Ah humans, silly humans.
Some peopke treat their dogs like family. Of course they can't handle a loved one's death so well.
In this South Korean lab, for the price of $100,000 you can clone your dead dog. Essentially, your dog comes back to life (for all you care). Call me dogist, but I think this is morbid.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3597603/Inside-South-Korean-lab-owners-DEAD-dogs-cloned-replicated-new-pets.html?ITO=applenews

But then it wouldn't be the same dog ?

>>2
If you make a clone out of yourself, would it become you?

>>2 >>3 damn if we can clone ourselves it would be like that flick where they think they all are the original.

>>4
Won't happen. They'd have no memories, for one.
Also they start from babies so by the time they're your current age, you're already and elderly.

and lest not forget that close age faster than normal so if you did clone your dog it would age faster to the same point and it would have to train the clone like any other dog as it will not have the memories of your original dog or pet, the same would go if you cloned your self, it wouldn't have any of your experience nor memories as >>5 Neko said.

>>5 >>6 good thing we don't know how to perfectly clone yet,perfect clones that don't seem different from the original are just creepy.

That's not a very good idea. Many people will be disappointed like Neko said.

>>6 not strictly true. They age at the same rate but the cells are as old as the original dogs. If your dog died of old age then ddon't expect your clone to last very long at all.

>>9 That's not how it works either.

The best way to explain this is synthesizing a genetic twin. They are their own being that has to start at infancy. The fact that they have identical genes will have little effect on their memories and personality.

>>9 >>10
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the length of telomeres from the parent cells.

As for replacing your pet with a clone, I really feel it's unhealthy to project the same emotions onto a different being. That's like trying to dress up your new girlfriend as the ex.

Don't be afraid to let go.

>>9>>11
Theoretically you may be able to conduct SCNT into an oocyte for instance. Oocytes are full of telomerase and with the cytoplasmic constituents may be able to revert telomere shortening. Which is probably the process they would use to clone them anyway. Though I'd agree with >>12, I mean I don't think it's healthy to create a clone which isn't the same thing and then try love it like it is. It hasn't experienced the same things your other dog has etc

>>13
Just dug up some materials. Haven't seen them since Dolly the sheep.
So it is theoretically possible to exactly replicate the gene sequence of the host animal and restore the telomere length, and with some meticulous techniques, the cloned animal will have a normal lifespan. But there are still variations of gene expressions that are beyond control of the scientists, so it wouldn't be exactly the same animal. But it's still a healthy one anyway.

I'm pretty sure these people have attachment issues, but are they required to have a psych exam before cloning their dogs?

I think Im a dogist now..

Maybe their cloning them for breeding purposes? If the clones aren't created sterile, that is...

*They're. I fucking hate myself right now.

>>17
100k breeding purposes?

I don't know, I'm trying to find some justifiable excuse for cloning dead animals (although this one is not that justifiable either.)

Real clones? Lol

Yup...it is messed up.

>>14
Well as for telomere extension, I'm honestly unsure as to the effect of telomerase within the oocyte cytoplasm in somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). Though, I guess it would work. Either way, you basically get a clone. As for wiping epigenetic imprints and mutations (Single nucleotide polymorphisms frame shifts and all that), I doubt they could fix mutatons accquired during life.

I bet that if they did single cell transcriptone analysis that you wouldn't get the same genome in each cell in an individual due to mutations anyway (Of course exlcuding cells like gametes, red blood cells, some cardiomyocytes etc since they are haploid or have no nucleus, binucleate etc). They are taking one single cell's nucleus... you don't know the variation that mutations brought compared to lets say the original zygote during fertilization. Although cells do have gene repair mechanisms so I'd guess it would generally be a "clone".

As for clones, I guess it depends what context everyone is talking about. If I remember correctly, China is starting to clone animals for food. In the lab context, SCNT is quite commonly done I believe, though it is tightly regulated for human cloning, not sure about other animals, don't think so though. Even then, SCNT has challenges with the inheritance of maternal mitochondria too, since we all inherit our maternal mitochondria from the oocyte not from our fathers, putting another animals nucleus with different mitochondria may have an effect, though mitochondria have their own genome, you never know.

>>16 I don't think clones are created sterile, they should be able to reproduce if no complications arise. I think you are thinking of mules etc, mixed animals which are usually if not all sterile.

Why would you clone your dog?!?! The dog won't act or look the same. You could clone a person, but that doesn't mean that they would share the same memories or have the same personality. Why not just adopt another dog a give it a home?

>>23
People are sentimental, that isn't going to change.