Kitty Cloning:

February 14, 2002 6:24 AM

Kitty Cloning: Texas A & M scientists have cloned a housecat, the "world’s first cloned companion animal". Do we need more cats that badly?
posted by Jos Bleau (28 comments total)

Do we need more cats that badly?

As an avid fancier of cats, my initial reaction was "Hurray! More cats!" But of course, that's misguided. We've got plenty of cats around, and I think the people spending all that money to keep frozen cells should just consider acquiring a homeless kitten instead of trying to revive their former pet after it's death.
posted by Fenriss at 7:10 AM on February 14, 2002

spay or neuter you pets.
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 7:21 AM on February 14, 2002

yuck, to the entire cloning your pets idea. it's morbid and selfish.

i am hoping this thread brings out some fresh cute kitten links.
posted by lescour at 7:29 AM on February 14, 2002

From the article: Cat cloning is also likely to put a warm and fuzzy face on cloning science, which has been dogged by controversy.

Yes, I can see it now: "Cloning is wrong: it's messing with the very stuff of life itself! But you cloned a cat? Awww, how cute."
posted by walrus at 7:45 AM on February 14, 2002

Of course "we" don't need more cats in general — but I will someday need more of my cat in particular. The Humane Society knucklehead quoted made my point against his own when he said "In the face of the overwhelming pet population, there is not a need to breed or clone new pets" — a new pet is just what I won't want!

These Texas A&M guys are working for the Missyplicity Project's corporate offshoot, the beautifully named Genetic Savings and Clone, and if this isn't debunked I'm pretty likely to shell out their relatively cheap fee to have them store some of Jack's DNA.

By the way, he was a stray I took in fully grown. And if you do go to the pound or the ASPCA, please take home and save a grown cat; the kittens will more likely find other homes.

But I'll tell you what, you clone-haters: if I have him cloned, I'll go get a pound kitten too, so that Jack-2 can grow up used to other cats — Jack-1 hates them which limits my romantic options since the women I like tend to have cats too!
posted by nicwolff at 7:46 AM on February 14, 2002

I think the people spending all that money to keep frozen cells should just consider acquiring a homeless kitten instead of trying to revive their former pet after it's death.

Why? As nicwolff said, people doing this don't want "another" pet, they want "the same" pet. There certainly seems to be some wishful thinking going on on the part of the pet owners, mind you, since we're all a product of nurture as well as nature (i.e. a clone is only genetically identical, its personality and habits will likely be different), but if people want to clone a beloved pet, so what? It's not going to make any real difference to shelter adoption rates, and why shouldn't people spend their money as they see fit?
posted by biscotti at 8:17 AM on February 14, 2002

I don't know about you all, but where I come from, a wide variety of non-cloned cats are available on a "free-to-good-home" basis.

But, even a clone won't be the same.
posted by UncleFes at 8:28 AM on February 14, 2002

Why? As nicwolff said, people doing this don't want "another" pet, they want "the same" pet.

Not to get all Heston-y here, but isn't that a little "tampering in God's domain"? Where does it stop? I love my wife, but should I keep DNA in the freezer, you know, just in case?

And as far as I'm concerned, with Mr. Fluffy, you get 10-17 years, and that's it. If you clone Mr. Fluffy to make Mr. Fluffy Mark II, you are basically condemning a pound cat to death...and as my esteemed colleague UncleFes said, it won't be the same cat anyway.
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:41 AM on February 14, 2002

More cats? No thanks. 2,000 plus are gassed in my fairly small county every year. I had one for 19 years who I loved dearly, but no clone could be the same. I felt that my best tribute to her was to help all the other cats left abandoned out on the streets.
posted by allpaws at 8:56 AM on February 14, 2002

I am desperatly trying to think of a Duncan Idaho joke, but nothing is coming.
posted by thirteen at 9:33 AM on February 14, 2002

Out here in the wide-open west, there are those among us who consider Dolly the sheep to be the first cloned "companion animal."

Heh.
posted by apollo at 9:39 AM on February 14, 2002

Not to get all Heston-y here, but isn't that a little "tampering in God's domain"? Where does it stop? I love my wife, but should I keep DNA in the freezer, you know, just in case?

Why not (assuming we have the technology and assuming that you know the clone won't be your wife as you knew her and assuming that you're not going to use the DNA for evil experiments)? And isn't "God's domain" a subjective concept? (not that I'm starting a religious discussion, but I think you'll have to come up with a better argument than that to convince me that someone cloning a pet is wrong)

basically condemning a pound cat to death

No, the people who didn't spay or neuter the cats that begat the pound cat did that, as did the people who decided on making the pound a kill facility (as opposed to a "no-kill" facility). A few people cloning their cats isn't going to make any difference to adoption rates.
posted by biscotti at 9:42 AM on February 14, 2002

Any country with an army of these would be unstoppable.
posted by panopticon at 9:49 AM on February 14, 2002

The whole God's Domain thing is kind of a joke - I'm a confirmed agnostic...I think. I just mean, about 15 years is the natural length of time to have with a cat.

But

A few people cloning their cats isn't going to make any difference to adoption rates.

Seems like a silly argument. If you can stop one cat from getting the chair, isn't it worth it? Your cat's already dead; why make a new one when there is one you can save from death?

Also, if cloning Mr Fluffy is an option, who's to say "only a few people" would do it?
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:06 AM on February 14, 2002

Cat cloning....dogged by controversy.

Heh.

While this is another good demonstration of the amazing advances of cloning technology in the last year or two, cloning pets seems to me to be such a stunning waste of resources. I love my cats (who are most definitely neutered), but when there are so many abandoned animals that are destroyed at an appalling rate, adoption is the only responsible choice.

Oh, and here's a picture of the cloned kitty
posted by briank at 10:14 AM on February 14, 2002

well, this just undermines the best efforts of the bush administration.
posted by quonsar at 10:36 AM on February 14, 2002

Take your meds quonsar.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:42 AM on February 14, 2002

Heh, just wait, cat and dog shows will probably soon institute a "no clones" policy.

I can understand people wanting to clone a beloved pet that's gone. Of course the temperament won't be *exactly* the same -- but think of the famous human-twins-separated-at-birth study that showed how remarkably many personality traits have at least some genetic component.

It'll be interesting.

I agree with biscotti that it's ludicrous to blame people who would want a clone for the cat overpopulation problem.

I live out in the country, with my SO who has been on a trap-spay/neuter-release plan with the local feral cats for years. So far he's gotten about seven or eight. We're still trying to get the ever-prolific Momma Kitties. Two of the latest offspring (obligatory cute kitten pix) will be off to the vet as soon as they're old enough.
posted by beth at 10:57 AM on February 14, 2002

I agree with biscotti that it's ludicrous to blame people who would want a clone for the cat overpopulation problem.

Who's blaming? I just say it's unnecessary when there are so many needy kitties.

Will no-one think of the needy kitties?

ps I have a cat that looks just like Smokey....except he's 14 lbs.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:30 AM on February 14, 2002

Kafkaesque: i took my meds. now i'm seeing little cupids floating on the front page!
posted by quonsar at 11:31 AM on February 14, 2002

A few people cloning their cats isn't going to make any difference to adoption rates.

Seems like a silly argument. If you can stop one cat from getting the chair, isn't it worth it? Your cat's already dead; why make a new one when there is one you can save from death?

Do you object to people buying purebred cats from reputable breeders for the same reason? Some cats are always going to end up in shelters, in the big picture sense, a few people creating a few cats which will have homes for life (one assumes if they'd go to the effort and expense of cloning, they're not going to drop Fluffy Mk II off at the local Humane Society) is highly unlikely to make an iota of difference to the numbers of cats in shelters. I hear your argument, just not in the context of this discussion; I don't see anything wrong with people buying cats from reputable breeders, and I don't see anything wrong with people cloning cats *as long as* the cats are well cared for and given a home for life. Also, while I love animals (especially cats), I also don't think that euthanising them humanely is all that terrible a fate for them, it's not like they sit in the shelter counting down the days they have left, it's not like they know what's going to happen to them. Better they be humanely euthanised than be abused, starved, run over by a car etc.

Also, if cloning Mr Fluffy is an option, who's to say "only a few people" would do it?

Because it's likely to be a whole lot more costly than just adopting one from the pound. Because many people (like you and me) would rather get one that needs a home than grow their own. Because some people will accept the fact that Fluffy had a limited lifespan and won't feel the need to create a Fluffy Mk II. Etc.
posted by biscotti at 11:35 AM on February 14, 2002

Hmm. OK. You're right. Guess I didn't see it that way.

But you know it's only a matter of time before the evil cat clone army springs up, intent on world domination!

Don't say I didn't warn you.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:50 AM on February 14, 2002

From briank's BBC link:

"Researchers in Texas have cloned a cat, producing a two-month-old kitten called Cc:

Luckily the cat's vision is normal, otherwise they'd have had to name it Bcc:

Don't forget to tip your waitress.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:50 AM on February 14, 2002

But you know it's only a matter of time before the evil cat clone army springs up, intent on world domination!

Why do you think every cat I've ever lived with has been dutifully spoiled rotten? When the Great Feline Takeover happens, I want to be sure They know whose side I'm on. I, for one, welcome our evil cat clone overlords.
posted by biscotti at 12:28 PM on February 14, 2002

I just find it really amusing that Cloning experiments are being done at Texas A+M, home of the best argument against cloning ever.
posted by ColdChef at 12:48 PM on February 14, 2002

Because it's likely to be a whole lot more costly than just adopting one from the pound.

At first it will be, that's true.

I think that anyone who thinks they can "replace" an animal is deluding themselves. You will have a cat who looks like your cat. But that's it. It may well not behave like your cat, and it might have problems that we don't even know about yet (as in "Dolly the sheep" problems, it may be born already the same age as the animal it was cloned from)

I think you owe it to your animals to love and take care of them when they are alive, to remember them as they were, and not to try and replace them.
posted by lucien at 11:26 AM on February 17, 2002

I doubt the genetic engineers of the world have "need more of x species" on their minds when cloning common housecats. Else, they would be spending precious time and money on dugongs, manatees, and lemurs, right?
posted by Quixoticlife at 11:41 AM on February 17, 2002

On the other hand...Attack of the Calico Clones!

Sic'em, girls!
posted by y2karl at 1:23 PM on February 17, 2002