« MEGA CHRISTMAS UPDATE!!! | Main | The Interloper: A Progress Report »

December 26, 2004

Confused Americans for Truth - Cat Cloning

by Ferdinand T Cat

I feel that as an actual cat I should make a comment about the cat cloning story.

Right out of the box, animal rights activists have complained about the ethics of cloning a cat. Art of the Blog correctly points out that it's the buyer's right to decide how her money is spent. She paid $50K for a cloned cat because she wanted a cloned cat more than she wanted $50K. Capitalism is about what individual people want, not about what society wants. That ability to spend money on what you want is how we bribe you to engage in activities that are useful to others (such as having a job).

The ethical point is not that there are better ways to spend the money; it's that cloning itself presents severe theoretical problems. (I know this because my pet works for a molecular biology research group.)

First, it takes hundreds of tries to get a viable clone. This is why it's still so expensive.

Second, when an adult cell is cloned, it must be chemically reprogrammed to act like a fertilized egg. This is because the chemistry going on in converting an embryo to a baby is very different from what it takes to keep an adult alive. This reprogramming process is not perfect. While it's easy to spot reprogramming errors that kill the clone within the first weeks, an apparently healthy clone can suddenly become non-viable at key points in development because of a late-blooming programming error.

Third, each DNA strand is programmed by chemical markers called telomeres to replicate a certain number of times before it stops. The effect of cloning on telomeres is imperfectly understood, and some clones have died of old age well before their time.

Fourth, not all DNA is in the nucleus of the cell. Some is in the mitochondria, and during cloning the mitochondria come from the egg, not the donor.

So, the problem with the $50K is that it's buying a myth. The science is not there yet, and you have to ask, did the customer know the risks before she put her money down?

Respectfully submitted,

Ferdinand T. Cat


# At Sun 12:10 AM | Permalink | Trackback URI | Comments (6) | More Confused Americans for Truth | Tags:

Trackback Pings

» Thank God the Left VI - Kitten Cloning from The Art of the Blog

"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."
Why? Was it ... [Read More]

Tracked on December 26, 2004 1:59 AM

» Tranny Surprise from Tranny Surprise
Thank You for Commenting [Read More]

Tracked on November 17, 2005 1:26 AM

» Big Naturals from Big Naturals
Quite nice [Read More]

Tracked on November 17, 2005 9:55 AM

Comments

Very well said, Ferdinand.

Thanks for the Trackback. I added a link to this post to my entry so readers can get a bit of the science to go with it.

As you pointed out, mine was a solely economic freedom rant. My wife, infinitely smarter than I, with a degree in Genetics (Summa Cum), had much the same reaction to the story as you did.


Posted by: J at TAotB at December 26, 2004 1:57 AM

I read somewhere that they will be marketed as iMogs.

Seasonal greetings to you and yours Mr C.


Posted by: Anonymous at December 26, 2004 4:00 AM

AHM and me have been followin' this story 'cause we both think it's reeeaaallly stupid to spend $50,000 for a cat! Okay, maybe it was a superior felyin' (naturally not as superior as you, Ferdy), but still, it's just vanity on the part of that stupid woman.

We're wonder what's gonna' happen when people start clonin' their show dogs--like my dad. He was one of the top 20 Aussies in the US. Worth clonin'--but even he admits he's not worth $50,000. And the AKC would never recognize the pup--or his pups later on.


Posted by: Harrison at December 26, 2004 1:20 PM

BTW, Ferdy, thanks for the link - it brought up to "Flappy Bird" status in the TTLB Ecosystem.

Not quite the "Large Mammal" you are but, hey, no one can be as cool as El Gato. . . and it _is_ a step in the right direction. =D


Posted by: J at TAotB at December 27, 2004 4:33 PM

"Capitalism is about what individual people want, not about what society wants. That ability to spend money on what you want is how we bribe you to engage in activities that are useful to others (such as having a job)."

Uh... no.

People's rights end where other's begin. Taken to its logical conclusion, you'd be batty to say that the individual has total rights to engage in drug dealing, prostitution, murder for hire, terrorism, or other socially damaging activities.

Does cloning cats damage society? In this case it doesn't bother me (cuz she likes the cat and will probably take care of it), but cloning Osama bin Ladin in order to fake out investigators does. Where do you draw the line? Is cloning cows in order to get the perfect hamburger okay? (Answer: no - it would mess with genetic diversity, a bad idea).

In short, it's not as simple as "well, some entrepreneur wants to do it, so it's cool."


Posted by: Frank at July 21, 2005 8:08 PM

Capitalism is what it is. All you are arguing is that there need to be some limits on capitalism.

If this were a discussion about whether or not cloning cats damages society, then you would be exactly on point. The original article, however, was about whether the woman should be allowed to spend $50K on cloning a cat when society would benefit more if she were to donate it to an animal shelter. That's a completely different issue.


Posted by: Ferdy [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 22, 2005 7:34 AM

HTML is not allowed in comments; however, if you put in a raw URL (http://www.somewhere.com/page.html) it will automatically be converted to a link.. Also, it is likely your comment will not appear unless you refresh the page manually after posting it.

Post a comment