Cloning pets: worth it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/garden/01clones.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=cloning&st=cse

The December 2008 New York Times article by Eric Konigsberg, “Are Cloned Pets the Real Thing?”, is simultaneously a human interest story about Lou Hawthorne, the owner of BioArts, a biotech company out of California, and an account of the state of pet cloning today. Hawthorne had his company create clones from Hawthorne with the three clones of Missy. preserved DNA of his mother’s old dog Missy. He extols the virtues of cloning your pet, claiming that Missy’s clones all have her qualities: “she was an amazing dog: superior intellect, incredibly beautiful, obedient, a phenomenal temperament… all those qualities are represented [in the clones].” However, since he is the owner of one of the only companies which offer dog cloning services, one can see why he may be more inclined to see pet cloning as a way to get your old dog back, personality and all.

The issue is that we don’t know how much of behavior is actually genetically based: even Hawthorne acknowledges that “when it comes to such highly trainable creatures as dogs, it’s pretty difficult to know where nature ends and nurture begins.” For example, Hawthorne’s mother insists that the late Missy and her new clones are “not at all alike.” And many of the Missy clones’ special qualities can be seen as a product of environment, and not genes (obedience and temperament, particularly). Many who wish to clone their pets do not simply want a physically identical copy, but one which has all the personality traits of the original. Because we know that many factors other than genetics go into forming an individual, it is nearly impossible for a pet to be recreated to the owner’s satisfaction. But this is the claim Hawthorne makes and this is how companies such as BioArts are able to make money.

A part of the story which particularly interested me was that Hawthorne held auctions, offering BioArts’ dog cloning services to the four highest bidders (who ended up paying from $130,000 to $170,000 for the clones). To “offset accusations of elitism,” Hawthorne ended up also offering the services pro bono to a fifth client out of the search. Like any new technology, as of now, pet cloning is extremely expensive and therefore limited to the wealthy. Though Hawthorne’s move was largely symbolic, it’ll be interesting to see in the future how pet cloning companies deal with claims of elitism. Since the companies and the technologies are still very new (and flawed) it’s not surprising a single clone can take $100,000 or more to produce. As time goes on and the price of clones gets lower and lower, less wealthy families may gain access to pet cloning services. But whether they will be satisfied with their clones? According to Hawthorne, yes. According to his mother, not necessarily.

EDIT: http://www.bioarts.com/press_release/ba09_09_09.htm
September of this year, BioArts announced that it would no longer offer dog cloning services. The reasons cited in the press release by Lou Hawthorne include a "tiny market," "unethical, black market competition," weak intellectual property protection laws, and the unpredictable nature of cloning. Perhaps we are not yet ready to face the ethical and public policy issues of cloning?

A. Suchecka