To some, fish are completely replaceable. One day, little Goldie is floating dead at the top… To some, fish are completely replaceable. One day, little Goldie is floating dead at the top of the water, and within 24 hours, you’ve bid Goldie farewell in a burial at sea and Goldie II has already taken her place in the bowl.

Somehow this practice seems acceptable with goldfish. But what if you could do the same with a beloved dog or cat? What if, upon Fido’s death, you could replace him with a genetically identical Fido II?

Because of the technology that a Texas company recently developed, this possibility may become a reality. The company, Genetic Savings ‘ Clone, recently succeeded in producing a clone of a 2-year-old calico cat, Rainbow. The Feb. 21 issue of the journal Nature will publish the details of the company’s undertaking.

Scientists and researchers speculate that if the results of the kitty cloning can be duplicated, there may be a considerable market for pet owners wishing to purchase genetic replicas of their deceased pets.

Anyone who has experienced the death of a pet knows how deeply the loss of such loyal companions can resonate. But is pet cloning really a viable and ethically sound antidote to that grief?

Upon hearing of the Rainbow clone, the Humane Society issued a statement in opposition to pet cloning, saying that cloning will only add to the pet overpopulation problem.

This is perhaps the greatest potential short-term consequence of pet cloning. While those who can afford it will pay to clone favorite pets, millions of stray dogs and cats will continue to live homeless existences or face death in shelters that cannot afford to care for so many animals.

The long-term psychological implications are even more worrisome. If pet cloning becomes common, people may adopt the mindset that life is disposable. Who will feel the need to invest time and money in Fluffy’s safety and health care when a new version can be purchased?

Genetically identical doesn’t mean exactly the same, though. Pets’ personalities are in part shaped by experience, as are people’s. It’s unfair to assume that a clone will behave just as the original pet did.

Rainbow’s clone didn’t even look like her predecessor. Because coat color in cats is determined by the pattern of cell replication in the embryo, the process is governed only partially by genetics. More importantly, some cloned animals have experienced severe medical problems and have aged at excessively rapid rates.

Genetic Savings ‘ Clone has already invested $3.7 million in the Rainbow project and in attempts at dog cloning. Wouldn’t our society be improved if this money could be spent improving technology that benefits the health of living animals or people?

The negative implications of cloning animals would only be magnified in human cloning experiments. Let’s hope that scientists, the government and the general public will realize there’s nothing like the real thing when it comes to both people and pets.