Dr. Michael W. Fox

Don't Clone Your Dog

Dr. Fox on the Tonight Show
In Memoriam_Feral Cat Mark Twain
DVD Links
Releasing Cats To Live Outdoors
Outdoor Cats, Wildlife And Human Health
Cat and Dog Nutrition--the Thiamine Issue
Cat Food Recipe
Cat Tail Deemed To Be Good Vaccination Spot
Cat Behavior
Cat Vaccination Protocols
Declawing Cats
Cat Litter Box
Introducing A New Cat
Black Cats Matter
Introducing A Dog Into Cat's Home
Choosing To Live With A Dog
Dog Vaccination Protocols
Dog Mutilations
Dog Food Recipe
Dog Food and Feeding Issues
Dr. Fox's Good Medicine Juice
The Truth About Manfactured Dog and Cat Food
Companion Animals Harmed By Pesticides
Dominance-based Dog Training
Dr. Fox and the Super Dog Project
Guide to Congenital & Heritable Disorders in Dogs
Dogwise E-Books
Concerning Outdoor Chaining/Tethering Of Dogs
Dogs In Shelters
Dr. Fox's Good Dog Cookie Recipe
Don't Clone Your Dog
The Pros and Cons of Neutering Your Dog
Recovering Canine Health And The Natural Dog
Animal Vaccination Concerns
Care For Dogs and Cats With Renal Failure
Green Pet Care
Puppy and Kitten Breeding Mills
Pure Water for Cats and Dogs--and All
Dental Problems In Companion Animals
Chemical-related Human Diseases In Companion Animals
From Mineral Oil & Multiple Sclerosis to Plastics, Nanoparticles
Companion Animal Care
Companion Animals and Flea and Tick Treatments
Behavioral Problems and Drug Solutions: A Last Resort
Preventing Fleas
Domestication and Diet
Lyme Disease and Wildlife Management
Disease and Animal Rights
GMOs and Pet Food
Journal of AVMA and GMOs
Indoor and Outdoor Poison Hazards for Pets
Carrageenan In Pet Foods
Cats, Dogs and Cadmium
Fluoride In Pet Food - A Serious Health Risk?
Best Manufactured Pet Foods
Nutrigenomics and the Pet Food Revolution
The Ethics of Krill Oil and Protein Supplements
Animal-Insensitivity Syndrome
Wolves and Human Well-being
Wolf-Dog Hybrids
Crying Wolf Too Much
Betrayal of Wolves and Public Trust
The 'One Medicine'
Pet Health Insurance
The Veterinary Profession
  Pharmaceutical Cruelty In Animal Farms: Consumer Beware
Pig Parts For People
Conflicts Of Interest In The Veterinary Profession
Bioethics: Its Scope And Purpose
The Bioethics And Politics Of Manufactured Pet Foods
Animal Rights, Human Rights And Wrongs
The Future of the Veterinary Profession
Holistic Veterinary Medicine
Veterinary Ethics and Economics
Veterinary Bioethics and Animal Welfare
Principles Of Veterinary Bioethics
What Price Our Animal Relationships?
Changing Diets for Health's and Earth's Sake
Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife Reseach Needs Ethical Boundaries
Wildlife Management Practices
How Animals Suffer Around the World
Feeling for Animals and Animal Liberation
Animal Altruism and Abilty To Empathize
What Makes Animals Happy?
The Empathosphere: Animal Prescience, And Remote Sensing
Mental Effects on Physical Health: The Mind-Body Connection
Animal Spirits
New Evidence Of Life After Life
Light Of Compassion
Religion, Science and Animal Rights
Animal Suffering And The God Question
Islam And Animals
Panentheism: The Spirituality Of Compassion
One Earth, One Health
Why We All Must Care For Animals and the Environment
Quality Of Life In Animals
Healing Agriculture's Broken Connections
Mammon Vs. Civil Society
Justice For All Beings And The End Of Terrorism
Universal Bill Of Rights For Animals And Nature
Science Writers' and Reporters' Political Agendas
Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness
Michael W. Fox Resume'
Dr. Fox Biographical Interview
Interview: History of Animal Welfare Science
Curriculum Vitae
Books By Dr. Fox
Dr. Fox Lectures, Seminars and Workshops
My Life For The Animals



By Dr. Michael W. Fox


Laura Jacques and Richard Remde of Yorkshire, England, welcomed their new puppies, Chance and Shadow, who were cloned using their dog Dylan's DNA. Dylan died in June, and the couple paid roughly $100,000 to have him cloned at the Sooam Biotech Research Foundation in South Korea. A researcher at the facility claimed in 2004 to have cloned human embryos, but the report was later discredited. CBS News (12/28), The Guardian (London)(12/28)


Goats, sheep, cows, pigs, rabbits, mules, horses, deer, cats and mice have been cloned for commercial and biomedical purposes. In August, 2005, the first dog was cloned, an Afghan hound, by South Korean researchers at Seoul National University where earlier, human embryos had been cloned and stem cells extracted. The surrogate mother of this cloned dog was a yellow Labrador retriever. One hundred and twenty three dogs were used as both egg donors and surrogate mothers, and from over 1,000 prepared eggs or ova each containing a skin cell from a dog's ear, three pregnancies resulted, one ending in a miscarriage, one resulting in a pup that died soon after birth from respiratory failure, and the third a viable clone of a male Afghan hound. Some bioethicists fear that the cloning of man's best friend is the final stepping stone to eventual public acceptance of human cloning.

Cloning entails taking a single cell from an animal and placing the cell inside the egg case or ovum taken from another animal of the same species, that has been emptied of its contents. After a procedure that activates the cell to begin to divide, the ovum containing the cloning cell is placed in the uterus of a hormonally receptive surrogate animal. Because of low success rates in getting the cloned cells to implant into the uterine wall, and because the placenta and embryo may not develop normally, several ova containing the clone cells may be put into the surrogate animal's uterus at the same time.  
People taking a beloved dog or cat to the veterinarian for a routine health check will have a few cells removed, quickly frozen, and shipped for storage at a Pet Cloning Center.  A processing and storage fee will be charged, and when the owners want their companion animals  to be cloned, the Center will begin the process after a substantial down payment has been made, or full payment has been provided. Before this new biotechnology is perfected and large-scale operations set up with hundreds, possibly thousands, of caged and hormonally manipulated female dogs and cats serving as ova donors, and others being the recipients of ova containing the to-be-cloned pets' cells, the cost will probably be in the six-figure range for some time before mass-production follows mass-demand. But there are many concerns other than financial:

The cloned dogs will not be exact replicas of peoples' beloved animal companions, and many clones will probably be spontaneously aborted, or have to be destroyed because of various birth defects. Abnormalities may also develop later in life. Clones of other species often have abnormal internal organs, neurological and immunological problems, and may be abnormally large at birth due to a defective growth-regulating gene function. What about the origins, quality of life and future of the thousands of caged female dogs  who will be exploited by the pet cloning industry, and the procedural risks to their health and overall welfare?

Do the ends justify the means? There is no evident benefit to the animals themselves. 
Why not adopt from an animal shelter a dog or puppy who looks like the one you miss or might be passing on soon, who needs a good home; or donate money, equivalent to what it would cost to produce one clone, toward improving  the welfare of hundreds, even thousands of dogs, and other animals in communities around the world?
What are these ends anyway? Certainly there is a commercial end that is potentially lucrative, given the right market promotion and endorsements by professionals and celebrities.

But is there real human benefit in making a clone of one's beloved canine companion?  Or is it mere pandering to a misguided sentimentalism?  Because of the close emotional bond between humans and their animal companions, the pet cloning business I see as an unethical exploitation of the bond for pecuniary ends. Exact replicas of peoples' dogs cannot be guaranteed, and will not likely be created because an identical environment during embryonic and postnatal development cannot be achieved. All clones may, at the time of birth, be of the same chronological age as the age of the cells taken from the to-be cloned animals. So if a cell is taken from a six-year-old dog, because of the aging "clock", the clone may already be aged by six years at the time it is born.

From various religious and spiritual perspectives and beliefs, cloning violates the sanctity of life and the integrity of divine or natural creative processes.  It is problematic from the point of view of reincarnation, or transmigration of the soul.  From a Buddhist perspective, the consciousness incarnate in the body of the clone, or the consciousnesses in the bodies of many clones from the same original animal, are all going to be different from the original donor.
It is not inconceivable that dog clones might also be created initially on an experimental basis, and used to provide spare parts such as kidneys, hearts, hips, and knees for ailing dogs.  Research laboratories may also use cloning to quickly develop identical sets of dogs and other animals for biomedical research. Some sets and lines of clones having the same genetically engineered anomalies to serve as high fidelity models of various human diseases may be created and marketed to develop new and profitable drugs to treat these conditions in humans and other animals.


The bioethics and medical validity of these developments need to be examined. And pet owners who put out the money to have their animal companions cloned may want to think twice, since they may well be giving this new cloning business not only a financial jump start, but also the socio-political credibility that it needs in order to gain widespread public acceptance, and a market for human cloning and for other biologically anomalous and ethically dubious products and processes.

The fact that a venture capitalist made a grant of  $2.3 million and hired an agent to find a university biotech.  laboratory already in the cloning business to clone his dog Missy (visit  www.missyplicity.com )  and the subsequent public relations and media promotion of this project, points to another agenda: The cloning of pets may be a ploy to promote human cloning.  If the cloning of pets becomes a reality, the public will become desensitized to the issue of cloning and more likely to eventually accept a highly lucrative biotechnology for childless couples and rich and selfish singles for the cloning of complete human beings, and of partial human beings (such as anencephalics or headless clones) as a source of replacement tissues and organ parts. 
The Philosophy Department at Texas A&M University, where the Missyplicity Project was started in another department before being spun off into a private company "Genetics, Savings and Clone",  developed a set of “bioethical guidelines” based on the ethical principle of what they call axiomatic anthropocentrism. This strategy was clearly designed to deflect public criticism and concern over the morality and animal welfare aspects of the Project. Axiomatic anthropocentrism essentially means whatever is good for people   is ethically acceptable. Anthropocentrism --- human centeredness --- is an outmoded worldview or paradigm that many advocates of animal rights and environmental protection see as the root cause of untold animal suffering and ecological devastation over the millennia.

Several female dogs were put up for adoption on the web site, one of the company's "bioethical principles" being that regardless of the source through which dogs are obtained for use as egg donors or surrogate mothers,( from  animal shelters, breeding, farms, etc), at the completion of their role in the Missyplicity Project, all dogs shall be placed in loving homes. No funds shall be expended for dogs raised under inhumane conditions, such as puppy mills.

The Missyplicity Project included several goals in addition to the cloning of Missy that were published on the web site. These included dozens, perhaps hundreds, of scientific papers on canine reproductive physiology; enhanced reproduction and repopulation of endangered wild canids; plans to develop improved canine contraceptive and sterilization methods as a way of preventing the millions of unwanted dogs who are euthanized in America every year; to clone exceptional dogs of high societal value, especially search-and-rescue dogs; and develop low-cost commercial dog-cloning services for the general public.

These goals gave the Project the kind of credibility that a gullible public and organizations and professionals with a limited grasp of the inherent limitations and harmful consequences of cloning, would readily accept. Ethical concerns and the questions concerning the validity and relevance of applying cloning biotechnology to wildlife conservation, to dog overpopulation, and to the propagation of high performance dogs were cleverly deflected by these promissory goals.

 Genetic Savings and Clone, the commercial spin-off from the Missyplicity Project at Texas A&M University, launched “Operation CopyCat” in 2000.  The company estimated that the price for cloning a cat or dog would drop to $25,000 within

 three years. They never succeeded in cloning a dog, and eventually out of business, but a northern California biotech company, BioArts International created several cloned cats for sale at $ 50,000 each that turned out to be a commercial flop.


Undaunted, BioArts linked with the disgraced* cloning scientist Hwang Woo Suk who had succeeded in cloning dogs in Korea, in an effort to market cloned dogs in the US in 2008. BioArts International set up a public auction to clone five dogs for

 willing customers, with bids starting at $100,000! In another publicity stunt, this company offered owners a free chance to have their dogs cloned, and chose the German shepherd rescue dog who worked in the rubble of the 9/11 terrorist attack at the World Trade Center in new York city, as the ‘most clone-worthy canine’.


* Woo Suk was still under indictment for embezzling research funds in Korea, and for violating ethics laws in the course of acquiring hundreds of eggs from women for his cloning research, when his business association with BioArts international was made.


For additional information about genetic engineering, cloning, and the creation of transgenic animals, see: M. W. Fox (2004)  Killer Foods: When Scientists Manipulate Genes, Better is Not Always Best. New York: The Lyons Press; and, M. W. Fox (2001) Bringing Life to Ethics: Global Bioethics for a Humane Society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Check the link below for a Dr. Fox C-Span feature concerning "Animal Testing"

Dr. Michael W. Fox on C-Span

--Video Link--

Dr. Michael W. Fox

What right do we humans have to exploit other animals?  Where does that right come from and what are the limits if any?  What duties or obligations do we have in our relationships with our dogs, cats and other animals domesticated and wild?

          Follow and support Caroline Kraus and her Moments of Truth Project documentary film as she travels across the U.S. asking people, who variously live, work with and care for animals, these and other relevant questions.

Is there an overriding consensus and what are the reasons why people respond very differently to these questions, which in part examine our character, culture and future?

The viewing and discussion of this kind of documentary should be part of every school curriculum and will be of interest to all who work with, profit from and care for animals. Project Home Page: http://momentsoftruthproject.com/  To see the interview with Dr. Fox go to http://momentsoftruthproject.com/dr-michael-fox/