The Horse Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Cloning

7K views 48 replies 23 participants last post by  bubba13 
#1 ·
I personally do not like the idea of cloning. I know it can have advantages, but IMO its just something that will end up falling into the wrong hands and someday, some thing very, very bad will result.

I was just reading the latest blog entry on Fugly Horse of the Day and it only makes me dislike cloning even more. I was watchng Animal Planet last week and they had a show about people who were getting their deceased pets cloned by a company in Korea. Puts a bad taste in my mouth....

What do you all think? Not just of cloning in the horse industry, but how the procedure is being used on a wider scale?
 
#3 ·
I think in any aspect it is wrong. Especially if the animal is deceased. If you loved your animal so much, respect them and keep them in the ground. (No offense to anyone who believes in it.) Even clones can have different personalities. So you aren't really getting a "clone" of your animal. Just a look a like. Why spend a bunch of money on something that might not live for more then a year? Just my opinion on the thing. I don't think I could clone any of my animals, no matter how much I love them. Just isn't the same.
 
#4 ·
My personal belief is that cloning is an abomination and shouldn't be allowed. PERIOD. We're already seeing instances where someone cloned a stallion who was sub-fertile due to the drugs used as a showing youngster, and there was every effort made to keep it secret. Makes you wonder if ANY of the foals by the original were actually sired by him.
 
#6 ·
Personally, I feel that none of us know enough about the science to decide if it is right or wrong. As for cloning your own deceased pet, I think it is harsh to judge someone who would do it. Everyone grieves differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sierrams1123
#19 ·
I agree with this. Who knows...maybe there will be some substantial reason for needing it in the future even if we don't need it now. My college, CSU, has produced a few equine clones, one made national news...was about a mare who died due to a tornado but they produced two clones from her. CSU was the first to do some particular type of cloning technique differently from the rest...but I can't remember what it was exactly.

I can see both benefits and faults in it. -shrug-
 
#30 ·
For some reason I thought he has passed, are you sure he is still alive?

Scamper was cloned, and Frenchmans Guy has three clones. Whats up with barrel racers?!?

I think it's interesting that we have the technology to be able to do it...moral issues aside.
Did yall know Hot Shot was cloned as well, they named his clone Another Shot and he looks just like him. I still can not get over that Hot Shot passed away not too long ago, I think 2 weeks ago at the most.

Cloning people could have a benefit, maybe not the whole person, but think of getting the organ cloned for a dying person so they get an exact replacement?

Have you not seen the movies The Island and My Sisters Keeper. They should never be allowed to clone people for the use of keeping someone else alive.

I see nothing wrong with umbilical cord blood though.
 
#8 ·
Where is the line drawn? In my eyes it is wrong. Some people clone their pets because they can't or do not know how to grieve. In my opinion, they do not need their pet cloned, they need therapy to learn how to grieve. Grieving is part of living. Cloning near perfect stallions and mares or any other animal, the knowledge and responsibility of breeding would no longer be needed. Do we want everything perfect? Then what? Nothing would stand out and eventually everything would be bland in our eyes because of lack of imperfection. We are not God.
 
#9 ·
Cloning won't ever replace breeding. There is no such thing as a perfect horse - never has been, never will be. The responsible breeder is trying to get as close as possible, but know that they will not get all the way there.

There is a place for cloning within scientific research. It rules out a heap of variables that have to do with genetic background. I am not saying that it is right - just that we who are uneducated in the complexities of the science should not condemn it. Especially not on religious grounds.
 
#17 ·
If Clayton is a clone of Scamper shouldn't he look like Scamper?

I watched the cloning show too & it seems those people really believe their deceased pet has come back to life, not just a look alike.
I don't care how anyone spends their own money but I do worry about their mental stability if they think it is the same animal.
You can't clone memories.
 
#11 ·
That is your belief, and that is fine. Everyone is going to have different beliefs. But it's the same as anything else - just because you wouldn't do it, doesn't mean you should have the right to prevent others doing it, and doesn't mean you automatically have the right to judge others for agreeing with it.
 
#13 ·
For the sake of discussion....I do agree everyone has the right to their beliefs. I don't necessarily agree with the rest of the statement. I do judge people by their actions and beliefs, what's wrong with that? Do we not judge murderers, pedophiles, thieves, and animal abusers? What gives us that right? Who decides those things are wrong? There is certainly a fairly sizable group of folks that think those things are totally okay. As it applies to cloning, if there is money to be made, it will happen. I just feel that it is a slippery slope & there needs to be alot of discussion on the moral issues (which there won't be, morals seldom impede $$$). Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD.
 
#18 ·
I am in my waning years, and the world would be a better place if I were cloned...


Seriously, I fall sort of on the fence when it comes to cloning. As a religious person, I am not overly comfortable with it, but as a scientist I see the possible merits. I lean towards being opposed, but it would be sort of neat to bring back some of our extinct species. Cloning of people and pets, I don't think so - there are already too many of both as it is...
 
#20 ·
Okay, now that is a different story. Not only are you talking about an animal, but one that would help promote scientific advances. It is one thing to bring back something that is extinct from the world for a good cause, instead of a deceased pet. I have nothing against anyone who wants to spend time and money on cloning, but like someone said earlier, you can not clone memories, and as I said before, you can't clone personality. You may get the looks of the animal, but not what you really fall in love with.
 
#22 ·
I may just be weird... I find it fascinatingly amazing that humans have the ability to do so much. No reason to really debate, the government is going to do what it wants to do, debates just make the doors close from the public ;)

Cloning people could have a benefit, maybe not the whole person, but think of getting the organ cloned for a dying person so they get an exact replacement?

Or maybe I put too much stock in my science fiction novels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: attackships
#24 ·
Cloning people could have a benefit, maybe not the whole person, but think of getting the organ cloned for a dying person so they get an exact replacement?

Or maybe I put too much stock in my science fiction novels.
This is happening a lot these days. Scientists are using Stem Cells to produce tissues for humans. Whether it's skin for a skin graft or organs. People are now keeping the Umbilical Cord Blood for their babies because it's the purest for reproducing something that the child may need later in life.

Think of it, if you need a blood transfusion, who is going to argue with using your OWN blood? It's an identical match and your body isn't going to reject it. It's amazing. Some say it's unethical or wrong, but if your child were laying in a hospital bed and the ONLY way to save him/her would be to use stem cells, would you do it? Or would you let your child die?

We are actually researching this in Human Physiology right now. Today my teacher, who is a vet, said they are now taking fat from dogs and horses, breaking it down and using the stem cells from it, and then injecting it back into the dog or horse's joints to cure arthritis. Not cover up the symptoms, but actually treat and cure the problem. He said they are having phenomenal results and will eventually move into human trials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tianimalz
#23 · (Edited)
The reason why Scamper was cloned as because he was a gelding and couldn't reproduce. So they created Clayton who is genetically the same DNA as Scamper. Therefore it's like breeding to Scamper. But with any stallion that reproduces, some of the foals will turn out to be amazing, and some won't do anything.

And Clayton has the same DNA as Scamper, but he's not the "same" horse. Like someone said, they can't clone memories. And genetically he is a look alike of Scamper, he's bay. But there are different shades of bays...yet genetically it's the same. The phenotypes are different though which can, and will, create different markings on the animal.

I too watched the Animal Planet show on cloning and I noticed that one of the puppies had different markings then what the original dog did. It definitely spikes my interest but it's not something I personally would do. I love my dog, he's my everything, but even if I had a "clone" of him...It wouldn't be the same dog. I can see cloning a fixed animal to pass on the bloodlines, but, it isn't the "same" animal of the clone. The personality is bound to be different.

The mom of the animal plays a major role in the development of the puppy or foal, who's to say they'll get that important part of their life. On the animal planet show, the puppy that was cloned wasn't even with a surrogate, it was bottle fed and in a incubator.

I am not against cloning. I think it's amazing that we have the technology to do it, but of course your going to have some people that go to the extreme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sierrams1123
#28 ·
The mitochondrial DNA of clones is different than that of the original animal. So the offspring of clones can be differentiated from the offspring off the original for registration purposes, etc by testing the mitochondrial DNA.

I think the registration ban has to do more with economics than it does with scientific or religious/ moral issues.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
#29 ·
That too. Can't believe I forgot mtDNA. And that's one of the big things right now in predicting racehorse performance, isn't it?

But mtDNA is not inherited from the stallion, either (only the mother), so for offspring purposes it may be a moot point. It would not test in the offspring of a cloned stud.
 
#33 ·
I think if you have a gelding who is amazing, then I say cloning seems reasonable. But I think cloning stallions who are capable of breeding should have the standard of not being cloned. In a way, it's a serious waste of money. But the technology could be useful if it doesn't go crazy.
 
#34 ·
Scamper is still alive.

* * *

I'd like to see some of these current big name clones in competition. I think they're afraid of what the consequence might be. If they flop professionally (as they certainly could, due to lameness or different training or different personality), the public's perception of cloning would take a big hit, as would the megabucks fortune that could potentially be made by allowing breedings to these famous cloned stallions....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top