Got $100k? Enter to Win a Canine Clone

Do I hear $100,000?

$150,000?

$200,000?

For the right price, a California biotech startup will clone dogs for five lucky bidders in the world’s first commercial dog cloning program. BioArts International opens a series of online auctions June 18, when people around the world can bid to have their four-legged friends “duplicated.” Bidding starts at $100,000.

BioArts chief executive Lou Hawthorne, who recently succeeded in a decade-long quest to clone his family dog, spearheads the program. Hawthorne (pictured with his cloned dogs) partners with Hwang Woo-suk, a South Korean scientist who led the effort to produce the world’s first canine clone in 2005. Hwang is also known for a series of embezzlement and bioethics law violations linked to fake stem cell research.

News of the BioArts auction is sure to spark debate among dog owners for both its controversy and opportunity. One one hand, the Humane Society argues that commercial pet cloning has no social value and may lead to increased animal suffering. On the other, Hawthorne views biotechnology as path to happiness for pet owners.

But can the scientists at BioArts duplicate an animal’s personality? When I was young, my family’s dog passed away after a long battle with cancer. I was devastated; I had grown up with Sam around, and his unique personality was a big part of our family. Even if cloning were possible at the time, I doubt the process could have replicated Sam the way we knew him.

The debate over pet cloning also raises the issue of homeless animals. The Humane Society makes a strong case for animal adoption over animal replication. Wouldn’t pet owners be doing society (and the animals involved) a favor to adopt animals from shelters rather than pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into an attempt at producing a genetic duplicate?

Will Hawthorne and his team at BioArts oversee an international bidding war of dramatic proportions in June? Or will the price of cloning prove to be too high for an untested market? Whether pet owners have $100k to spare or not, the auction will surely get people thinking—and arguing—about the ethics of pet cloning.

News of Note

A couple of stories that have captured our interest:

From the Wisconsin Technology news:
"In the first of several decisions expected in a patent dispute involving human embryonic stem cells, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation said today it has been notified that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has upheld the claims of one of the foundation's key stem cell patents.

The patent challengers, however, said they will continue their challenge of what they termed "three overreaching patents on human stem cells."

According to WARF, the licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the decision pertains to the patent for primate and human embryonic stem cells known as '913.'

Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of WARF, called the decision of patent examiner Gary Kunz an affirmation. 'We're extremely pleased with this decision,' he said in a statement released by WARF. 'It affirms what WARF has believed all along, that Dr. Thomson's breakthrough discoveries are patentable inventions.' " Full story here.

From Science Daily:
New survey results show that only 29.5 percent in a sample of 1,015 adult Americans consider nanotech morally acceptable. In Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology:
"In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.

'There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology,' says Scheufele.

Why the big difference?

The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion..." Read on here.

From the NY Times: Six Killers: America’s Leading Causes of Death: "They are the leading causes of illness and death in the United States today: heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease, in that order. And they have a lot in common." Full article here. [Query: Would more Americans find nanotechnology more acceptable if they knew that it could cure these leading killers?]


From the Washington Post, a study suggesting that man's 'best friend' could be a robot? - a study by Saint Louis University that found the lovable pooch and the interactive dog robot called AIBO were about equally effective at relieving the loneliness of nursing home residents, and fostering attachments. Full story here. I agree with Sara Kiesler, professor of computer science and human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University, who said "the results of the study are encouraging but not completely convincing."