By UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
Clayton, a cloned Quarter Horse, romps in a paddock. Google image.
One of the hot topics discussed during the 27th Annual University of Kentucky Conference on Equine Law, held May 3, 2012, in Lexington, was the legal implications of cloning and embryo transfer in the horse industry.
While the legalities of these topics are not discussed frequently in Kentucky, the center of Thoroughbred breeding that requires live cover, they are issues becoming increasingly prevalent in the sport horse industries.
During the “World of Cloning and Embryo Transfer Issues in the Equine Industry” presentation, Lewis T. Stevens, an attorney from Fort Worth, Texas, first addressed the legal issues arising from cloning.
For instance, three clones of Smart Little Lena, an all-time leading cutting horse sire, are currently standing at stud. In addition, frozen semen from the original Smart Little Lena is still circulating. One of the problems with standing these clones at stud is that current DNA testing cannot distinguish the foal of a deceased stallion’s frozen semen from the foal of a live clone stallion.
This becomes an issue because the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) does not permit the registration of any horse produced by the cloning process, which includes the foals of a clone. Cloning continues, however, because certain performance associations, such as the National Cutting Horse Association, allow unregistered horses and clones to participate in competitions. Continue reading at TheHorse.com >>
I find the entire matter of cloning, particularly horses, morally reprehensible. One the one hand, we have a huge & loud faction babbling incessantly about the ‘unwanted’ horse in America, and the only solution is to butcher those no one has a use for to benefit the palates of European epicureans. On the other extreme, we have the spoiled and morally bereft uber-wealthy who, rather than grieve for the loss of a precious champion like a normal human, simply go out and make another one – studiously ignoring the thousands of champions going to slaughter on a regular basis.
Science has outpaced legality and ethics by turning a living, breathing entity into an object for patent, patting themselves on their collective backs on what a ‘good’ job they’ve done by crackin’ The Code. Now, we’ve come to a juncture where the debate has become the monetary value of a natural act versus a live donor versus the cellular remnants of a dead animal – and who can sue for the rights of utter ownership.
At this moment, I am grieving the loss of a dog whose presence graced my life for 16 years. And as much as I mourn my beloved Jack, I cannot imagine a world where his passing is trivialized because if I were wealthy enough, I could simply go to a lab with his baby tooth and some hair and have a entire litter of this same dog whipped up in a Petrie dish.
This dog – and every animal I have loved and lost throughout my life – were unique and precious, their personalities and traits created by their parentage and experiences. But their contributions to my life are so profound as to be indefinable. Re-creating them would be an offense to their memories.
And what of all the animals I’ve yet to meet?
I simply do NOT understand humanity sometimes, but if this is what our future is becoming, I’m not entirely sure I want to.
Great comment, Lisa. I am so sorry for the loss of your beloved Jack.