Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Dog Cloning

  1. Nov 29, 2004 #1
    What do I need to collect from my dog to be able to clone him? Blood? Saliva? If he were to die today would I still be able to collect whatever I needed? Would I need to refrigirate or do anything with this sample to ensure that it will work?

    Thanks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 30, 2004 #2
    The general idea is that any mature cell with intact nucleus would do (so not a red blood cel, but a white blood cel could be good), some saliva would probaly be ok. However, this far nobody has succeeded in cloning a dog, but a cat has already been done:
    http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-03-04/204.asp
     
  4. Nov 30, 2004 #3
    Yeah I remember reading about the cats. Thanks for the link and info :smile:
     
  5. Aug 3, 2005 #4
  6. Aug 3, 2005 #5
    Genetic Savings & Clone Inc. of Sausalito, Calif. charges 50,000.00 dollars for a cloned cat. I expect dogs would be twice that much.
     
  7. Aug 3, 2005 #6

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I dont see what the big deal is. So they've mastered the process of not being so sloppy - big deal woopty doo. Its still an in vitro development - not like they've actually done this in some lab environment

    Matter of fact I dont consider cloning to be a threat or an achievement of humanity on any grand scale. Nature does it much better and much more efficiently, not to mention with far better precision and accuracy

    Im concerned of mental status of those concerned individuals
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2005
  8. Aug 3, 2005 #7
    Seems like they haven't worked out the advanced ageing problems with it yet.
     
  9. Aug 4, 2005 #8
    The big deal is that it was difficult to achieve. It has been tried for quite some time and now they have succeeded. I am not sure what you meant by "in vitro and not in some lab environment". It is done partly in vitro and partly in vivo, in a lab. If someone would succeed in breeding a mammal (clone or not) without any in vivo stage, "in some lab environment", that would be a revolutionary accomplishment. Point is that most of these biological processes are far from being in our control at the moment.

    Yes, nature has many powers and does wonderful things, but we would like to harness nature's powers and be able to control those ourselves. It is no fun to sit back, look at it and say "well, it has already been done", we must to be able to do it.
     
  10. Aug 4, 2005 #9

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    some more on the process used...(excerpt from http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/08/03/dog.clone.ap/index.html)

     
  11. Aug 6, 2005 #10
    these are not true clones since a) they will not have the ancestral mito dna and b) the telomeres are retarded to adult rather than embryonic status.

    what i don't understand is why the following process is not done:

    1) in vitro fertilize multiple embryos from the same parents
    2) at blastocyst stage, remove inner cell mass
    3) split the cells and grow in culture (this is the tricky part but certainly possible)
    4) take one of the ICM that have grown back (undifferentiated) and reinsert into trophoblast
    5) implant into pseudopregnant surrogate and enjoy the pet
    6) save and freeze the other ICM cells that were cultured, repeat the process again when pet dies

    notice that these would be true clones, and not suffer the two disadvantages at the start of the post.

    of course, this could also be done for humans..however, less controversially, could be done in order to have a storage of ES cells for each person without the supposed 'ethical issues' of destroying an embryo - clearly if that person exists then their embryo was not destroyed!
     
  12. Aug 7, 2005 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Why clone your dog? It will not have the memories or personality of your dog.
     
  13. Aug 7, 2005 #12
    personally, i wouldn't do it either but there are plent of people who would. as for it not having the same personality...that is debateable - i think that given the same environment it may very well have the same personality. but i think that is irrelevant to the science.

    but what do you think about the above procedure? the tremendous benefit would be that ES cells would be available to a person that are genetically identical to that person, something that is not possible with the current approach.
     
  14. Aug 7, 2005 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It may have the same temperament, but to me "personality" is something gained from experience, it would be how it reacted to hearing your car pull up to the house, or see you get the leash, all the little things your dog did that made him who he was will not be there.

    I don't know enough about it to know if that would work, but it sounds good! :approve:
     
  15. Aug 7, 2005 #14

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    All you'd get out of cloning your dog, is an IDENTICAL TWIN of your dog that didn't happen to be born at the same time as your old dog.
    You won't get your old doggie back, though.
     
  16. Aug 8, 2005 #15

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, it's one way of parting people who don't know much about biology from their money.

    I still don't see any reason for cloning of animals beyond using it as a research tool to understand just what is under genetic control and what is influenced by epigenetic or environmental factors.
     
  17. Aug 9, 2005 #16

    i'm still not so sure about this.

    sociologists have done a good job of convincing us that biology has no effect on human behavior whatsoever. this is rooted in their marxist basis, since that is one of the key postulates of marx - that human (and we can generalize here to 'animal') nature is dictated entirely by the society/environment.

    however, science does not support this.

    studies involving twins and siblings raised in different environments show that this is not the case. anyone who has had children of their own, and watch their behavior closely, may have also noticed odd trends that could not have possibly been learned.

    while it is obvious that this is not "the same dog", but a twin, i would not be surprised if the twin were to be 90% identical in behavior to the original dog.
     
  18. Aug 9, 2005 #17

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Some aspects of behavior may be genetic, but those twin studies still do not rule out intra-uterine developmental environment. Also, watching your own kids' behavior is not at all scientific, nor is it going to rule out anything about learning.

    If you're going to bring up the issue of claims that are unscientific, then you should be looking at your own 90% claim, or else provide evidence that 90% of behavior is genetically determined. While there is evidence of aspects of behavior that are learned and aspects of behavior that are biologically determined (maybe or maybe not due to genetics alone), there is nothing that quantifies the percentage of behaviors influenced by one or the other or both. These clones actually make a good research subject in which to study this because you can get genetically identical animals reared in a completely different environment, even temporally separated, including a different intrauterine environment, and start looking at how similar or dissimilar they are to one another. And of course this has usefulness beyond just behavioral studies, but to any aspect of biology in which environmental influences are suspected to play a role over genetic influences.

    It would be nice if they could clone several animals from one host and implant the embryos each into a different surrogate mother rather than having them all born to a single litter to really begin to test genetic vs environmental influences on biology and behavior. A clone is the perfect control.
     
  19. Aug 9, 2005 #18

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I would also like to add that these identical-twins-separated-at-birth studies are fraught with problems, not the least being that it is often simply shoddy science (poor controls, for example).
     
  20. Aug 9, 2005 #19
    i never said that the environment (congential or otherwise) wouldn't have an influence. it's fairly obvious that it would. my point is that the modern view says that we are born as a blank slate, like a computer waiting to be programmed by society. The view that I am advocating is that this is naive.

    I didn't claim 90%, I said that "it wouldn't surprise me". It is an opinion that I hold based upon observation that, while not quantified, makes more sense than the alternative "blank slate" non-sense.
     
  21. Aug 11, 2005 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I guess I wasn't clear, what I mean is exactly what Arildno said "You won't get your old doggie back, though." I don't care how "similar" it looks or acts, it's not your old dog. Memories can't be cloned, at least not yet.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Dog Cloning
  1. Is cloning ethical? (Replies: 17)

  2. Cloning Coral (Replies: 2)

  3. Cloning question (Replies: 4)

Loading...