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."

24 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 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?

    2. Re:wtf by jrob323 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  2. RePet by CompMD · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

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

  4. 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"
  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.

  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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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?
  8. 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

  9. 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?
  10. Wrong species by Deadstick · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    rj

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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?
  17. 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!

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

    Begun, the Clone Wars have.