Can Friends be Copied? Ethical Aspects of Cloning Dogs as Companion Animals

  • K. HeðinsdóttirEmail author
  • S. Kondrup
  • H. Röcklinsberg
  • M. Gjerris


Since the first successful attempt to clone a dog in 2005, dogs have been cloned by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) for a variety of purposes. One of these is to clone dogs as companion animals. In this paper we discuss some of the ethical implications that cloning companion dogs through SCNT encompasses, specifically in relation to human–dog relationships, but also regarding animal welfare and animal integrity. We argue that insofar as we understand the relationship with our companion dogs as one of friendship, the meaningfulness of cloning a companion dog is seriously questionable. Cloning may both disrupt the uniqueness of the relationship, as the shared history underlying the relationship can neither be repeated nor copied, and it may violate the meaning we attribute to friendship, as the notion of singularity inherent in our understanding of friendship is incompatible with the replaceability embedded in the practice of cloning. We further argue that the application of cloning technology to companion dogs can be interpreted as a violation of the integrity of dogs on at least two accounts: negative welfare implications associated with the cloning process, and the instrumentalisation of the dog inherent in cloning.


Cloning Companion dogs Animal ethics Animal welfare Friendship Human–animal relationships 


  1. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, J. (1997). Why do people love their pets? Evol Hum Behav, 18(4), 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle, (2000). Nicomachean ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, L., & Madresh, E. A. (2015). Romantic partners and four-legged friends: An extension of attachment theory to relationships with pets. Anthrozoös, 21(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belk, R. W. (1996). Metaphoric relationships with pets. Society and Animals, 4(2), 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonas, S., McNicholas, J., & Collins, G. M. (2000). Pets in the network of family relationships: An empirical study. In A. L. Podberscek, E. Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us (pp. 209–236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chur-Hansen, D. A. (2010). Grief and bereavement issues and the loss of a companion animal: People living with a companion animal, owners of livestock, and animal support workers. Clinical Psychologist, 14(1), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cyranoski, D. (2015). Gene-edited ‘micropigs’ to be sold as pets at Chinese Institute. Nature, 526, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Food Safety Authorities (EFSA). (2012). Update on the state of play of animal health and welfare and environmental impact of animals derived from SCNT cloning and their offspring, and food safety of products obtained from those animals. EFSA Journal, 10(7), 1–42.Google Scholar
  10. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2008). Food safety, animal health and welfare and environmental impact of animals derived from cloning by somatic cell nucleus transfer (SCNT) and their offspring and products obtained from those animals. EFSA Journal, 767, 1–49.Google Scholar
  11. Greenebaum, J. (2004). It’s a dog’s life: elevating status from pet to “fur baby” at yappy hour. Society and Animals, 12(2), 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heegaard, P. M. H. (2013). Does the perfect clone exist? ScienceNordic, Accessed June 1, 2017.
  13. Hens, K. (2008). Ethical responsibilities towards dogs: An inquiry into the dog–human relationship. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, J. R. (2014). Incidence of abnormal offspring from cloning and other assisted reproductive technologies. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 2, 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and their animal companions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 616–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hurka, T. (2013). The goods of friendship. In D. Caluori (Ed.), Thinking about friendship. Historical and contemporary philosophical perspectives (pp. 201–217). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Julius, H., Beetz, A., Kotrschal, K., Turner, D., & Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (2013). Attachment to pets: an integrative view of human–animal relationships with implications for therapeutic practice. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, B. C. (2014). Cloning of canines. In I. Wilmut et al. (Eds.), Principles of cloning (pp. 273–285). London: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, B. C., et al. (2005). Dogs cloned from adult somatic cells. Nature, 436, 641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1969). The visible and the invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mosteller, J. (2008). Animal-companion extremes and underlying consumer themes. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 512–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Olsson, A., Gamborg, C., & Sandøe, P. (2006). Taking ethics into account in farm animal breeding: What can the breeding companies achieve? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Preece, R. (2002). Awe for the tiger, love for the lamb: a chronicle of sensibility to animals. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  25. Regan, T. (1984). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rippe, K. P. (2011). ”Würde des tieres” aus rechtsphilosophischer sicht. TIERethik, 3(3), 8–31.Google Scholar
  27. Röcklinsberg, H., Gamborg, C., & Gjerris, M. (2014). A case for integrity: Gains from including more than animal welfare in animal ethics committee deliberations. Laboratory Animals, 48(1), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ross, P. J., & Feltrin, C. (2014). Cloning animals by somatic cell nuclear transplantation. In N. K. Van Alfen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of agriculture and food systems (pp. 307–316). London: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rutgers, B., & Heeger, R. (1999). Inherent worth and respect for animal integrity. In M. Dol et al. (Eds.), Recognizing the intrinsic value of animals. Beyond animal welfare (pp. 41–53). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  30. Serpell, J. A. (1996). In the company of animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Serpell, J. A. (2002). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection. Beyond the “cute response”. Society and Animals, 10(4), 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singer, P. (2011). Practical ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. St. John, J. C. (2014). Mitochondrial DNA. Its transmission from gametes and embryos. In I. Wilmut et al. (Eds.), Principles of cloning (pp. 429–438). London: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. The Danish Animal Ethics Council. (2016). Udtalelse om kloning af dyr til fødevareproduktion. Accessed June 7, 2017.
  35. Vajta, G., & Gjerris, M. (2006). Science and technology of farm animal cloning: State of the art. Animal Reproduction Science, 92, 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Verma, G., & Arora, J. S. (2015). Handmade cloning: Recent advances, potential and pitfalls. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 6, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walters, K. S., & Portmess, L. (1999). Ethical vegetarianism. From pythagoras to peter singer. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A. E., Mcwhir, J., Kind, A. J., & Campbell, K. H. S. (1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature, 385, 810–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wrobel, T. A., & Dye, A. L. (2003). Grieving pet death: Normative, gender, and attachment issues. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 47(4), 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media, Cognition, and Communication, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Animal Environment and HealthSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences750 07 UppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations