Korean Cloned Crime Fighting Dogs?

edited May 2008 in General
Source: http://www.citizensugar.com/1581259

Cloned Dogs Fighting Crime in South Korea



Mon, 04/28/2008 - 9:00am
by LibertySugarimage


238 Views -
20 comments



The cloned puppies seen in this picture will soon hit the K-9 beat. South Korea plans to use labrador retriever clones to sniff out drugs and contraband for the Korean Customs Services.

South Korea was the first to clone a dog, and now the country is
putting the technology to use. The seven puppies up for service were
cloned from a highly trained and successful dog working for customs
patrol right now.

Like their DNA, the puppies all share the same name “Toppy” – a
blend of the words "tomorrow" and "puppy." South Korean officials say
the program will increase the quality of the sniffing dogs, all with a
cheap price tag.

Is there anything freaky about taking one dog that’s doing a good
job, and multiplying him by seven? Do you think governments and
businesses will soon justify any type of cloning by saying it produces
superior and cheaper results?

Comments

  • edited November -1
    Hi,

    I am not sure how to rationalize cloning.  I would think since I am not religious that a scientific observation would be my only means of measuring this.  However, even without religion in the mix, I find that ethical issues can still be questioned. 

    Here is a question:
    There is a known community that lives in an isolated region of Italy.  This community has a long line of familial occupancy.  Typically folks born there grow up to raise their own families there.  They are born, raised, and they die there.  During the past generation as medicine and modern technologies have evolved it was noted that although this community actively used tobacco and alcohol from generation to generation, sometimes in daily quantities, that there were "no documented" cases of Heart Disease.  Come to find out they have a gene that no one else has and scientists have concluded that this gene is responsible for this attribute.  It is a family gene, one that is passed to everyone in the community. 

    "Would it be any different in thought if Science decided that we should actively participate in introducing this gene within the very fabric of mankind?"  This means every family group could be given a "man-made" boost in evolution. 

    It is not uncommon to see within a specific group of people a gene responsible for those peoples' specific attributes.  Would it be any different in allowing "good" attributes to come forward for our future offspring?  I would think that the real "cloning" began when we began breeding programs.  To find wild dogs roaming the mountainsides after WWI and even though they are mutts, they all seem to carry a certain look; so people step in and capture the dogs and start a breeding program.  It seems that all "domestications" on animals is a form of cloning. 

    I know cloning is a replica and not the same as the traditional method of breeding, however, I think that when I see a flower with incredible qualities that instead of crossing its traits I would much rather take a "cutting" and recreate another just as vibrant or incredible.  It is preservation. 

    Here is another:
    Recently in time, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, preservationists finally were able to investigate the East.  They found public gardens there that have an enormous collection of roses.  The condition of the gardens were at risk due to the upkeep and bad economy at the time.  It was a tough time for many.  What they found there were roses that were described in the writings during the days of Shakespear.  These roses were thought to be gone long ago, completely unrecoverable.  Paintings and written descriptions would be about the only means of ever seeing what they looked like.

    There was a world-wide offering made immediately after that discovery.  Anyone, meaning professional or unprofessional, willing to do rose graftings would be sent (cost of shipping) viable buds for immediate preservation.  Each rose would be identified from there.  I remember how exciting that seemed to me that these roses were being saved. 

    At the time I was not fully prepared to risk a bud graft.   I live in the desert and although I have good results there are always losses.  I did not want to consider it. 

    ~~Interesting post~~  I guess I am kind of glad I have the qualities I do have LOL.  Could you imagine a Designer Gene Store?  Wow, give me one of those! LOL jk

    Ron (and Rudi, but he does not know what he is agreeing to) :)
  • edited November -1
    I take a solely religiously ethical view on the subject - science cannot fully explain or recreate life. Life creates or recreates life. A seedling falls to the ground and starts to grow, a baby is conceived and a belly swells, this is life, man cannot agree on when it began or how it began. How can man want to take 'credit' for recreating a life form through cloning?
    It just puts a horrible feeling in me..
    Not to mention ethics - there HAS to be an enormous amount of stray dogs in Korea - what harm would it do to hire a few extra people to gather a few and train them to be as good as their master cop dog? Why recreate life when needy lives already exist?
    I just think in end times, whenever or whatever that is, cloning and those who figured the logic and science behind it will probably regret doing so.

    I think we were all given the life we have for a reason, if we have heart disease than its for a reason, if a type of rose becomes extinct, there is a reason, even if we cannot fathom a reason - I know at least in my own life, I reminded time and time again that those reasons are so much bigger than me and my life and I'm OK with that.
  • edited November -1
    I take a pretty staunch religious view on it as well, but whenever I think of cloning, I think of that Michael Keaton movie - Multiplicity - and how the clones really didn't measure up.  I also believe in the scientific approach of even people with identical DNA (identical twins) can be very different from one another.  The Nature vs Nurture argument plays a major role.  I think who we are is comprised of both our genetics and our environment.  These cloned dogs will each have a different environment (as I don't believe each can possibly have the exact same experiences) so there is no guarantee that they will be like the "master cop dog". 
  • edited November -1

    You are right that I was not thinking in terms of this particular instance. I did not once consider the country or the subjects being from a "crime fighting" dog, an individual.  I guess the subject is too defining if I recognize the players in this drama.  It is almost natural to think beyond that and forget the players. 

    I guess then each case would have to be analyzed individually in order to say if it is right or wrong.  That is, if the conditions do not have to do with preservation.  Even though it is the lack of preservation measures which have resulted in the extinction of so many wonderous God-given creatures by the hands of man himself.  Even recently. 

    The Passenger Pigeon, the Great Auk, the Dodo bird (which is actually a tropical pigeon).  There is also the Carolina Parakeet, considered the only true native North American parrot; although the Thick-billed parrot is still reported in the high elevation forests of Arizona and New Mexico (presumably). 

    These few extinct species died as a result of man's hand.  Now with that in mind, and with the advancement of science through cloning, we could begin to step back into our history and "take back" our ignorances.  To take the remains of these missing species and genetically clone those individuals.  I think I would like that. Even if a viable male and female could not be produced who in turn reproduce, we would still be no worse the wise.  I certainly could see cloning as a means of possibly rectifying some part of our fumbling here on Mother Earth.  I know I only mentioned birds, but they seem to be effected by us so readily and they are easily noticed when missing. 

    Of course I would also have to mention the results now of how "introductions" without cloning have caused even more havoc; take the English House Sparrow, the Starling, and the Rock Dove (common pigeon).   In all our meddlings, we could bring something back only to find out the "niche" that Nature had to fill by these lost creatures was long ago filled by some other opportunist.  Provide a niche and something will fill it!  That is certainly Nature. 

    Back to cloning.  I am more for preservation.  I am more for deliberate scientific evolution of a species (mankind).  I certainly believe we have overstepped ourselves long ago with our God-relationship.  We have taken more into our own hands now that Nature was not meant to be subjected to naturally.  I, myself, try to practice "turning it over to a higher power" to allow Spirit or God or how ever a higher intelligence could be described as, and letting go.  I usually find that the less we control in our worlds the more we find that trust and faith and prayer do work.  I just think that because we were always meant to grow that only through Science can we find our truest calling. 

    I think Space is where we will find our answers, but then again, the moment we come to another "life-bringing" planet we will likely screw it up.

    I say Booooo to South Korea.  They did this for ego's sake.  They have the technology and just wanted to show off.  At least they will now have to treat all of those pups as celebrities because the world is clapping.  (now that I refocused and am trying to rationalize the players in all this. 

    Huggs, mindfully Ron (and Rudi too!)

  • edited November -1
    From the science standpoint, when cloning came about - I thought about the different animals that we can no longer see or study.  I wondered how neat it would be to watch this and that species interact and then I thought, "Everything has a purpose" (Not my original words, for sure!) - just how bad could we screw this up?  Humans think many times about the here and now (even if the now is 30 years down the road).  Nature is built on thousands of years of things changing over time.  To re-introduce an animal could end up being a very bad thing (even though the hopes and plans were done with good intentions).  I agree that if there is another planet or solar system with life and we find it - we'll mess it up.  We (unlike the higher power I believe in) cannot fathom just how doing a few simple things can impact the world so greatly.

    Ego can be so bad.
  • edited November -1
    Aren't scientists saying now that they found cartilage and soft tissue that survived in a fossil bone of some dinosaur and they are talking about what would happen if they harness the DNA to clone it.
    Holy Godzilla. What an awful, awful plan science!
Sign In or Register to comment.