Your Pet – Forever – for $100,000

Taxidermy is cheaper

Del, stuffed pets also don't eat as much and they don't poop on the carpets. Maybe if this guy perfects his cloning technique for humans, I'll sign on and stick around another 80 years. We have to ask, if he clones someone elderly, will the DNA clones reflect the advanced age of the clonee, or result in a youthful, vibrant intelligent person, assuming the DNA sample is from an elderly person.

you beat me to it...stuffed Rover is so much more obedient than before....

First dogs, the next thing you know RePet has cloned the governator, are you next? Better check under your left eyelid for a dot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_6th_Day

Seriously tho unless they are able to match RePet and give the animal the same memories and behavior, it just doesn't seem any different than a new pet of the same breed.

I agree. Also, if the only similarities are in appearance and not personality, it seems like the point is defeated. My dog looks almost like 1/2 of every other male yellow lab out there.

Anyone ever read the book or see the movie - Pet Cemetery?

There is a cheapo way of having a pet that can outlive owner without fancy clonning.

Buy a turtle, and the problem is solved.

funny, cloning dogs in Korea. For what, BBQ?

it's a dumb idea but there are plenty of people with more money than sense...

I lost my white pomernian two years back. She was only 12 yrs. old, a beautifull dog. She was most favourate in the family. We spent lot of money to save her kidney which had gone away. I could have posted her pic on this thread but I dont know how I can do it. My question is that cloned animal is exactly same as parent animal?. By nature and all other features.

A cloned animal will have identical physical characteristics and a similar temprement but the personality is going to be affected by how the animal is raised as well as genetics. The old "nature versus nurture" arguement. It's really some of both.

So the dog would be close, but not exact.

Another odd effect of cloning that was proved by Dolly, the sheep - If you clone an old animal, the clone has about the same age when fully grown.

I've heard of Dolly...but what is this supposed to mean? "If you clone an old animal, the clone has about the same age when fully grown."

If you clone a 5 year old dog it will be about 5 years old once it's 5 years old?!?

I didn't get any sleep last night...maybe I'm missing something....ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

actually Dolly the sheep clone aged quite rapidly. I guess you could say that once Dolly reached the age of sheep majority she very rapidly biologically aged to the chronological age of her donor animal over a shorter period of time.

So if Spot the dog has a tissue sample removed when he is 13 years old Spot the Second will, after 12-18 months, start aging rather rapidly. I don't know the rate ratio but it's rather quick.

I guess you might argue that you didn't get your money's worth. Probably why the clone is only warranted for a year.

You know what it's like with those people from the colonies, they're revolting...

Thank you, ca1icOcat.

Yes, Dolly was born a lamb. However, as she reached the age of adulthood for a sheep, it was quickly noted by here keepers that she had developed into an aged sheep - the same age as the sheep that the cells were originally taken from.

So, it seems that when you clone DNA, it comes with a clock - if you clone a young animal, you get a young animal, but if you clone an old animal, its clone will be old, as well.

So I guess all you "old guys" out there don't really have much to look forward to in term of clone technology. Kinda sucks, doesn't it.

So, I guess that it would not pay to have yourself cloned as an older person, huh? The clone just would not live as long of a life as the original - take Del, he is what? 90? And the clone would live to be 20? And then the clone of the clone would have the same shortened live span? Wouldn't that be problematic as well if it were tissues/organs that were being cloned. The colonies, huh?

Cheerio

Hense the interest in stem cells!!!

Did you ever read the book(s) of Frank Herbert called Dune? There was a whole civilization (of men, of course) that created clones of themselves...that could eventually get their original memories restored. This is a common thread throughout the series with a character by the name of Duncan ... I loved that series, the finale was lacking but still a good end to a long wait...

Cheers

Yeah, a really good book!!!

There is a new series of books coming out this fall... it will take up after the first (original) book and tell the story of what happens to Paul Atriedes suring that time and with his godhead. Can't wait

Cheers

I think maybe he was saying:

• The long-since differentiated cells of a "well-aged" donor will somehow also contain the (fully expressed) DNA encoding for aging (towards death), consistent with the "used up" life expectancy of the donor.
• Such that, if the donated cell was drawn (by way of comparison) from, say, embryonic (the more undifferentiated the better) tissue, the more likely it would be that the clone would live out its "normal," gene-mapped life course (albeit that there would be no immediate predictability of mature characteristics); whereas...
• A cell donated from a "mature" (aged) tissue would give rise to an embryo (in effect) already, as it were, encoded for (not potential aging but) aged or more advanced aging characteristics; such that
• the clone could not be expected to live out a normal life's course (like a natural specimen) but would be prone to "realize" in actual, physical expression the donor's aged characteristics at an earlier age...perhaps as early as the age of first attainment of maturity...rather than at the age at which the donor first expressed the same, possibly deficit, characteristic of aging.

I have not heard this previously; but it has been well reported that the viability of mammalian clones, vis-a-vis their donors (of haploid as opposed to diploid "regeneration"), has been shown to be...problematic. This suggest that, if cloning has a "best" application (most good for greatest number), it is not for the purpose of meeting individual vanity or fantasy needs regarding a (cherished) animal that has lived to, and through, adulthood to its death.

Yes, very good. Thank you, CowAnon.

Here's a layman's explanation that was described to me... Cells and their DNA are something like a string of pearls. Each time a cell divides during an individual's life, a pearl is removed, which leaves some of the string exposed. In some way, the length of the string determines the age of the cell (and individual) - the more string, the fewer the pearls, and the fewer times the cell can divide. Furthermore, the more string showing, the less robust the cell.

So, it you take DNA from an 80 year old man and clone him, once the clone reaches adulthood, it will rapidly begin showing the signs of old age, because his cells have the same length of string as the 80 year old. In fact, the act of growing into an adult takes several cell divisions, and the clone may run out of pearls before adulthood.

How many Del the Cat can we clone?

in this instance I prefer taxidermy....

Clones are pets two.

Is this a promotion?