Sign in to follow this  
Odie

First Cloned Pet

Recommended Posts

Can't believe that someone would get a cloned pet. :dude:

 

Kitten is first cloned pet sold in U.S.

By PAUL ELIAS

Associated Press

12/23/2004 

 

1223nicky.jpg 

Little Nicky cost its Texas owner $50,000.

 

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO - The first cloned-to-order pet sold in the United States is named Little Nicky, a 9-week-old kitten delivered to a Texas woman saddened by the loss of a cat she had owned for 17 years.

The kitten cost its owner $50,000 and was created from DNA from her beloved cat, named Nicky, who died last year.

 

"He is identical. His personality is the same," the owner, Julie, told the Associated Press in a telephone interview. Although she agreed to be photographed with her cat, she asked that her last name and hometown not be disclosed because she said she fears being targeted by groups opposed to cloning.

 

"When Little Nicky yawned, I even saw two spots inside his mouth, just like Nicky had," Julie was quoted as saying in the Dallas Morning News. "Little Nicky loves water like Nicky did, and he's already jumped into the bathtub like Nicky used to do."

 

The kitten's creation and sale, however, has reignited fierce ethical and scientific debate over cloning technology, which is rapidly advancing.

 

The company that created Little Nicky, Sausalito-based Genetic Savings and Clone, said it hopes by May to have produced the world's first cloned dog - a much more lucrative market than cats.

 

Commercial interests already are cloning prized cattle for about $20,000 each, and scientists have cloned mice, rabbits, goats, pigs, horses - and even the endangered banteng, a wild bull that is found mostly in Indonesia. Several research teams around the world, meanwhile, are racing to create the first cloned monkey.

 

Aside from human cloning, which has been achieved only at the microscopic embryo stage, no cloning project has fueled more debate than the marketing plans of Genetic Savings and Clone.

 

"It's morally problematic and a little reprehensible," said David Magnus, co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University. "For $50,000, she could have provided homes for a lot of strays."

 

Animals rights activists complain that new feline production systems aren't needed because thousands of stray cats are euthanized each year for want of homes.

 

Genetic Savings and Clone has been behind the creation of at least five cats since 2001, including the first one created. It had a different coat from its genetic donor, underscoring that environment and other biological variables make it impossible to exactly duplicate animals.

Edited by Odie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think cloning animals (or, sometime in the future, humans) is completely wrong. I can understand cloning tissue cells, or even whole organs, to replace what has been lost, but to clone an enitre organism is unethical, immoral, and just plain wrong. The closest to agreement with it I'll come it the cloning of embroys in an attempt to increase the numbers of endangered animals... animals that are nedangered directly because of things we have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. Unless the animal is endanger there should be no cloning. How many cats are in shelters that should have a loving home? Too many to justify in cloning a cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definately. I just saw a program about two days ago on Animal Planet about a owman who runs a cat adoption program through her shop. They showed several of the cats, and the people who have adopted them, and I couldn't help but to start crying. I love cats. I think they're the most wonderful little critters in the world. And I believe that they all deserve a home. I used to have 16 cats, when I lived with my grandmother. I had to leave their, but my grandmother, being a cat-lover as well, willingly took the cats as her own. Several of them have died by now, it's been that long. And as much as I would love to have them all back now, I would never clone them. I'd much rather give a home to stray cats. If I cloned my old cats, I could never live with myself knowing that my selfish acts have denied a home and love to cats that only have 1 life, rather than the mythical 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that my bio class discussed this last month. Texas and California are known for their animal cloning. Actually its done one hour north of where I live @ Texas A&M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nope, but I still think that cloning is wrong. We're not supposed to play God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the woman wasted her money (in part because she doesn't understand science). Cloning only serves its intended purpose if the personality, temperament etc of any organic being is purely genetic. In other words in the nature/nuture (or heredity/environment) debate the determinng factor is 100% nature - all personality etc is "preprogrammed". Most theories of personality consider "who we are" to be a combination of both nature and nuture. (and yes I"m using ascribing personality to both cats and people)

 

In other words, even with the same dna it's not the same cat. This cat will have a different environment than the cat from which it was cloned - which includes an owner with strong preconceptions about what this cat is supposed to be like.

 

I think it particularly disturbing to think people want to bring children in the world to face those sorts of expectations. I also think it is disturbing that people are getting involved in the field of cloning without first understanding "what makes us who we are". I see heartache in this future of this research

 

Remember there are natural clones among humans - they're called identical twins. And even with the same dna, same home environment - they have different personalities - they are not the same person. And a cloned cat is not the same cat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the genes are not exactly identical. Most of the time a locus can be affected on a chromosome. This can change the traits a little bit. It has to do with the prophase of meiosis I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAB, are you talking about twins or cloning? twins have identical dna - meoisis is the process of producing gametes (our reproductive cells which have only half the number of chromosomes of regular cells) and I don't see what that has to do with identical twins. Identical twins are formed when a fertilized egg splits - that is not meiosis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nope, but I still think that cloning is wrong. We're not supposed to play God.

292435[/snapback]

 

As do I, I just made the reference because everything that starts gonig wrong in that movie starts with the animal cloning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WAB, are you talking about twins or cloning?  twins have identical dna - meoisis is the process of producing gametes (our reproductive cells which have only half the number of chromosomes of regular cells) and I don't see what that has to do with identical twins.  Identical twins are formed when a fertilized egg splits - that is not meiosis.

292528[/snapback]

 

The Prophase of Meiosis I has to do with trait differentiation and crossing over of chromosomes. There are many ways of creating twins involving meiosis. This has the same effects in cloning because of the difference of the gamete that is implanted in the surrogate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAB, I know what meiosis is- it's the creation of gametes (sperm and egg cells) and yes the daughter cells are different from the parent cell and each other. But twins are formed after meiosis is complete - a single sperm fertilizes a single egg (both products of completed meiosis). In some rare occasions the fertilized egg duplicates creating two individuals with identical dna.

 

I'm not as familiar with cloning but in the type that creates a new organism they implant a genetically complete cell not a gamete - the egg cell used has had all its genetic material removed and the complete dna from the donor cell is inserted. So that too would have identical dna with the donor.

 

There are some other rare types of twins other than fraternal (two eggs and two sperm) and identical (single egg and sperm). In one case the egg will duplicate before fertilization and the duplicate eggs will be fertilized by two sperm - resulting in twins that share 50% of their dna

 

***edited to add**

All of this course misses my point which was that even individuals with identical dna are unique and different people.

Edited by TheUnicornHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen that film Goose, and if those cloning techniques were possible, i'd think it right to only clone whole organisms, only if they were killed by the actions of a person..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WAB, I know what meiosis is- it's the creation of gametes (sperm and egg cells) and yes the daughter cells are different from the parent cell and each other.  But twins are formed after meiosis is complete - a single sperm fertilizes a single egg (both products of completed meiosis).  In some rare occasions the fertilized egg duplicates creating two individuals with identical dna. 

 

I'm not as familiar with cloning but in the type that creates a new organism they implant a genetically complete cell not a gamete - the egg cell used has had all its genetic material removed and the complete dna from the donor cell is inserted.  So that too would have identical dna with the donor.

 

There are some other rare types of twins other than fraternal (two eggs and two sperm) and identical (single egg and sperm).  In one case the egg will duplicate before fertilization and the duplicate eggs will be fertilized by two sperm - resulting in twins that share 50% of their dna

 

***edited to add**

All of this course misses my point which was that even individuals with identical dna are unique and different people.

292642[/snapback]

 

I'm referring to the rare occurence of a mutation that allows for more than one egg to form. This sometimes allows for twins. The egg produced by the mother is injected with DNA that is from a cumulus cell. This means it has gone through meiosis. That means the trait is going to be different than the mother right? I'm just trying to explain the differences in the cloned specimen from the animal that was cloned. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually WAB, I still don't see what meiosis has to do with twins or cloning because in twins we're talking about the two offspring being identical to each other - not to the parent. And while the egg and sperm which created them were created throught the process of meiosis - there was still only once of each and the twins have identical dna.

 

Actually the process of meiosis is complete for a female when she is born - all of her eggs have been produced - they don't mature or ripen for several years and fraternal twins are a result of two eggs being released at the same time and fertilized by two separate sperm. (it gets really tricky when the sperm come from two separate donors) This is getting way off topic but I read about a woman who was in a custody battle for one of her twins because they had different fathers and the sad effects the battle was having on the twins because of how close they were.

 

And in cloning they use a complete cell from an adult (not an egg or sperm cell) so it is genetically identical to the donor - except in the case of Dolly the telomeres were "older" - did you notice Phlox refered to telomeres when he examined T'Pau's dna and determined it was her infant sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually WAB, I still don't see what meiosis has to do with twins or cloning because in twins we're talking about the two offspring being identical to each other - not to the parent.  And while the egg and sperm which created them were created throught the process of meiosis - there was still only once of each and the twins have identical dna.

 

Actually the process of meiosis is complete for a female when she is born - all of her eggs have been produced - they don't mature or ripen for several years and fraternal twins are a result of two eggs being released at the same time and fertilized by two separate sperm. (it gets really tricky when the sperm come from two separate donors)  This is getting way off topic but I read about a woman who was in a custody battle for one of her twins because they had different fathers and the sad effects the battle was having on the twins because of how close they were.

 

And in cloning they use a complete cell from an adult (not an egg or sperm cell) so it is genetically identical to the donor - except in the case of Dolly the telomeres were "older" - did you notice Phlox refered to telomeres when he examined T'Pau's dna and determined it was her infant sample.

292725[/snapback]

 

According to my bio notes, you can't clone an animal with just a regular epidermal cell. You have to take out the nucleus and inject it with special DNA from a cumulus cell from the donor ovary.

 

Ny definition, Meiosis is not absolutely complete when a female child is born. There are two stage of Meiosis. The first stage is complete, but the second stage is not instigated until puberty and each menstrual cycle. Meiosis is not just production of the egg, it includes the separation from the polar bodies. That does not occur until the second stage of Meiosis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cloning of things just for the fact of "HEY I DID IT!" is wrong.. the cloning to produce useable parts or repair ecosystems that we've destroyed over the years.. I don't belive that to be wrong.. if you lost a limb, eye, or other more important parts... you'd want them back right? like say.. you lost the ability to reproduce.. would you say.. naw. leave them mangled I don't want any kids? ask one lady who cannot produce children. she'd do ANYTHING most likely to have them.. to a guy.. and yes I'm a guy and not gay.. most men don't care.. it just means more action for us.. but yes even some men are upset when they cannot.. and some that lose it all together lose it in more than one way.. (both genders here..)

 

Anyway.. Animals for no reason, bad. Organs and other USEFUL things good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this