Gathering Samples for Dog Cloning: What to Collect?

[mattmns]

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.

 

[gerben]

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 probably 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

 

[mattmns]

Yeah I remember reading about the cats. Thanks for the link and info

 

[gerben]

A dog has been cloned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4742453.stm

 

[hypatia]

Genetic Savings & Clone Inc. of Sausalito, Calif. charges 50,000.00 dollars for a cloned cat. I expect dogs would be twice that much.

 

[cronxeh]

I don't 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 don't 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

Some people are concerned about the ethical implications of this research.

Im concerned of mental status of those concerned individuals

 

[hypatia]

Seems like they haven't worked out the advanced ageing problems with it yet.

 

[gerben]

I don't 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

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.

Matter of fact I don't 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

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.

 

[Phobos]

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

Like Dolly and other predecessors, Snuppy was created using a method called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT.
Scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus -- with its genetic material -- has been removed. The reconstructed egg holding the DNA from the donor cell is treated with chemicals or electric current to stimulate cell division.
Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a surrogate where it continues to develop until birth.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

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!

 

[Evo]

Why clone your dog? It will not have the memories or personality of your dog.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Why clone your dog? It will not have the memories or personality of your dog.

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

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.

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.

I don't know enough about it to know if that would work, but it sounds good!

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[Moonbear]

Why clone your dog? It will not have the memories or personality of your dog.

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.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

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'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.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[arildno]

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).

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

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.

But it is your old dog.

if I were to somehow lose my memories, yet biologically i am still the same (except for perhaps whatever happened to my brain biologically to rid those memories), am I no longer myself? Am I not the same person?

You see the logical paradox this creates?

 

[arildno]

But it is your old dog.

No, it isn't.
Do you regard a pair of identical twins as the same individual?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

No, it isn't.
Do you regard a pair of identical twins as the same individual?

im assuming that by this you are speaking in terms of biology, and not referring to each person being "special" or having a "soul" or anything like that.

so we are then speaking of two organisms that are biologically identical, aside from any minor biological distinctiveness that may occur through interaction with the environment. e.g. one twin may develop dark spots on their skin differently from the other due to oxidation damage and so forth - this is ok, and according to my definition does not make them less identical biologically.

of course it is obvious that they will have different environmental experiences, and so they will not have the same memories or perspectives. but again, this does not detract from the fact that they are biologically identical.

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

conceptually: wipe out my memories and then send me back in time to interact with myself - and you would have twins. no less the same person!

 

[Evo]

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

And I say that despite any biological similarities, they are two separate individuals, with their own unique feelings and thoughts and identities. You obviously believe what you believe, so I won't bother arguing with you. I know differently. I've known two sets of identical twins. They're not identical and they are not the same person.

 

[russ_watters]

And I say that despite any biological similarities, they are two separate individuals, with their own unique feelings and thoughts and identities. You obviously believe what you believe, so I won't bother arguing with you. I know differently. I've known two sets of identical twins. They're not identical and they are not the same person.

Heh, if there's any doubt, just ask them.

 

[russ_watters]

im assuming that by this you are speaking in terms of biology, and not referring to each person being "special" or having a "soul" or anything like that.

so we are then speaking of two organisms that are biologically identical, aside from any minor biological distinctiveness that may occur through interaction with the environment. e.g. one twin may develop dark spots on their skin differently from the other due to oxidation damage and so forth - this is ok, and according to my definition does not make them less identical biologically.

of course it is obvious that they will have different environmental experiences, and so they will not have the same memories or perspectives. but again, this does not detract from the fact that they are biologically identical.

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

conceptually: wipe out my memories and then send me back in time to interact with myself - and you would have twins. no less the same person!

There really is something big about the biology you're missing here: the human brain doesn't stop its development at birth(or conception, for that matter), so depending on their upbringing, two twins can have very different brain structure - that's why they can end up with very different personalities.

 

[Moonbear]

im assuming that by this you are speaking in terms of biology, and not referring to each person being "special" or having a "soul" or anything like that.

so we are then speaking of two organisms that are biologically identical, aside from any minor biological distinctiveness that may occur through interaction with the environment. e.g. one twin may develop dark spots on their skin differently from the other due to oxidation damage and so forth - this is ok, and according to my definition does not make them less identical biologically.

of course it is obvious that they will have different environmental experiences, and so they will not have the same memories or perspectives. but again, this does not detract from the fact that they are biologically identical.

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

conceptually: wipe out my memories and then send me back in time to interact with myself - and you would have twins. no less the same person!

This is a very strange way of looking at things. Just because two organisms are genetically identical, they are not a single organism. Every bacterium in a colony is genetically identical, but each is an individual bacterium; every ash tree in an ash grove is genetically identical, but you wouldn't say it was just one tree; for that matter, even inanimate objects can be identical, such as the set of four chairs at the kitchen table that were mass produced to be identical, yet you still call them 4 chairs, not just one. A genetically identical dog is NOT the same dog. Actually, the best example of this is the cats that were cloned. Take a look at photos available of them; they don't even have the same coat color. This is what makes clones so interesting as a research tool, the ability to identify what traits are controlled purely by genetics and which are influenced by the developmental environment.

But, hey, researchers would love it if you'd like to try convincing our lab animal services that cloned mice are all just one individual; it sure would save on per diem charges if we just counted them all as one mouse instead of 10s or 100s of mice.

 

[arildno]

im assuming that by this you are speaking in terms of biology, and not referring to each person being "special" or having a "soul" or anything like that.

so we are then speaking of two organisms that are biologically identical, aside from any minor biological distinctiveness that may occur through interaction with the environment. e.g. one twin may develop dark spots on their skin differently from the other due to oxidation damage and so forth - this is ok, and according to my definition does not make them less identical biologically.

of course it is obvious that they will have different environmental experiences, and so they will not have the same memories or perspectives. but again, this does not detract from the fact that they are biologically identical.

so: i would consider twins to be two instances of the same person that coexist in the same spatial and time domain.

conceptually: wipe out my memories and then send me back in time to interact with myself - and you would have twins. no less the same person!

What a load of mystical crap!

 

[Bladibla]

Why clone your dog? It will not have the memories or personality of your dog.

To eat it :)

 

[JamesU]

I will clone your dog for $1,000,000.

*calls pet store*[/size]

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

What a load of mystical crap!

while you may consider it crap, how was any of what i said "mystical"?

im sorry that some of you have gotten upset over all of this - i thought that we were talking about science, where we can use logical deduction to try and speak rationally as opposed to things like "ask the twins what they think".

 

[arildno]

We have spoken rationally all the time; you haven't.
And yes, what you were writing IS mystical, since you operate with a fantasy individual who is instantiated in the real world, possibly in multiple instances.
This is fantasy and mysticism.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

We have spoken rationally all the time; you haven't.
And yes, what you were writing IS mystical, since you operate with a fantasy individual who is instantiated in the real world, possibly in multiple instances.
This is fantasy and mysticism.

no this is logic - it is called a thought experiment. since we are talking about two organisms which are genetically identical, this is appropriate; my point being that if I were transported back in time to interact with myself, what would result would be indistinguishable (possibly) from twins as we know it.

my claim is that twins represent two instances of the same person, occupying the same spatial and time domains (but not both at the same time of course - if that were the case then it would be just a single "person"). since each one takes a different timeline, and is subject to different events, they will have different memories and so forth. following my line of reasoning, if you took one twin and it were subject to exactly the same events - exactly - they would be a complete copy of the other twin. of course, havingn the same exact events occur is an impossibility, but the reasoning stands nonetheless.

what you perhaps find so bothersome about me is that this raises the same types of issues that are faced over cloning.

im not sure how you consider this irrational..i find it more empirical than talking ambiguously of "personality", something that cannot be quantified.

i was actually more interested in talking about embryonic cloning methods via immunosurgery and possibly Cre-Lox methods, but everyone else seems to want to have pedantic one-liners about "personality" and such and so here we are...

 

[arildno]

Empirical?
Do you even know the meaning of that word?

Do not mistake silly fantasies about memory-cleaning and time travel for an exercise in logic and rationality.


once you've grown out of these adolescent ramblings, you're welcome to post something of substance.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Empirical?
Do you even know the meaning of that word?

Do not mistake silly fantasies about memory-cleaning and time travel for an exercise in logic and rationality.


once you've grown out of these adolescent ramblings, you're welcome to post something of substance.

yessir professor

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Main Entry: mys·ti·cal
Pronunciation: 'mis-ti-k&l
Function: adjective
1 a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence <the mystical food of the sacrament> b : involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality <the mystical experience of the Inner Light>

ok, then here is one that will really make you mad arnildo:

if pre-biotic evolution is correct, then it stands to reason that all life on Earth is nothing more than the cycling of a single cell line.

is this mystical?

 

[arildno]

my claim is that twins represent two instances of the same person, occupying the same spatial and time domains (but not both at the same time of course - if that were the case then it would be just a single "person"). since each one takes a different timeline, and is subject to different events, they will have different memories and so forth. following my line of reasoning, if you took one twin and it were subject to exactly the same events - exactly - they would be a complete copy of the other twin. of course, havingn the same exact events occur is an impossibility, but the reasoning stands nonetheless.

This seems to contain your so-called "argument".
Note that in as much as the two persons should have EXACTLY the same experiences, then they must be the same person.

Thus, your argument is as follows:
Suppose that two persons are the same individual.
Then it follows that the two persons are the same individual.

It is certainly a correct reasoning, I'll give you that much..

 

[quantumdude]

no this is logic - it is called a thought experiment.

While I agree that this is not mysticism, it is undoubtedly a thought experiment of the sort used to explore the implications of physicalism/materialism. In other words, it is philosophy, not science. I don't think that's bad per se (I appreciate philosophy very much), but at at same time I can see why it's not well-received in the Biology forum. I think that the best solution would be for you to explore your thought experiment in the Metaphysics and Epistemology forum, no?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

This seems to contain your so-called "argument".
Note that in as much as the two persons should have EXACTLY the same experiences, then they must be the same person.

Thus, your argument is as follows:
Suppose that two persons are the same individual.
Then it follows that the two persons are the same individual.

It is certainly a correct reasoning, I'll give you that much..

not exactly..the problem is in the definition of "person".

we take as postulates:

1) a person is nothing more than a collection of atoms in a particular configuration
2) the configuration of these atoms will be subject to change over time according to the laws of physics - and that this is allowed in the definition. for example, the atoms that make up a human's body are turned over several times within the average lifespan - yet the configuration is roughly the same, or at least follows a typical progression with age. at no point would we consider an organism at age 10 to no longer be the same organism at age 70.

so here is what i am getting at: twins (or a clone) represent the same starting configuration of atoms, but due to each separate twin being subject to different events, the configurations amongst the two will diverge - but will not diverge more so than what we would consider the "same person".

changes in their brain configuration, ala "personality", will be different but not more different than what may be considered with any other single person.

therefore, as individualistic and different as two twins may be, it is logical fallacy (if one accepts the definition of a "person" as strictly being atomic) to claim that they are not the same person - they are the same person whose current conditions have diverged from the same initial condition.

to not accept this would lead to the following: because the atoms that make up my body at age 32 are not the same as they were at age 10, then i am no longer the same person. to negate my argument would be to imply the previous sentence.

 

[arildno]

You are no longer the same person at 32 as you were when you were 10.
Whoever told you that you were?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

While I agree that this is not mysticism, it is undoubtedly a thought experiment of the sort used to explore the implications of physicalism/materialism. In other words, it is philosophy, not science. I don't think that's bad per se (I appreciate philosophy very much), but at at same time I can see why it's not well-received in the Biology forum. I think that the best solution would be for you to explore your thought experiment in the Metaphysics and Epistemology forum, no?

tom, i agree with you wholeheartedly.

however, the claim was made that this would not be the same dog. my claim is that it is, albeit strictly in a logical sense. neither of these claims is within the realm strictly of biology, but at the same time are appropriate since the topic here is cloning - and i do not see how issues of cloning could be discussed without philosophy or ethics falling in.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

You are no longer the same person at 32 as you were when you were 10.
Whoever told you that you were?

how can that make sense? do i get issued a new id card, a new name? more specifically, what has changed?

 

[arildno]

how can that make sense? do i get issued a new id card, a new name? more specifically, what has changed?

You've had sex, for example, and experienced love.
These experiences, and countless others, make you a lot different than the 10-year old you once were.