Creating Fido's Twin: Can Pet Cloning be Ethically Justified‪?‬

Commercial pet cloning--currently cats only--is now available from the firm Genetic Savings and Clone for the small price of $30,000. In December 2004, a nine-week-old cat clone was delivered to its owner, the first of six customers waiting for the identical twin of a beloved pet. (1) "Little Nicky," as he's known, has stirred up a great deal of ethical controversy, with more to come as the firm expands to dog cloning sometime in 2005. For many, the cloning of companion animals seems morally suspect in a way that the cloning of animals for agricultural purposes or for biomedical research does not. In judging the ethics of cloning animals that will be healthier to eat or will advance science or medicine, there is a natural argument to be made that the technique will serve the greater human good. But in the case of pet cloning, there is really no analogous argument, however wonderful the original "Missy," the mixed-breed dog whose owner funded the now-famous Missyplicity Project at Texas A&M to make pet cloning possible. Cloned companion animals will not significantly enhance general human well-being. In balancing the cost to animals against the possible benefit to humans, the ethics of pet cloning seems to be a simple equation: a concern for animal welfare equals an anti-cloning stance.