Lassie go clone

This one appeared in the Sunday Times in February, 2009, under the title, "An exact clone? There's no such thing."

-----

Culminating what we might call the, ahem, dogged persistence of scientists to expand cloning technology, a Korean company has announced its first order for the cloning of a pet. More precisely, a Californian woman has contracted to pay US$150,000 for the cloning of her dog, the now-departed Booger. Knapping the cloning debate in delicious irony, Booger was a pit bull terrier, perhaps the most unattractive dog breed on the planet, except, of course, to their owners. (I mean socially unattractive. I’m sure the deceased is – uh, was – um, will be -- a handsome dog.)

The company in question, RNL Bio, made headlines in 2005 with the production of the world’s first cloned dog, an Afghan hound by the name of Snuppy. This was a remarkable feat but should be kept in perspective. A number of mammals have been cloned, including mice, rabbits, cats, cows, goats, and sheep. Remember Dolly? Cloning is difficult, but so are in vitro fertilization and the production of transgenic animals. With the right equipment, facilities and personnel, they are all doable. And with customers willing to drop a cool $150,000, they are affordable to some, kind of like tourist trips to outer space. (With increasing orders, RNL Bio expects the price for cloning your furry friend to drop to a bargain-basement figure of US$50,000. Personally, I’ll wait for a company with a name like Canadian Cloners that offers 2 for 1.)

In terms of the animal that is the end result, cloning bears some resemblance to the twinning process by which cow embryos are halved to produce identical twins. Cloning is just at the far technologically-assisted end of the continuum. Unlike twinning, in which the duplicates are born at the same time and are clones of each other (just as for identical twins in humans), pet cloning involves the establishment of a new creature that is genetically identical to an existing one. This is an unnerving departure that sparks passionate debate in the pro and con camps

What leads someone to clone their pet? Is the goal the resurrection of a loved companion? If so, the buyer may regret their $150,000 purchase. A clone is no more an exact replica of the “parent” than are identical twins truly identical. The clone will not undergo embryonic development within the same mother, it will not experience exactly the same environment within the womb, and the owner will be older and will necessarily interact with the new pet differently. The caregiver may have more or less time to spend with the animal, may be in different life circumstances, may have changed domicile, city or country, may now have greater or fewer children in the house, may have other pets, etc. In addition, the life of the maturing clone will be subject to chance events that may be quite different from those experienced by the first animal, say a house fire, a nasty neighbour, or an infection. Together, such variations will ensure that the cloned pet will not be a reincarnation of the old one, but will rather have its own distinct character.

In fact, all of this is borne out, no pun intended, by experience. We know from studies of identical twins separated early in life that DNA alone does not exclusively determine personality. These twins, who are Mother Nature’s clones, have distinctly different characters despite sharing exactly the same DNA. More to the point, we now have an example of a cloned cat named cc (for carbon copy, though I prefer copy cat) who is not in the least interested in living up to her name. While cc is a svelte extrovert, Rainbow, the calico from whom cc was cloned, is an introvert in need of a calorie counter. Cc does not even have the same markings as Rainbow, since the establishment of coat pattern in calicos is inherently variable. There is thus every reason to expect that a doting owner hoping to regain a lost pet through cloning is in for a let down.

Having said this, we live in a world where some human beings go to bed hungry each night, while some canines are provided coifs, pedicures, and the latest doggie fashions by their beaming caregivers. Seen in this context, pet cloning will not go away. There is a market, and the market will win in the absence of legal constraints.

Is Singapore a potential sector in this market? Why not? We have a rich biological and biomedical industry in this country (much better than in Canada, for which I am truly grateful), and some residents who could afford the service. Moreover, Singapore is a leader in stem cell research, which is to say, the science of cloning. And if pet cloning is not done in Singapore itself, well, South Korea is not so far away. Of course, all such ventures will rightly come under the purview of the Singaporean government, but it seems unlikely that pet cloning would pose an ethical or political problem for the powers that be. Clones, after all, are not genetically modified organisms.

Is this the start of a slippery slope? Only the most alarmist would fear an easy slide from replicating dogs and cats to replicating people, however much we may enjoy movies like Bladerunner. But other issues of lurid interest will arise. For example, we can envision dog shows in which every trainer would have started with genetically identical puppy clones. Since all would begin with the same raw material, the individual talents, or bank accounts, of each trainer could be better revealed through the results they produce with the “same” dog.

Or imagine an industry based on a popular TV show starring man’s best friend, the modern day equivalent of Lassie. I can see the advertisements now: a 1 800 number scrolls across the bottom of the screen while a feverish announcer barks that the first 10 callers will receive a $10,000 discount on their purchase of a real Lassie clone. (You too can own Lassie! Available at a veterinary resort near you!)

And what about insurance for cloned pets? Would any company provide it? Would any owner be willing to pay the sky-high premiums? Would the “parent” animal’s complete medical history be mandatory? Would the cloned dog be required to undergo monthly trips to the vet, or have its genome sequenced to reveal genes predisposing to this or that disease? It seems that all the commercial and ethical woes surrounding insurance and the genetic testing of humans would swirl around cloned pets as well, with the added complication of a considerably shorter life span. For how many years can you insure a dog worth $150,000? Considering that the premature death of Dolly the sheep may suggest less-than-perfect health for cloned animals, insurance companies may choose to wait for many years until the effects of cloning on an organism’s health can be anticipated.

For the moment, we are still in the early stages of pet cloning, and Booger’s replicant has yet to be born, let alone named. Since almost anything would be an improvement on Booger (in Canada, at least, the term refers to thick, greenish emanations of the nose), and since the true spirit of Booger will not be resurrected, even in a clone, I think a name change is in order. As a great lover of Korean food, may I suggest Kim-Chee?

Postscript
Booger was indeed successfully cloned. And how! Here are all the little mini-Boogers with their foster mom.

But soon it wasn't just the pups who were getting a lot of media attention. Booger's former owner, the woman who paid for the cloning service, was recognized by a British journalist as being none other than the infamous Joyce McKinney.