We’ve known since May that university research teams here and in Europe were close to cloning horses. So, when we discovered last week that one of them, in Italy, had foaled a horse clone at just about the same time the first mule clone was foaled at Idaho State University (p. 52), it shouldn’t have been a shock.

 

But it was. Like the birth of the famous (and late) Dolly the sheep six years ago, it was the kind of news that gave you a start as you tried to consider the ramifications.

 

A couple of days after Nature reported on the birth of the cloned Haflinger foal, a reporter from the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch called to interview me. I suspect she was expecting me to predict either, “This opens up all kinds of wonderful possibilities for the reproduction of horses,” or, “It means the end of the horse-breeding industry as we know it.” Instead, I suggested that in the foreseeable future I didn’t think the fact that two groups of scientists were trying to reinvent horse breeding was likely to have much of an effect at all.

 

While neither I, nor anyone else, knows what it could mean in the unforeseeable future, here are six reasons why I’d be willing to bet we’re not suddenly going to have to face clones of Cigar, Flatterer, Ready Teddy, Rusty or Gem Twist soon.

 

First and foremost is the cost. The man who underwrote the cost of producing the three racing mule foals put up $400,000. While that could be conceivable for a champion Thoroughbred, it wouldn’t be for any other breed. After all, the cost of embryo-transfer (less than 5 percent of that) has been enough to keep it from becoming a standard practice.

 

Second, cloning isn’t a genetic guarantee of ability. Even if someone had been able to clone Secretariat or Seattle Slew, the resulting animal wouldn’t have automatically been the same race horse they were. Secretariat had a full sister who couldn’t outrun a fat man going downhill.

 

Third, the scientific jury is still out on the life of cloned animals. Dolly died young because she aged at an accelerated rate. Will that be normal? We don’t know yet.

 

Fourth, cloning doesn’t even guarantee that the resulting animal will look or act anything like the original animal. Type-specific breeds like Haflingers or Percherons will certainly tend to look more alike, but stockings and facial markings could be radically different. And environment influences personality and trainability at least as much as genetics.

 

Fifth, most people (especially Americans) are uncomfortable with (or radically opposed to) having a clone of your favorite horse, dog, cat or spouse. It’s just not natural and too God-like.

 

Sixth, and perhaps most important for now, our country’s (and the world’s) breed associations have an undeniable mandate for their existence’to protect the economic viability of their members, who are the breeders of that type of horse. Those members won’t stand for anything that could compromise their product. The Jockey Club probably won’t even allow artificial insemination in any of our lifetimes.

 

Cloning equines might have its biggest and most productive effect in research, allowing universities to clone horses for certain physical traits to study diseases like EPM or physical defects like navicular. But the ethical problems inherent in producing horses specifically for research may also limit that effect.

 

For all these reasons, I just don’t think that in 10 or 20 years our competition results will include classes for “cloned yearling colts and geldings” or races for “cloned maidens over hurdles.” At least, I hope not.