The question remains whether it is ethically correct. To analyze whether cloned dogs are a legal business, we must study the context in which it occurs.
For some scientists and companies, it will always be legal to provide owners with closeness to a lost being. For detractors, the sentimental manipulation of those who can pay for a genetic copy is a point against.
What is cloning?
Cloning begins with the collection of cells from a live dog or a maximum of five days after death. The nucleus of that cell, which contains the DNA, is extracted and injected into the ovule of a female of the same species. It is allowed to develop until an embryo is obtained, in which the mother is placed in the uterus and will have the puppies after 60 days of gestation.
The first cloning of a dog known to occur in Seoul, South Korea, in 2005. It was an Afghan hound called Snuppy created with the same technique used in Dolly the sheep nine years before. She was the first mammal conceived by cloning from a cell of an adult animal.
Snuppy died in 2015 when he had just turned 10. His cloning was the work of Hwang Woo-suk, a Korean researcher accused of falsifying procedures and reports. He was convicted but not jailed for breaking South Korean laws that regulate bioethics and also for misappropriation. But cloning was his work, and he was recognized.
Cloned dogs, legal business?
Some scientists focus the argument on the possibility of using the somatic cell nuclear transfer to an egg to create an embryo. This would favor the cloning of endangered animals.
In danger of extinction? Why?
This possibility of perpetuating animals in danger of extinction gives weight to the cloning process. What is requested is that it be a controlled work, with purely scientific purposes. That it is not done to manipulate the feelings of people with money, who could rather adopt other animals at risk.
Scientific considerations extend further. If an animal is in danger of extinction, before cloning, it would not be relevant to inquire about the reasons for its disappearance? If there is the ability to reverse these conditions, cloning will make sense.
Immoral and frivolous?
There are those who consider immoral cloning; For others, it is a true frivolity. Detractors claim that it is about sentimental manipulation of people with money. They have the ability to pay for a kind of twin brother, or double, of an animal that was emotionally significant.
The arguments go further. If it is accepted that some people love both dogs and others their children, is it possible to clone children who have died?
Exactly the same?
When total accuracy is not achieved, questions about these genetic copies arise. If a faithful and exact copy of a deceased pet that was very important to its owner is not achieved, what is the point? Why not allocate that amount of resources to save animals in danger of death?
If animals are assumed as beings that they feel that have their own genetic, psychological, and physiological complexity, the allegations against them increase. Cloning is seen as a business that turns animals into merchandise. She is accused of prioritizing her emotional value over what they have as unique individuals.
The suffering of surrogate or surrogate mothers is another argument. They must be operated up to three times. First, the eggs are removed, then the embryo is inserted, and then the puppy is removed. In that process, they suffer, and some die.
What and what is it cloned for?
For some scientists, the ethical debate focuses on what is cloned. If it is a cell for specific experiments, in vitro, they are not opposed. If it’s living beings, the situation changes. The discussion centers around creating life without having the possibility of controlling the consequences that this could generate.