The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Animal Cloning: At What Cost?

153 Comments

March 23, 2009 by Kathy McManus

We’ve barked up this tree before:  how much is too much to spend on your pet?  

$8,000 for kitty’s kidney transplant? 
$12,000 for doggy’s dialysis?
$155,000 to clone a dead Labrador named Lancelot? 

Sir Lancelot was a yellow Lab that loved bagels, pillows, and shoes. His death last year from skin cancer “devastated” his owners, Ed and Nina Otto. “He was a human dog,” Mr. Otto lamented. “He read your emotions.” 

Years before Lancelot got sick, the Otto’s froze and banked his DNA. Last summer, they turned it over to a company that auctioned off the chance to clone a pet. The Otto’s winning bid: $155,000.

In January, the Otto’s new puppy--a 10-week-old yellow Lab named Lancelot Encore-- flew from South Korea, where he was cloned, to South Florida, where the Otto’s live on 12 acres with nine other pet dogs and various cats, birds, and sheep.

When the clone arrived, so did the criticism: that designing a pet was an irresponsible use of technology, especially when U.S. shelters euthanize millions of unwanted pets each year; and that Lancelot cost a lot. 

“For $155,000, we could do spays and neuters for six months,” said the head of a local Florida animal services department. The Otto’s, however, have been steady donors to the Humane Society in Palm Beach County, giving $300,000 in the last three years—double the cost of the clone. 

But the Humane Society calls cloning “disreputable” and says "cloning cannot replicate an animal’s uniqueness. Cloning can only replicate a pet’s genetics, which influence but do not determine his physical attributes or personality.”

Nina Otto disagrees. “I think he’s Sir Lancelot,” she said of Lancelot Encore. “I know there are a lot of people in this world who think this is an unfair thing to do. I don’t.” 

“Think about this,” said Ed Otto. “You could have your favorite dog with you your entire life. I don’t think that’s too far-fetched.” 

Tell us what you think: Is paying $155,000 to clone a dead pet responsible, irresponsible, or something else? If you have money, does it matter how you spend it?

153 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• March 23, 2009 by Rhonda Mayfield

  I think the real issue is that society is desensitizing us to stories like this. Soon we will read about a couple who took their child's DNA and cloned him or her. The same way my mouth didn't drop open when I heard about the puppy-that's the same mundane reaction society want's us to have about every morally wrong and disgusting stories we read in the news. these stories aren't about the 'person', they want to see the tolerance level of the rest of the world. Pretty sad.

  Reply

  • April 21, 2009 by Charles

    They're not cloning a human! They have their own money so, they can do what they want! Stop trying to throw YOUR personal beliefs onto others! Go rake your yard, take care of your family, friends and mind your own business! If you had the money, you loved your pet so much, you may have made the same choice! Cloning ones own pet doesn't hurt others! Mind your own business and if anything, improving on that technology might one day benefit your life in the future, as the science improves .

    Reply

• March 23, 2009 by A. Zero

  They paid for the dog, stop sticking YOUR noses in THEIR business and move on. All of you have your own lives, your own problems, your own pets, your own children to worry about. Just stop trying to rule everybody ELSE'S lives and enjoy your own.

  Reply

  • January 28, 2010 by Brian Renner

    The purpose of this blog post is simply to open up a dialogue and consider differing opinions. Whatever you believe, it's your right to share it with the world and hopefully help someone else understand your own perspective. If we all minded our own business there would be no productive conversations since everyone would live in their own bubble.

    Reply

• March 23, 2009 by A. Zero

  I'm sorry for the multiple posts, but I just wanted to say that my previous post, entitled "Just Stop", was posted in anticipation of the flames of those who have very strong feelings of opposition to the fact that there are people who love their pets enough to go through all the trouble and harassment to have them returned to them. Again, live your own lives and don't worry about what the Ottos did.

  Reply

• March 24, 2009 by Serenity

  I don't think if the tissue of you dog is dead you should clone it. It has gone to the spirit world, and I can't see doing that. However, if I had a lot of money, a lot of money, and I never have so this is strictly hypothetical, I am thinking about having my dog Hershey; he was the best friend I ever had and I would have spent anything on him because money means nothing ot me, but he meant my world.

  Reply

• March 25, 2009 by Christine G.

  Is this discussion really about the money? If the couple had bought a yacht, a new house, a coffee shop or a diamond necklace, would other people feel the need to debate responsibility issues? If you have money, it matters very much how you spend it. However, in North American society, that is a personal choice within the limits of the law.

  Reply

• March 30, 2009 by Bob

  The world is full of idiotic morons like these people. $155,000 for a clone of a dumb dog. How pathetic.

  Reply

  • March 31, 2009 by Rosanne

    Obviously, some of you people have never loved a dog as much as this couple did. Truthfully, if I had their kind of money, I would have cloned my beloved silky, Skeeter. He has been gone for almost three years and I still miss him dreadfully. I can’t drive past the apartment building where we used to live or the park where he loved to play without crying. Sometimes, I can talk about him or look at his picture but at other times........ The Ottos have the right to spend THEIR OWN MONEY any way they choose and if cloning their dog makes them happy, it’s nobody's business but theirs. Also, since they contribute generously to the local Humane Society, they deserve a commendation, not condemnation for what they choose to do with the rest of THEIR money. So why don’t you people just shut up?

    Reply

    • August 17, 2010 by BIGMESS

      AMEN Rosanne!! Its the choice of the couple to do what they want with THIER money! I stumbled upon this site while researching this subject to find any options available to bring my "BUDROW WILSON" back when he is gone. It will crush my wife,daughters,and not to mention....ME!! The cost is too steep for me,but you best believe i would clone BUDDY in a heartbeat!! We live in a FREE society. Dont look down upon anyone for thier choices! thx!

  • May 4, 2010 by sooo what

    i know everyone has their own oppions but that was rude, what if you loved and animal so much that u wanted to clone it, that would be your choice! leave these people alone!

    Reply

• March 31, 2009 by Charity Sipe

  Walk in their shoes. If you had $155,000 that you could afford to spend on regaining joy and living with your best friend forever, that is your right to do that. People can sit back and criticize all they want, but the only person whose opinion counts is the one walking in those shoes. Even someone who had $155,000 to throw away on his favorite pet may choose not to do so because he may value something more. The couple did not suffer because they spent the money; they did not rely on society to support them as some in the news have with their flagrant wishes, so it makes absolutely no bearing on you or me. If you really want to gripe about something, consider the $155,000 that he had to spend out of the country because it is illegal in America to provide this service. That took $155,000 from the GDP, hmmm. Maybe we should get mad about that.

  Reply

• April 1, 2009 by John S.

  I saw this on the news a couple weeks ago and the headline was something like "Couple pays over $150,000 to clone their dog". My first thought was that if this couple really loved animals the money could have been better spent by donating to the ASPCA. Then I found out that they DID donate large sums of money to support animals in need. I say good for them and go for. If cloning is the issue, then it's a separate issue from their use of their money. I think they've struck a fair balance with their philanthropy and their personal desires. I hope they have a long and happy life together with their new friend.

  Reply

• April 1, 2009 by TK

  I personally wouldn't clone my dog when she dies (as much as I love her), but if that's what they want to spend their money on, that's their business. If the animal is healthy, I don't see what the big deal is. If it were a human, that would be a completely different matter. But as it is, it's just a dog.

  Reply

  • January 26, 2010 by cheyenne p.

    well said!! i agree completly : )

    Reply

• April 1, 2009 by Patty Weissenfels

  My beautiful German Shepherd is becoming paralyzed in her back legs. Her hips were perfect but we got the news that the myelin sheath surrounding her spinal cord is degenerating. There is no treatment or miraculous cure. Watching her walking tears my heart out. Knowing the kindest thing we can do is put her down but she is alert, happy, and the same sweet dog she has been for 11 years, how can I look in her eyes and see the trust and love looking back at me.. If I was wealthy and could be assured the clone would not get the same thing, I would do it in a minute. Many wonder why anyone would do such a thing. Our pets are like our children--our other dog has Addison's Disease and we have struggled to pay well over $200.00 a month for her medication for the past seven years. Fortunately, I can give the injections which saves the office visit. Support these folks, they loved their "kid" too and since they could afford to have her cloned...I find it wonderful they did.

  Reply

• April 1, 2009 by Mary Neal

  People should do what they want with their money. If it meant that much to them, of course they had every right to clone the dog. People who complain that it was irresponsible to spend $155,000 to clone their pet should just look around their own abodes and see all of the things they bought that were equally unnecessary before criticizing this family who cloned their pet. Most people have multiple television sets, cable or digital TV, all sorts of interesting gadgets and game systems, and considerably more than one change of clothes and shoes. Get rid of your own luxuries before criticizing others for spending their own money on what you consider unnecessary expenditures. Besides, it is not your business.

  Reply

• April 1, 2009 by Gay Pinder

  As a social entrepreneur who focuses on issues of ethics and civility, I am concerned about this story in a number of ways. Although I am glad to hear that the couple has given money to better the lives of animals, this still seems not the best choice to me. Yes, it is their right, but just because one has the right to do something and the means, does not mean that choosing to act on that right is the most scrupulous thing to do. I can think of 100 ways that $155,000 could have been put to better use to improve the life of an already exisiting life form be it human or otherwise. That aside, I'm concerned about what this means in relation to emotional growth. One of the lessons we may reap from death is the emotional growth that occurs as we deal with it. When a loved one or even a relationship dies, we do learn to love again and often in a completely different way that reflects our maturity through having weathered difficult situations. If we can simply repeat an experience or, in this case, a much beloved pet. How much will we have grown through experiencing loss when the loss is temporary. How are we to experience loving Rover who could be our next pet, when we can just have Fido over and over again? Being able to reconstitute a pet falls in line with another typically American character flaw - that of instant gratification. Americans used to take pride in our strength of character, now it seems it is as flabby as our bellies.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.