by Eve Stenson

My worst nightmare is the cover story of this week’s issue of U.S. News and World Report. Gazing from the glossy page, apparently convinced that being absolutely adorable conceals her dastardly nature, is a two and a half month-old kitten.

Well, technically, the kitten herself isn’t my worst nightmare (though my black pants – which have suffered from the affection of numerous felines – might beg to differ), but the technology behind her existence is.

If you haven’t guessed (or, God forbid, seen the magazine cover), the cat in question is cc, the world’s first cloned house pet. This calico, whose name is short for "copy cat," may represent the next big thing in biotechnology, not to mention the next big market for attached – i.e., "obsessive" – American pet-owners.

Of course, simply cloning animals is nothing new; if you recall, Dolly the sheep was cloned back in 1996. The revolutionary – i.e., "profitable" – difference here is that that they’ve moved on to animals that people tend to get attached to. (I’ve only known one person who was especially fond of a sheep, and if you’re not counting puppets – my sister was a big fan of Lambchop’s Playalong – I don’t know any.) They say that dogs are going to be next, and that’s what has me worried. Extremely worried.

You see, my parents got a dog named Newton right after I left for college, and the idea that there could someday be another one exactly like him has me terrified. It’s not that I’m bitter or anything, regardless of whether or not my sister was telling the truth when she said he sleeps in my bed. (The facts that he locked me out of the car in the freezing rain and tried to eat my cat the first time I came home for Christmas are also completely irrelevant.) Newton’s just a one-of-a-kind individual. And he should stay that way.

Initially, these biotechnology companies thought that their work would be especially well received by breeders, seeking to duplicate specific traits. Then, they realized that that’s exactly what breeders already do.

So they’re now focusing in on a more receptive – i.e., "gullible" – market: owners of mixed breeds. Unlike purebred dogs, who have typical phenotypes and behavior patterns, you never know what you’re going to get in a mutt, or even what it is you have.

Newton, for example, is a mixed breed dog. My mom says he’s part German Shepherd and part Border Collie. Similarly, I say he’s part schizophrenic and part psychopath. Regardless, until now, it would have been hard, if not impossible, to find another dog with the same parentage and genetic tendencies. Then all these silly biologists had to go and change it. The fools.

I must admit, though, not all the implications of their research are quite so detrimental. Just think: children may never again have to face the agony of a dead pet. A few thousand dollars, a few quick excuses ("Bandit went on doggy vacation, sweetheart, for his health. He’ll be back in a few months, feeling like a brand new dog…") and that’s one less traumatic experience to have to deal with. Similarly, forgetting to feed your friend’s cat when they go on vacation would no longer have to ruin the relationship.

Also, cloning techniques may be able to save endangered animals. Or if that fails, we can just make new ones of our own. They already figured out how to make use of a fluorescent protein to create green, glowing bunny rabbits. Then, if worse came to worse and Newton did get cloned, even though he probably still wouldn’t come when he’s called, there’d be no doubt about where he was ignoring us from.

Why am I not reassured?

(published in The Ram, 14 March 2002)