Cloning TV Programme 'Prize'

Personally I think this is disgusting & I totally agree with the KC...

KC ‘shocked’ by dog-cloning programme

Created: 11/04/2014

THE KENNEL Club says it is ‘genuinely shocked’ by the TV programme about a contest offering dog cloning as its prize.

The club said cloning jeopardised dog welfare and that the ethics involved were questionable.

The £60,000 Puppy: Cloning Man’s Best Friend, which was broadcast on Channel 4 this week, revealed that the ‘prize’ had been won by Rebecca Smith whose 12-year-old Dachshund Winnie had been cloned to produce ‘mini-Winnie’.

The competition was staged by South Korean company Sooam Biotech Research Foundation to publicise its cloning techniques – which cost its customers £60,000. The company said the high cost of the cloning procedure is so the money can go towards the multi-millions spent on developing the technology.

The KC’s views were echoed by the British Veterinary Association (BVA), which said that cloning should not be ‘commercialised’ and Dogs Trust which thought the practice unnecessary.

To clone Winnie a piece of skin was taken from her and transported to Seoul where a cell from that skin sample was placed inside ahollowed-out egg and electricity was used to fertilise it. The embryo was then implanted in a crossbreed bitch who acted as a surrogate.

The cloned puppy was born via caesarean section on March 30 weighing just over 1lb. She will remain in quarantine in Korea for several months until she is cleared to fly to London.

The programme showed Ms Smith, 30, and her family close to tears as they described how the Winnie’s personality had helped Ms Smith through a difficult time when she was ‘suffering from lots of demons’ and had an eating disorder. Winnie is now elderly and has arthritis and the thought of losing her is causing concern.

"Without Winnie I don’t know where you’d be,” Ms Smith’s mother told her. "Winnie has saved you.”

Ms Smith said: "When Winnie dies I’ll have to move because every time I go for a walk I’ll think of her, and I honestly won’t be able to cope.

"I just love her so much, I really do.”

After the programme screened experts emphasised that cloning cannot reproduce an animal; although it may look very similar it may be poles apart behaviourally and temperamentally. This was borne out by the two Maltese who featured in the documentary. They were cloned from the same dog and brought to Britain by Korean scientists as ‘product samples’. They looked identical but had been raised by different owners and had very different natures. One was quiet and easy going while the other appeared bad-tempered and snappy. The scientists had given the latter a nickname meaning ‘evil one’.

Writing in next week’s A Vet’s View DOG WORLD’s resident vet Steve Dean said that it would be unlikely that the dog being cloned and the clone would be the same physically, or even very similar, and because factors influencing their growth and development would not be the same their characters would be different too.

The KC said the competition trivialised cloning.

"We are genuinely shocked at the concept of the competition and the trivialisation of this issue, as we believe most caring dog owners will be,” said secretary Caroline Kisko. "This is an issue of particular concern to us. We are strongly against the principle of cloning as it jeopardises dog welfare and runs contrary to our objective to promote in every way the general improvement of dogs.

"People may turn to cloning when faced with the loss of a beloved pet and the need to replicate the emotional bond they have with their dog, but unfortunately this comes at a price and the price is the welfare implications involved.”

Cloning involves invasive procedures which include surgically implanting the embryo into the bitch used to carry the clone, Mrs Kisko said.

"Because of the poor success rates this procedure may be repeated multiple times, in many different bitches, in order to produce a successful outcome,” she said. "Furthermore, the dog carrying the embryos will have to suffer the effects of unsuccessful pregnancies such as losing embryos and newborns.

"It’s important to remember that cloning can only replicate genetic material and that cloned animals will most likely develop different personalities and be a very different dog to the one cloned. In addition to this there is a high probability of abnormality in the puppy if things go wrong.

"The idea that the emotional bond with a dog who has died is being put above the welfare of the dog or dogs involved in producing the cloned pet is appalling. The ethics involved in this are undoubtedly questionable and we would urge people to take a stand against the practice.”

Dogs Trust said the cloning of dogs was unnecessary and ‘most certainly should not be offered as a prize in a competition’.

"We accept that owners considering cloning are often committed dog lovers, but we cannot condone such expensive processes to produce just one dog when major animal welfare charities are heavily committed to structured and expensive neutering programmes to prevent many thousands of healthy stray or abandoned dogs being killed each year,” a spokesman said.

"We are also concerned that the owner of a cloned dog may have unrealistic expectations. The cloned dog is unlikely to be an accurate mirror image of the donor in temperament and behaviour which may well lead to disappointment and a risk of abuse to or abandonment of the dog.”

BVA president Robin Hargreaves said it was difficult to see how the benefits of cloning outweighed the risks.

"We believe that cloning should not be commercialised in the UK,” he said. "There may be many motivations for people wishing to clone their pets but it is important that people are aware that cloned animals will not have the same personalities and behaviour as the original animal.

"The process of cloning involves a healthy surrogate animal which is not in a position to give consent, undergoing procedures – for instance implantation and caesarean section – which are not for the animal’s own benefit and which may have health and welfare implications. In that context it is difficult to see how the benefits could outweigh the potential risks.”

Prof Dean dedicates his column to cloning this week and likens the practice to linebreeding which, he says, employs ‘a diluted form’.

"Without this relatively coarse attempt to produce clones we would not have the breeds or types of dog we have today,” he writes. "Of course, our attempts are nothing like as precise as what has been achieved in the laboratory…

"Very many people over time have attempted to repeat a mating to effectively produce a clone of a much loved, successful or attractive dog with perceived advantages. OK this is not an exact science but the objective is much the same, albeit that outcome is often unsuccessful.”

Even if you repeat a mating the progeny are rarely identical or highly similar to previous results, Prof Dean went on. And with cloning the donor cell contains maternal ribose nucleic acid (RNA) which differs from that of the dog to be cloned. And some inherited diseases are embedded in the RNA.

"In addition, environmental factors which influenced the growth and development of the original dog will differ with the clone, so learned behaviour, growth and development will be different,” he said. "In short it is likely that, in concert with the legions of people who have sought to reproduce a much loved companion by selective breeding, the owner of this cloned dog is likely to be disappointed in the result. Her dog will look very similar without doubt but there will almost certainly be subtle differences – and perhaps some not so subtle – that will irk or disappoint.”
- See more at: http://www.dogworld.co.uk/product.php/112339/1/kc__shocked__by_dog_cloning_programme/d8ef6dc77736802a32f0d7ec26f996b5#sthash.D0wVh1AM.dpuf

I didn't read the whole thing but have to say: If I could clone my Xan, I would do it any day.

Also it's a bit hypocritical

"The process of cloning involves a healthy surrogate animal which is not in a position to give consent, undergoing procedures – for instance implantation and caesarean section – which are not for the animal’s own benefit and which may have health and welfare implications. In that context it is difficult to see how the benefits could outweigh the potential risks.” wrote:

That criteria is applicable to breeding or studding any dog.

Shisa wrote:I didn't read the whole thing but have to say: If I could clone my Xan, I would do it any day.

Also it's a bit hypocritical



That criteria is applicable to breeding or studding any dog.

Yes, except that all cloned animals are born by caesarean with the risk of surgery. Plus, I don't think that any cloned animal has lived to a ripe old age as yet - most seem to have health 'breakdowns' at an early age.

I'm going to be giving cloning a bit of a study.

I honestly can't understand it. My last dog was a one-in-a-million boy. Perfect in every way. But would I want to clone him? No way! I wouldn't even want to try and replace him - all dogs are different, and that's partly what I love about them.

One of these days we're going to be able to backup our brains, have them put into a clone and be immortal.

Great article!

I think this is an excellent article. Very important are the points made that the cloned animal will in all probability have a different temperament or character traits from the original.

People wanting to clone their pet (like the unfortunate Ms Smith) seem to imagine that they are going to get their beloved Winnie all over again - reincarnated - and they are doomed to disappointment.

The whole enterprise is tragic - on so many levels.

Yes, Lynda, I totally agree.

This is my thought on it:
I don't see what the difference is between getting a clone of Xan (to stick with my example) or getting another red with a black mask staffy.
The choice is psychological. I know it's a different dog but it's a part of Xan carrying on.
Same as people getting a brother or son of a dog they've lost.

I understand your point, Shisa.

My problem with cloning is the effect is has on the cloned animal's and surrogate's health.

For a start, the full depth of pregnancy isn't properly understood; in the process of cloning, many imperative steps are omitted from the production and development of the animal. Because of this, the majority of cloning attempts (up to and possibly more than 95%) result in failures, with damage done to both the surrogate mother and the attempted clone. This damage can be extremely painful and life-threatening.

Cloned animals which survive the artificial pregnancy, usually only after being delivered by a caesarean section, in seemingly good health have a high risk of unexpected and supposedly unexplained health defects later in life. Many of the clones die before they reach a few weeks old. The majority of clones who do survive are weaker and sicklier than normal animals, with weak immune systems.

Some of the specific illnesses related to cloning include diabetes, hydrops (extremely common one, affecting the surrogate and the clone), hypoglycaemia, respiratory problems, deformities, contractions of the tendons, deformities of the major organs and dystocia.

There's also the horrific part of cloning that they also don't tell you about - Large Offspring Syndrome. Cloned animals will usually develop a lot more during the pregnancy, growing up to five times as large as normal offspring of their species, which causes agony/death for the surrogate. In the clones, it can lead to restricted blood flow, enlarged and/or deformed organs and breathing difficulties.

There's a lot more about cloning that I could say, but this is the gist of it. I did a fair amount of research on it when cloning started to become sensationalised by television.

Eleanor wrote:Cloned animals which survive the artificial pregnancy, usually only after being delivered by a caesarean section, in seemingly good health have a high risk of unexpected and supposedly unexplained health defects later in life. Many of the clones die before they reach a few weeks old. The majority of clones who do survive are weaker and sicklier than normal animals, with weak immune systems.

Some of the specific illnesses related to cloning include diabetes, hydrops (extremely common one, affecting the surrogate and the clone), hypoglycaemia, respiratory problems, deformities, contractions of the tendons, deformities of the major organs and dystocia.

There's also the horrific part of cloning that they also don't tell you about - Large Offspring Syndrome. Cloned animals will usually develop a lot more during the pregnancy, growing up to five times as large as normal offspring of their species, which causes agony/death for the surrogate. In the clones, it can lead to restricted blood flow, enlarged and/or deformed organs and breathing difficulties.

Well, if the ethics didn't put me off (and they do) then that certainly would! If, knowing all that, I still agreed to a clone it would be sheer selfishness on my part. Just the way I feel on the subject.

I could never do it.

By the way, I hope nobody thinks they're going to get shot down if they disagree! Discussions and different opinions are welcome!

Theresa, part of me can understand what you're saying - when we lose a dearly loved dog it can be comfort knowing our next dog carries the same genes as the departed dog. From my own example we (son and I) bought a red Staffy puppy at 12 weeks and we gave our whole hearts to him, although he only lived a further 4 days with us and died from congenital emphysema - we were devastated, and still grieve for that poor little soul, 2 years on. We were given Trigger's litter brother in recompense and although he carries all Trigger's genes and apart from his colouring (Kuchar is dark brindle), Kuchar is a totally different dog.

And this is what worries me about the whole cloning thing, quite apart from the points Eleanor raises which are very worrying in themselves; that some people (like Ms Smith for example) think that they are going to get their dear departed (or nearly departed) dog reincarnated again, an exact replica.

I have to agree there. It's letting yourself in for disappointment, I think. I'm a big supporter of nurture having a huge role to play in an animal's life, right from birth. Cloned animals don't have littermates or even a mother to raise them; it's done with bottle feeding and human handling from scientists. This is bound to impact the cloned dog's behaviour in some way.

I can understand somebody wanting their dog to live forever. But I'm not sure, health aside, that I could deal with having a little replica running around - almost the same, but not quite. It would be a reminder and a disappointment of sorts in one go.

For instance, a case study was done a while ago on two cloned calves (I believe it was calves, at least). Both of these calves were clones of the same animal - identical in every way, genetically. However, while one of these calves was lovely, normal and sweet in temperament, the other was not. The other's temperament was so aggressive, they named it, translated from their language, 'The Evil One'.

Eleanor wrote:
I can understand somebody wanting their dog to live forever. But I'm not sure, health aside, that I could deal with having a little replica running around - almost the same, but not quite. It would be a reminder and a disappointment of sorts in one go.

Yes, that's a bit of a spooky aspect.

Reminds me in a way of my dear late godmother. For over 50 years she had one Boxer bitch after another, all called Soda. I remember many of these Sodas! But in her defence, I don't think she ever thought each subsequent Soda was a reincarnation of the ones before, or expected them to be.

I think this is going to be a touchy subject worldwide for some time to come.   

LyndaW wrote:

Yes, that's a bit of a spooky aspect.

Reminds me in a way of my dear late godmother.  For over 50 years she had one Boxer bitch after another, all called Soda.  I remember many of these Sodas!  But in her defence, I don't think she ever thought each subsequent Soda was a reincarnation of the ones before, or expected them to be.

I think that sort of thing, while seemingly odd to some, is a way to remember previous dogs while celebrating the current. There wouldn't have been any expectations that one dog would be the mirror image of its predecessor.

Caryll wrote:I think this is going to be a touchy subject worldwide for some time to come.   

Probably, yes!