×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Korea to Clone Drug Sniffing Dogs

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the transhumanism-on-the-horizon dept.

Biotech 158

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

158 comments

I Once Knew A Pot Smoking Dog... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813037)

Globaltics [globaltics.net]

wtf (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813043)

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.

Re:wtf (1, Insightful)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813211)

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

Re:wtf (3, Insightful)

jack455 (748443) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813701)

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?

Maybe making dogs isn't the point... (1, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815471)

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.

Re:wtf (1)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813801)

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.

Re:wtf (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813785)

But then you can't eat the failed clones.

Re:wtf (1)

coren2000 (788204) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813787)

Because an army of clones is way cooler. duh!

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19815599)

Clone wars....If I can clone a dog for 1 billion dollars, why spend any money trying to bread them for 50? Whats wrong with you...hehe

Re:wtf (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813869)

They may taste better?

Re:wtf (1)

Aliriza (1094599) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814167)

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

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19814913)

by the way in which countries people eat dogs ?
Various countries in asia. Not everyone in the world shares the same view of which (if any) animals are cute and cuddly.

Some cultures don't have the privilege of adoring animals because they're to busy trying to find food.

Breed? (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815455)

You mean force dogs to have sex?

Even if they don't love or can't stand the other dog?
They breed them from 2 years up. That is like... 14 in dog years.

What kind of a sick underage-dog-rape fantasies are you people into?

Re:wtf (1)

bagsc (254194) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815477)

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?

From a logical point of view (1)

Jaaay (1124197) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813047)

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.

Re:From a logical point of view (2, Insightful)

MajSandwich (938781) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813081)

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

Re:From a logical point of view (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813481)

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.

Re:From a logical point of view (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813551)

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?

Re:From a logical point of view (3, Insightful)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813111)

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.

From a factual point of view (2, Insightful)

kahei (466208) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814247)

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.

Re:From a factual point of view (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814729)

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 [wikipedia.org] - 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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:From a factual point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19815159)

I didn't know DNA could age.

They aren't just making a copy of the animal, they're copying the DNA and implanting it into a NEW animal. Like loading your internet favorites onto a new computer. That doesn't make your new computer old all of a sudden.

Re:From a factual point of view (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815209)

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...

Re:From a logical point of view (2, Interesting)

captainClassLoader (240591) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814755)

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.

Re:From a logical point of view (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814931)

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.

Re:From a logical point of view (1)

FingerDemon (638040) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815281)

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.

Re:From a logical point of view (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815625)

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.

Re:From a logical point of view (2, Interesting)

osgeek (239988) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815301)

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.

Re:From a logical point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19815257)

Scientifically? Commercially? How about realistically? This is nothing but another source of revenue for the power elite who control government who, as history has proven over and over again, work continuously to expand their power and revenue at the expense of the subject class.

You're not in the administration business, are you?

Re:From a logical point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813375)

This is about the power elite, who control government, taking money from the subject class, by force, and using it to oppress their natural human right (god-given if you prefer) to voluntary association, while at the same time raking in billions per year on administration.

Call me a radical -- I call this common sense. The Korean power elite out for their own self-interest, just as the power elite of every government that has ever existed.

Want to know the bottom line? I am the peaceful one.

just like cattle (2, Insightful)

r00t (33219) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815517)

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!

RePet (4, Funny)

CompMD (522020) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813057)

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

Derishious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813185)

>>Opening in a mall near you!

The question is "where?" In the mall proper, or in the food court? Remember, this is Korea we're talking about.

Bosintang soup anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19815591)

>Opening in a mall near you!

Right next to the korean place selling Bosintang soup.

Seriously, arent they just really cloning food?

Soylent Woof.

Hmmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813059)

Koreans cloning dogs. I know there's a joke in there somewhere.

In other news... (0, Redundant)

Blitz22 (1122015) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813073)

... Columbian scientists say they are getting close to being able to clone drug smugglers.....

Re:In other news... (1)

loconet (415875) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813367)

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

Re:In other news... (3, Informative)

Evilest Doer (969227) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813765)

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 [whitehouse.gov] , here [house.gov] , and here! [senate.gov]

Unfortunately.... (-1, Troll)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813091)

The first dogs from the study were accidentally eaten.

Re:Unfortunately.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813217)

kekekekekeke

Re:Unfortunately.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813399)

When the Winter Olympics were held there, shopkeepers were told to keep the hanging dogs out of the windows, lest some PETA person be offended.

I'll get it out of the way early (1)

BlueLightSpecial (898144) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813103)

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

Re:I'll get it out of the way early (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813271)

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).

Re:I'll get it out of the way early (1)

nonsequitor (893813) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813901)

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.

I Can See It Now... (4, Funny)

Tickenest (544722) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813167)

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!

Re:I Can See It Now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813853)

Dogs that sniff drugs?! I think the LAST thing the world needs is MORE dogs with an addictive personality!
I can just see it now, hundreds of wild canines running all over opium fields, devouring crops left and right, and getting all whacked out on narcotics, thinking they're superhuman (errr, supercanine) all while destroying their livers, then wasting away and dying all over, leaving piles of rotting dog corpses...

Re:I Can See It Now... (0)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814425)

I can just see the headlines after the Animal Liberation Front does a midnight raid on their facility knocking cages about and generally creating mayhem:
"Terrorist make Obscene Clone Fall!"

Uhhh (2, Interesting)

Spudtrooper (1073512) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813219)

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.

Re:Uhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813311)

Gee I'm sure they never thought of that.

Not all dogs that are trained to snif for drugs will be any good at it. Presumably clones of dogs that are good at drug sniffing will be able to be effectivly trained.

Re:Uhhh (1)

Chief Camel Breeder (1015017) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814501)

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).

What's wrong with selective breeding? (3, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813245)

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.

Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? (1)

elborrachogato (1081195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813387)

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.

Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814315)

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.

Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? (1)

elborrachogato (1081195) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815263)

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.

Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? (2, Insightful)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815311)

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

Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813405)

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.

Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? (2, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813505)


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.

Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? (4, Insightful)

kahei (466208) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814355)

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.

Re:What's wrong with selective breeding? (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815043)

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?

Cloning (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813293)

I guess it's better than inbreeding, considering the terrible birth defects it brings. But, people still do it, nonetheless.

When do they rebel? (1)

Tatisimo (1061320) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813323)

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?

Re-engineer them? (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813363)

Next they will start messing with the DNA to make them even more sensitive.

Replicants, here we come!

YUgO fAIL IT? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813431)

the public eye: bring your own decentralized of various BSD On an endeavour Your replies rather in postinG a GNAA formed his own are having trouble of the above

Why aim so low? (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813441)

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

Plenty (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813535)

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

We already breed plenty of those here in California.

ease up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813503)

Hey now, for Pete's sake, everyone! I think we all need to step back--every one of us--take a few deep breaths, relax, and together take a really humongous shit.

Interesting (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813589)

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.

First clone the scientists, double productivity (1)

gig (78408) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813669)

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

Wrong species (2, Funny)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813679)

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

rj

Re:Wrong species (1)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814369)

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.

Lunch time! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19813681)

Koren officials herald this as the most delicious cloning effort undertaken to date!

Starcraft (1)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813695)

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.

Their TV-dinner industry... (1)

crazyvas (853396) | more than 6 years ago | (#19813699)

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

In Soviet Amerika: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19814011)


Dogs sniff Korea drug clones.

Re:In Soviet Amerika: (1)

indifferent children (842621) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814421)

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*

Disgusting (0, Flamebait)

afabbro (33948) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814715)

How many dogs have died in these cloning experiments?

It's not like it worked the first time. Or that it works every time now. How many thousands of puppies have died (euthanized, if not born in some freakish state leading only to suffering and death)?

Dogs exist solely as companions to man - they have been purpose-evolved by man. And now we repay their loyalty by subjecting them to these sorts of grisly lab experiments.

Frankly, I think Kim Min-kyu should be shot.

Shortcut to success (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814765)

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.

Can we even believe this? (2, Informative)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | more than 6 years ago | (#19814807)

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 can just picture it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19814869)

I imagine it went something like this.

Cop 1: You know all that time we spend training the dogs?
Cop 2: Yeah?
Cop 1: Well if we clone the dogs, we wouldn't have to spend all that time on training.
Cop 2: You're a genius!
Scientist: You're an idiot.
Cops: Here's $400,000 and we won't point our radar at that new BMW you'll be getting.
Scientist: You're a genius!

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19814927)

It's gotta work better then drugging clone-sniffing dogs.

Humans would be easier! (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815063)

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).

We already have engineered "Lifestyle Pets" (2, Funny)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815221)

They won't sniff drugs (well, maybe catnip) but Lifestyle Pets [lifestylepets.com] 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 [lifestylepets.com] , "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?"

Something useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19815327)

Why not breed dogs that are more more useful, like those that can smell cancer? That is much more helpful to society. More drug-sniffing dogs won't take away the drug-problem.

I'm surprised that nobody sees the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19815441)

They aren't just cloning the dogs because they're too lazy to breed them (obviously cloning would be the more work intesive route). They're cloning the dogs as a means of learning HOW to properly clone. If you're going to say "stop trying to clone dogs, just breed them" then you might as well just say "stop trying to clone."

Would you rather have them START with trying to clone humans? Whether it's for a duplicate of yourself, a continuation of your own life, or organ harvest? People sure do want those organs... and I'm pretty sure that harvesting them from standard bread humans is totally out of the question. At least a clone has less authenticity surrounding it... especially if it's made in a test tube.

Expensive and won't work (1)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | more than 6 years ago | (#19815583)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...