SCI CURIOUS EVENT REVIEWS... MONGREL MUTTS AND SHOW CLONES
Event reviews by our Sci Curious members
Mongrel Mutts and Show Clones
Is our obsession with dog breeding a form of eugenics? Will breeding certain dogs be banned for ethical reasons? Will our future be filled with clones of our #1 pets?
This event explored the science behind dog breeding, discussing the moral and ethical implications of breeding dogs and debunking myths around cloning our pets.
Review #1 by Jasmine
Wondering down the concrete driveway to the chilly South Carpark at Melbourne University on a Sunday morning, it took my eyes a few seconds to adjust as I noticed half a dozen little furry friends running around amongst eager science enthusiasts. The joy and excitement I felt at being in the same space as the dogs was immediate. The emotional response that pets evoke from people was a closely explored theme from the morning’s panel discussion. We love our dogs and pets, they are our companions and friends. And as a result, if you have enough money- why not clone your best friend to perpetuate their life? As someone who is still heart-broken from the loss of a pet over 10 years ago I was tempted by the idea. However, there was a consensus amongst audience and panel that no matter how advanced stem cell and cloning technologies, the new pet would not be the old. Our furry friends are perfect because of our experiences and relationship with them- something that science just can’t replicate.
Review #2 by Arnold
Humanity’s constant desire to have control and perfection in every aspect of life has created many of today's ‘mongrels and mutts’. Our constant dabbling in affairs we should not have warped many things, from animals facing extinction from deforestation, to global warming, to man's best friend dogs. These companions of ours are the clearest sign of our desire to change and warp everything regardless of consequence. Thanks to us pugs suffer from concave skulls and malformed airways, labradors are prone to hip failure and Dachshunds are prone to ruptured spinal discs. These are just a few examples of how our desire for perfection has caused these animals pain.
Mongrels and Mutts is relevant to me as it is important for us to understand the possible consequences of genetic meddling as it is a fast growing technology with discoveries in recent years such as CRISPR and IVF as well as the ever growing use of GMOs for agricultural purposes. In this world that is continuously growing more and more favourable towards genetic technologies it is very important that we understand the potential consequences and failures of such technologies. Plus, I still want to one day genetically engineer a dragon, and I need to do so safely.
Review #3 by Jue
Cloning has always been an interesting topic to dwell in and debate about ever since its existence. Despite not being accepted by the majority of the general public, a lot of research and effort are still being carried out in the industry. This was reinforced a lot during the event by the panel and the downsides of animal cloning were also mentioned multiple times. Therefore, this was perhaps one of the most important themes of this event. However, I did not manage to relate to this event fully as I've still failed to understand the reason to why cloning is still being carried out despite the harm that it brings to the society. It made me felt like humans were doing it for the sake of it being a 'cool' or interesting field to dwell in and it brings no benefit to the world and rather it was for the sake of our curiosity.
Review #4 by Isabella
At its core, Mongrel Mutts and Show Clones, was an open discussion about the dichotomy about design and function. A look into how humans can selectively breed dogs, man’s best friends, into the epitome of cuteness whilst also generating a plethora of health issues. During the discussion, various dogs of different shapes and sizes were shown to the audience. Short dogs, like dachshunds and pugs, though ridiculously adorable are known to have many issues. Breathing problems due to pressed noses, paralysis from their small legs, or even prevalent heart conditions. Large dogs are also not left scot-free from the genetic Russian roulette, as they are more susceptible to shorter lives and bone cancer. This juxtaposition between style and substance gave the audience a pause for thought, as we are left to consider how far is to far in the pursuit of perfection?
As the owner of a forever hungry and adorable Portuguese Water Dog, I can say without a doubt that dogs are very cute. However, I must ask myself if I would feel comfortable seeing my pride and joy in pain because they look ‘cute’. I don’t think I would be able to. Furthermore, the panel brought up how humans have grown to become so infatuated with our ‘fur babies’ that when they meet their maker, some desperately cling to their dogs, going so far as to clone them. This discussion was relevant to me because I wholeheartedly love my dog, but when she does pass away, I refuse to clone her. Not because of the outrageous costs (300k), nor because of the great waste of cloning (around 1000 embryos and 100 surrogates before there was 1 cloned dog), but because the dog will not be my dog.
Review #5 by Kye Yie
Mongrel Mutts and Show Clones was an intriguing session that explores the science and ethics behind dog breeding and cloning our pets. One theme that sparked my interest was cloning pets. This thought provoking session inevitably raises question of whether humanity should be able to control all aspects of life, even the life of our pets? Does having the ability and technology to modify the way our pets look and clone them means that we are allowed to do it? Perhaps, spending thousands on a clone of your pet can save you from the excruciating pain of losing your pet. But, does it really? Barbara Streisand, who cloned her dog writes “You can clone the look of a dog, but you can’t clone the soul.” Personally, I feel that it is the memories and connections that makes the pet special, and these are unable to be perpetuated by the creation of a clone. For example, identical twins are like two peas in a pod, they have the same DNA, they look the same, come from the same parents and are born on the same date. One could argue that they are like clones of each other, yet they have different personalities, different tastes and their own individuality. Is the cloned pet then considered to be carbon copy of the original pet if it doesn’t retain the personality of the original dog? Or is it the appearances of the previous pets that owners are after?
Cloning an animal is also a very inefficient process. As Megan Musie mentioned, Snuppy the Puppy, the first cloned dog, was one of the two of only three pregnancies that resulted from more than 1,000 embryos implanted into 123 surrogate dogs. Is getting a replacement for your original pet worth the amount of dogs used in the process? Is the idea of having “your original pet born a different day” just a method for private companies to gain monetary profit?
The clone serves as an attempt to reincarnation the original pet. Yet, does the purpose of these dogs serve merely as a replacement for the previous pet, or are they viewed as having individuality and uniqueness. In the case of the latter, can it be then argued that there is no need for a clone? Shouldn’t it be known that death is inevitable and not that beloved pets can be ‘replicated’ with modern technology and thousands of dollars?
Comments:
Would have been better with more Q and A time
Powerpoint presentations for the different speakers before having the panel discussion
Not held in an underground Car Park, as it was very dark and we could hardly see the dogs.