnewsmagazine.com/dvm/ Cloned by Nuclear Transplantation,” Na- source of Missy herself. See http://www. content/pringContentPopup.jsp?id=85154. ture 415 (2002): 859. tamu.edu/aggiedaily/press/02014cc.html. 32. L. Copeland. “Transplant Offers 5. A.B. Carter, “Phenotyping of Trans- 16. M. Shiels, “Carbon Kitty’s $50,000 Hope for a Tabby; With Kidney Comes genic Cloned Pigs,” Cloning and Stem Cells Price Tag,” BBC News, April 27, 2004. 2nd Chance at 9 Lives,” Washington Post, 4 (2002): 131-45. 17. Fimrite, “Cat Has 10 Lives.” March 14, 1999. Also B. Bilger, “The Last 6. N. Ogonuki et al., “Early Death of Meow,” New Yorker, September 8, 2003, at Mice Cloned from Somatic Cells,” Nature 18. Magnus reaches this conclusion: 46. Donor cats are taken from local shelters Genetics 30 (2002): 253-54. “There is no good reason why anybody and research labs, and the owners of the would do this.” Fimrite, “Cat Has 10 transplantee must agree to adopt the donor 7. K. Tamashiro, “Cloned Mice Have an Lives.” Obese Phenotype Not Transmitted to Their (p. 49). Offspring,” Nature Genetics 8 (2002): 262- 19. The Roper Center For Public Opin- 33. Offering a pro-pet cloning argument 67. ion Research, “Do You Think Animals Go in no way commits me to a pro-human to Heaven When They Die or Only People 8. Nature Biotechnology recently pub- cloning argument, although I can under- Go to Heaven?” ABC News/BeliefNet Poll stand the powerful sentiments that would lished a metareview of the health status of (June 2001); available at http://roperweb. clones from prior studies, and it reports that drive a parent to desire the ability to clone a ropercenter.uconn.edu:80/cgi-bin/ beloved child. The difference is that we can 77 percent of cloned animals showed no de- hsrun.exe/Roperweb/iPOLL/StateID/CXw velopmental abnormalities throughout the accept a sacrifice in animal lives (we eutha- GMIyhSS673RNNenOz5_uZT_uw- nize them, we experiment on them, and we period of follow-up, although the percent- VbGn/HAHApage/SelectedQs_Link. age of healthy clones ranged from 20 per- eat them) that we cannot accept in human cent to 100 percent across the studies. J.B. 20. The Roper Center For Public Opin- lives. But if human cloning could be guar- Cibelli et al. “The Health Profile of Cloned ion Research, “Banning All Medical Re- anteed never to result in a birth defect, still- Animals,” Nature Biotechnology 20 (2002), search on Laboratory Animals,” Gallup Poll birth, or compromised health status of a 13-14. (May, 2003); available at http://roperweb. child, the debate about human cloning ropercenter.uconn.edu:80/cgi-bin/ 9. C.Yang, X.C. Tian, and X. Yang, “Ser- would be quite different. hsrun.exe/Roperweb/iPOLL/StateId/ 34. CBS Evening News, “Legal Relation- ial Bull Cloning by Somatic Cell Nuclear C20XmmyYwFM72ocWchjh2obiYPb8— Transfer,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004), ship Between Pets and Their Owners,” CBS UeHc/HAHTpage/Study_Link? News Transcripts, Aug. 7, 2000; B. Pool, 693-94. stdy_id=26427. 10. M. Fox, “Company Says It Cloned “In West Hollywood, Pets are Part of the 21. American Animal Hospital Associa- Family,” Los Angeles Times, February 22, Copy Cats,” Reuters, August 5, 2004; Fim- tion, Pet Owner Survey, 1999; available at: rite, “Cat Has 10 Lives.” 2001; “Pet Owners in San Francisco be- http://www.healthypet.com. come ‘Pet Guardians,’” The San Diego 11. Of course, the obvious objection to 22. American Pet Products Manufactur- Union Tribune, March 1, 2001; and “Stu- this comparison is that the kidneys are har- ers Association, “APPMA Survey Finds Pet dents Make History by Helping to Draft & vested to save the life of another cat, where- Ownership Continues Growth Trend in Pass Animal Rights Legislation,” News from as the animals who suffer through egg har- U.S.”; available at http://www.appma.org/ General Assembly, September 26, 2001; vesting and embryo implantation are not press/press_releases/2001/nr_05-02-02.asp. available at http://www.rilin. saving an existing cat but creating an entire- state.ri.us/leg_press/2001/september/Den- ly new (unneeded) one. But what is in ques- 23. C.W. Schwabe et al., Veterinary Med- icine and Human Health, third ed. (Balti- niganpercent20pets.htm (last visited Oct. tion here is the amount of suffering—not 16, 2003). the justification for it. more, Md.: Williams & Wilkins Co, 1976).

July-August 2005 HASTINGS CENTER REPORT 39