Pet Cloning - Controversy

Controversy

Some critics accuse pet cloning proponents of encouraging prospective pet cloning clients to falsely expect that their new pets will be indistinguishable from their old pets.

Commercial cloning has been decried by the Humane Society and some other animal welfare groups, which argue that it is unethical for people to obtain pets through commercial sources when so many homeless pets remain in shelters or live as strays, and that the money spent on pet cloning would be better spent on the vaccination and care of those animals. Critics also argue that cloning attempts have high rates of failure, that animals involved in cloning research are likely to suffer, that clones may have serious health problems in later life, and that pet cloning could create a precedent for human cloning.

Defenders of pet cloning argue that pet cloning does not contribute to pet homelessness, the animals involved are treated humanely, it makes people happy, there is a demand for it, it will contribute to scientific, veterinary, and medical knowledge, and it will help efforts to preserve endangered cousins of the cat and dog. They also claim that cloning is no more inhumane than breeding.

In 2005, California Assembly Member Lloyd Levine introduced a bill to ban the sale or transfer of pet clones in California. However, it was voted down.

A cell is taken from a animal. The cell develops into a embryo. The embryo is placed into a suurogate mother animal. A clone of original animal is born.