Group items tagged

Placed on a forehead, the device can record brainwaves; on the wrist, blood flow and muscle movement. On the skin of sick patients, it can track vital signs and watch for problems, replacing the bulky equipment usually found in hospitals. And stuck to the throat, it can function as a secret cell phone, activated by the movements of a person’s voice box.

Temporary tattoos use a simple and inexpensive way to adhere, or stick, to skin: a good sticky backing that stretches and flexes with skin’s natural motion

Todd Coleman

ethics of cloning animals that will be healthier to eat or will advance science or medicine, there is a natural argument to be made that the technique will serve the greater human good.

pet cloning, there is really no analogous argument, however wonderful the original "Missy," the mixed-breed dog whose owner funded the now-famous Missyplicity Project at Texas A&M to make pet cloning possible.

enhance general human well-being.

balancing the cost to animals against the possible benefit to humans, the ethics of pet cloning seems to be a simple equation: a concern for animal welfare equals an anticloning stance.

benefits to animals, and what if these benefits outweighed the pain and suffering they endure from cloning research and procedures? Then there would be an argument in favor of pet cloning at least as strong as those offered for cloning conducted for agriculture or medical research. The idea of animals suffering for animal benefit makes a tidy moral case that just might justify the practice.

cloning critics. But the benefit to animals that I will consider is this: the practice of pet cloning--like advanced veterinary care such as transplants, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and psychopharmaceuticals--might improve the public's perception of the moral status of companion animals because it puts an

imals in the category of being worthy of a very high level of expense and concern. Something that warrants this level of commitment and investment seems valuable intrinsically, not merely instrumentally, and this change in the public's perception could have far-reaching benefits for all animals.

controversial claim is true--that pet cloning might contribute to an increase in the public's esteem for companion animals-

it can justify pet cloning only for those who already find some forms of animal cloning morally acceptable.

premise that some types of cloning are morally justified by the benefits that will result from them. People opposed in principle to all forms of animal cloning--for example, because this type of biotechnology is "playing God"

animals should never be used in research--will not accept this consequentialist starting point. The most straightforward way to make the point is this: we can talk about justifying pet cloning only on the assumption that animal cloning for dearly important ends--like medical or pharmaceutical advances--is morally permissible. If one rejects those types of cloning, the argument about pet cloning cannot get off the ground.

  Critics of pet cloning typically offer three objections: (1) the cloning process causes animals to suffer; (2) widely available pet cloning could have bad consequences for the overwhelming numbers of unwanted companion animals; and, (3) companies that offer pet cloning are deceiving and exploiting grieving pet owners.

 Animal Suffering

cost of animal cloning

science is called "efficiency,

1 to 2 percent, meaning that of every one hundred embryos implanted in surrogate animals, ninety-eight or ninety-nine fail to produce live offspring.3

of suffering on the part of the donor animals:

one or two live animals, one hundred eggs must be harvested and one hundred embryos implanted. In the experiments conducted to clone "CC" the calico cat, one hundred and eighty-eight eggs were harvested, eighty-seven cloned embryos were transferred into eight female cats, two of the females became pregnant, and one live kitten was born.4

50% mortality rate for the live offspring,

five out of ten dying between three and one hundred and thirty days of age from ailments including chronic diarrhea, congestive heart failure, and decreased growth rate.5 A study published last year showed that cloned mice experience early death due to liv

er failure and lung problems.6 Another study showed that cloned mice had a high tendency to morbid obesity.7

the cloning process and better health status for the clones that are born.8 Although the process that produced "CC" was inefficient, there were no kittens born with compromised health status. Research on cloned cattle published last year showed that once the animals survived infancy, they had no health problems when compared with non-clones.9 Genetics Savings and Clone claims that it has pioneered a

new cloning technique that not only improves the health status of clones but greatly increases cloning efficiency, achieving pregnancy loss rates on par with those of breeders.10 Although information is limited, the company claims that six healthy kittens have been born with no deformities. If this proves to be true, then the animal suffering caused by the process is limited to that of the surrogate mothers. There aren't even any donor animals involved, since the company uses eggs harvested from ovaries purchased from spay clinics. And the suffering of the surrogates is surely not greater than that of cats who "donate" kidneys for feline kidney transplants, a practice that has not received widespread criticism on grounds of inordinate feline suffering.11

 Unwanted Pets.

is that there are millions of unwanted pets in the United States.

justify the creation of designer companion animals when so many wonderful animals languish in shelters?

The Humane Society of the United States opposes pet cloning because it is dangerous for the animals involved, it serves no compelling social purpose, and it threatens to add to the pet overpopulation problem. It doesn't sit well with us to create animals

animals desperate for homes."12 To be sure, the data on the number of companion animals euthanized in American shelters are sobering. The 2001 Human Society report on the state of animals in the United States found that four to six million dogs and cats were euthanized in shelters in 2001.13 These figures do not include the millions of stray animals in the country: the ASPCA estimates that 70 million stray dogs and cats live in the United States.14

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--a way of exploiting grief to the detriment of the animal, its owner, and perhaps even animal welfare in general.

clone Fido raise the status of companion animals in the public eye, then the practice might be defensible.