Pet cloning is the commercial cloning of a pet animal. The first commercially cloned pet was a cat named Little Nicky, produced in 2004 by Genetic Savings & Clone for a north Texas woman for the fee of US$50,000. On May 21, 2008 BioArts International announced a limited commercial dog cloning service through a program it calls Best Friends Again. This program came on the announcement of the successful cloning of a family dog Missy, which was widely publicized in the Missyplicity Project. In September 2009 BioArts announced the end of its dog cloning service. In July, 2008, the Seoul National University created five clones of a dog named Booger for its Californian owner. The woman paid $50,000 for this service.
Science fiction depictions of cloning often create the impression that clones emerge full-grown from machines, are indistinguishable from their predecessors, and have even had their predecessors' minds "downloaded" into them. However, while an animal clone has the same genes as its genetic donor, behavior is influenced by environment and experience as well as by genetics. The behavior of an animal clone and its genetic donor will therefore be no more similar than the behavior of identical twins.
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[citation needed] 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 less humane 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.
