Originally published in Strange Horizons - Science Fact & Fiction Magazine, January 14, 2002 <http://www.strangehorizons.com/2002/20020114/dog.shtml>.


To Make a New Dog

By Dan Derby

1/14/01

EduardoKac is building "GFP K-9," a glow-in-the-darkdog. He expects it to have a "literally colorful personality." Don't laugh;in 2000, Kac built a glow-in-the-dark rabbit, Alba, in Jouy-en-Josas, France.Working with a French biotech firm, he created the rabbit by imbeddinggreen fluorescent protein (a bioluminescent substance from a Pacific Northwestjellyfish) in the DNA of an albino rabbit. Kac is a Ph.D. research fellowat the Centre for Advanced Inquiry in Interactive Arts (CAiiA) at the Universityof Wales and an Associate Professor of Art and Technology at the Schoolof the Art Institute of Chicago. His work has sent shudders through bothanimal lovers and bioengineers alike. Asking why he did this is probablyasking the wrong question. Kac, it turns out, is only using current technologyto do something that mankind has been at for at least two thousand years,if not a hundred thousand. He's using biological beings as a means of self-expression.Let's go back a while to examine this historical phenomena.

Domesticationand the Dog

Dogs cameto us in prehistory as small, shy scavengers. This was well before domesticationof the "big five" herbivores -- cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and goats,and long before agriculture. With the possible exception of the horse,our relationship with dogs is unique. They have been true working partners,not food stocks. Even horses started as food stock before becoming ourfirst high-speed transit system. This canine partnership, combined withthe unique characteristics of the dog, probably explains our profound feelingstoward them.

Thebusiness of these very early dogs was scavenging, bringing them only partiallyinto our camps. However, mankind has never been able to leave well enoughalone. Early on we started simple culling for traits we recognized as useful.As man had early successes and built specialized canine functions, thenon-random selective breeding we use today evolved. Interestingly, muchof the evidence has suggested that this was going on around the time ofour shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural producers.

Basedon archaeological evidence -- bits of canine bones found cohabiting humancamp sites -- it has generally been believed that this adoption processbegan somewhere between 10,000-20,000 years ago. There's debate in thescientific community about what drove this cohabitation. One camp believesthat humans adopted wolf pups and rather understandably selected the lessaggressive, friendlier offspring. The other camp is convinced that dogsthemselves drove the process by becoming our four-footed garbage removers.10,000 years ago, scavenging around the increasingly successful human hunterswould have had a clear evolutionary advantage, namely easy pickings. Itseems reasonable that humans would have killed off overly aggressive dogswhile ignoring those who more comfortably coexisted in or around humanencampments. Such unconscious culling would have selected for personalitytraits in the local canid population that would have been compatible withcoexisting with another species and, over time, beneficial to the humanpopulation. Thus we began the long journey to today.

By4500 BC, there were five distinct types of working dogs: sight hounds,pointing dogs, mastiffs, herding dogs and, oddly, the original wolf types.Then, as now, specialization arose to fill human needs. Early on, whenhunting still dominated as a means of food production, both pointing dogsand sight hounds would have been prized variants. With their keen senses(dogs have upwards of twenty times our olfactory receptors) and ruggedstaying power for long chases, they made key contributions to the hunt.The different hunting breeds had their specialties: sight hounds pursuedprey to kill, pointers found and stood game without immediate attack. Bothwould have been useful to early small-game hunters, depending on the localecosystem. The hound lineage produced the fastest of dogs and consequentlybecame our sleek dog racing champions. It is curious that wolf types continuedto be part of the dog breed landscape for some time. Whether they werekept for their coordinated pack hunting instincts or their ability to dealwith large prey is unknown.

Ashumans became more settled and agriculturally oriented, other characteristicsbecame valued. Protection of an encampment gave rise to the mastiff breeds-- large yet docile animals, with great strength, powerful necks and jaws,and a limited need for speed or tracking ability. Later, they would becomesporting dogs for bull-baiting and dog fighting. A greater challenge wasthe conversion of the canid's carnivorous instincts into protecting domesticatedanimals. Perhaps tracking and stalking skills were co-opted into the herdingtypes' genome. This is an amazing conversion of natural instinct, as killingand eating easy prey such as sheep and cattle would be any wolf's firstreaction.

Then,as now, it took generations of dogs and people to create new breeds. Butwithout working knowledge of the science of genetics, these breeds werecreated in an amazingly few thousand years, almost nothing in evolutionaryterms.

Lookingfor Old Dogs

It turnsout that developing those new dogs may have taken a lot more time thanwe previously thought. Using the tools of modern molecular biology, RobertK. Wayne of UCLA has found evidence that dogs may have been domesticatedearlier, as early as 100,000 years ago, close to the dawn of our own species.

Molecularbiologists traced the complex ancestry of the 400-plus modern dog breedsand related canine species. Mitochondrial DNA, unlike chromosomal DNA,mutates at a fairly rapid and predictable rate. By looking at the degreeof divergence in the DNA of various canine breeds and near relatives, molecularbiologists were stunned. The degree of divergence they discovered couldn'thave occurred had dogs evolved from wolves in only the last ten to twentythousand years, as previously thought. Ironically, the same science thatuncovered our extraordinary long relationship with dogs is also contributingto a new rapidity and range of future divergence.

Makinga New Science

In 1973,Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen used enzymes to cut a bacteria plasmidand insert a strand of DNA in the gap. This milestone technique, recombinantDNA, allows for direct modification of animal characteristics and createsthe ultimate paintbrush for animal breeding, transspecies genetic traittransfer. Until now, it has taken generations of dogs and people to developa truly new breed, and moving traits directly from one species to anotherwas impossible. Now, bioengineering technology allows us to supersede traditionalbreeding techniques and create previously unrealizable innovations. Thisincludes mixing traits of totally dissimilar organisms. It is now possibleto manipulate an animal's physical appearance and behavior using theserecombinant DNA techniques, AKA genetic engineering. Bioengineering shouldalso allow scientists to attack ancient genetic problems such as largedog hip dysphasia or hemophilia. Cures that once would have taken generationsmay now be possible in a few years. New breeds may now, by definition,take one dog generation to create. Once these principles were established,the process has grown increasingly easy. How easy?

A groupof students from Eagle Crest High School in Aurora, Colorado builtan E.Coli bacteria with the same glow-in-the-dark gene Kac used. UnlikeKac, they did it themselves, with $150 worth of materials that they boughtthrough mail order. To understand what this increasingly easy technologymight mean for the future requires another trip into the past.

Old NewKinds of Dog

Mesolithicarcheological sites in Denmark yielded surprisingly small dogs; similardogs have been found at Swiss lake dwellings, apparently house dogs. Theseweren't mastiffs protecting the hearth or hounds for chasing game, thesewere a new type of animal: the companion dog. Later, in the first centuryAD, the Chinese would separately develop their own types. Unlike robustfield hunters, these "lapdogs" were bred for small size and unusual looks.Described as "short-legged and short-headed dogs whose place was underthe table," they were the aesthetic forerunners of today's Pekinese andpug. Greeks and Romans kept such companion dogs, as did prosperous Europeansand Toltecs. In many royal courts, they were considered so important thatthey were assigned their own human servants. Then, as now, they were highlyprized, pampered house pets, at one time carried along the trade routesas gifts of high esteem for emperors and kings.

Dogsbecame the subjects of affection and expression in many cultures. In Europe,the merchant classes were great enthusiasts, making these dogs fashionaccessories and including them in family portraits. If there was a utilityin these dogs, it was filling the need for self-expression. That must havebeen important because the breeds flourished. In Europe, ladies of thecourt described them as 'comforters' and early Church documents show thatit was common for the parishioners to bring their dogs to services forfoot warmers. Clearly, this was something new, an animal whose sole purposewas as an "ego adjunct."

Notonly did these new breeds become very popular, but older working breedsincreasingly became companionship-only animals. Today, most registeredbreeds have their origins in some variation of a utility breed (140 outof 155, by my count), yet surveys suggest that 94% of owners say theirdog's primary benefit is companionship. Certainly today's average dog is"non-working." In fact, the AmericanSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has publisheda position paper supporting the animals as companions; it cites their "enormousvalue to human health and well-being." The role of dogs has evolved, andmost dogs have become decorative and companion animals. The AmericanKennel Club (AKC) judges a dog's "quality" almost exclusively by itsappearance.

Decoratingthe Dog

Breedingfor appearance, rather than utility, swept away accepted approaches tonew breed development with style becoming king. Only time and cost constrainedthese creations. To get around those seemingly unbreakable limits, decorationbecame the fast track to high style. In the time of Louis XV of France,businesses providing the latest fashion in dog haircuts, perms, and colorizingflourished. Dog collars became a measure of importance, with some madeof gold, silver, white leather, or velvet. The trend continues today, ofcourse, with once utilitarian leashes morphed into $38 Coach collars and$800 Louis Vuitton carrying cases. One shudders to think of how much isspent on dog haircuts alone.

Beyondsurface decoration came decorative surgery. Early and still common modificationsinclude ear and tail docking. Tail docking is routine for 56 of the 155AKC-recognized breeds. Dog conformation enthusiasts continue to rationalizethat a docked tail provides a handle to pull terriers and other breedsout of burrows. One wonders who would pull a Doberman out by its dockedtail?

Decorativesurgery or time consuming breeding aside, we continue to be driven to decorateour dogs. Stylish inbreeding has created bulldogs who struggle to breathethrough short noses, shar-peis suffer with eczema of folded skin, and Bostonterriers with large protruding eyes prone to degeneration. We care aboutour dogs' health -- Americans spend over $7 billion a year on veterinarians.However, good health continues to be subsidiary to fashion. Pierre Barnoti,Executive Director of the CanadianSPCA, points out that there are over three hundred known genetic defectsin dogs that we have not bothered to repair. In his lectures to Quebecschool children (and their teachers), he points out that their province,unlike 13th century Europe, has no animal welfare laws. This has lead toits becoming, in his words, the "capital of cruelty" for animal breederswanting to avoid US and Canadian laws yet fill the American need for stylishpets. The "Olympics of conformation" dominate dog shows. As mentioned,the AKC defines most of its 155 official breeds predominately by theirappearance.* However, the time in which we cancreate new canine fashions is about to drop from generations to months.

New Science

New bioengineeringtechniques can significantly enhance an animal's existing traits, yieldingsuper-size salmon, parasite-resistant cattle, blue roses and, in the caseof AviGenics Corporation,an "avian transgenesis and cloning technology" company, muscle-bound super-chickens.But that's just the beginning.

A privatelyfunded "MissyplicityProject" is underway at Texas A&M University. It is attemptingto clone the favorite mongrel dog of a wealthy Silicon Valley couple. Theteam, sensing a market opportunity, has rolled out a lower-cost servicefor the less affluent. It provides storage, not cloning, of your pet'sDNA using the same state-of-the-art technology as the Missyplicity Project.Presumably, it will allow you to reconstitute the animal later when cloningbecomes cheap and easy. They call this side business "Genetic Savings &Clone."

Asnoted, traits can be transferred between species and then can be reproduceden masse via cloning. Long experience with dog breeding has shown thatgenetic manipulation can modify animal behavior. Soon any developmentallimits will be statutory, not technical. While behavioral training cancreate a single "bad" dog, genetic manipulation can create a species of"bad" dogs. That is a huge difference in scale and potential impact. Ontop of this, breeding took years of effort; however, with the advancesof bioengineering, even an amateur may be able to make a batch of "bad"dogs in a few weeks. New sciences will lower the bar on not only how fastit can be done but who can do it.

Additionally,animal breeders will have significant financial incentives to follow thispath. Unlike crossbreeding, new genetic combinations can be patented. Transgenetictechniques may cure genetic diseases such as hemophilia and hip dysplasia,but the big money will be in creating new kinds of creatures. Many researcherscomment on dogs' extraordinary genetic plasticity, possibly due to theirhigh chromosome count (78 to our 46). This, along with our predispositionto manipulate this species, will keep dogs in the forefront of geneticinnovation.

Followingthe lead of the successful Human Genome Project is the DogGenome Mapping Project. A collaboration of scientists from UC Berkeley,the University of Oregon, and the Hutchinson Cancer Center are workingto locate "the genes causing disease and those controlling morphology andbehavior." Morphology is the branch of biology dealing with form and structure.Eliminating selective breeding handicaps will open whole new directionsonly our science fiction has explored.

New Kindsof New Dogs

A startingplace for genetic enhancement will likely be the expansion of existingcanine features and traits. This would exploit the limits of dogs' currentphysical characteristics. Toy dogs are among the leaders in today's companiondog role, and are hot sellers. Chihuahuas and poodles are small, but imaginethem reduced to the size of a mouse, from five pounds down to less thanan ounce. With roughly a hundred fold reduction in size, the bones of thesemicro-dogs would be extraordinarily fragile. But novelty and portabilitywill create a market for these tiny creatures.

Speedhas always fascinating to the American public. Every year millions arewagered on greyhound races. Today's greyhound can reach forty-five milesper hour on the track. Add a bit more muscle and lung capacity, and theresult could be a dog with the speed of a cheetah, say around seventy milesper hour. Bone breakage, again, would have to be solved, but with the moneyat stake in the dog racing business, someone will try.

Backto the issue of size. Great Danes now top out at 160 pounds. In breedingand owning circles alike, the larger ones are highly prized. To fulfillthis need for extreme size, a 'Super Dane' is easy to imagine. At twiceits normal size, such a 'Super Dane' would weigh in close to a lion. Withmanipulation of behavioral traits such as aggressiveness through geneticengineering, the phrase "guard dog" could take on a whole new meaning.

Eco-Patchesand Beyond

It isimaginable that dogs could be developed to fill holes in local eco-systems.One possible use would be in environments where non-native animals havebeen introduced, such as rabbits in Australia or carp in the United States.Specialized dogs with enhanced predatory skills (fins?) could solve theselong-standing eco-problems. One can easily imagine dogs engineered to replacepeople in certain high-risk positions, such as military tunnel rats, search-and-rescueteams, or bomb squads. We've tried using dolphins to place underwater mines,so why not dogs? Beyond that, it's possible that a genetically altereddog might also supplement or replace expensive electronic equipment incertain applications, say in a nuclear reactor. Highly mobile animals withthe ability to see or hear into ultra-high frequencies could provide earlywarning of high radiation levels. After all, we used canaries in miningoperations for years. The ethics of putting such animals at risk are justbeing debated.

Beyondenhancement there is the strange world of transspecies modification. ImagineBorder collies with wool instead of hair, or Labradors with true webbedfeet, or winged whippets that may or may not be capable of flight. Functionalitydoesn't drive the market; style does. Opportunities will be everywhere.Color matching to this fall's styles, your school's colors, or favoritehue is achievable. It's not hard to imagine both human and canines on therunways of Paris. A reporter on the Kac K-9 story suggested creating dogsthat glow when petted, sort of visual purring.

Asa side issue, a challenge for newly transformed dogs will be the lack of"equipment knowledge." That is, they will have no instinctual understandingof how to use features we may choose to give them. Teaching newly enhancedtransgenetic creatures how to survive their unique capabilities may bea major challenge.

Businessand Law

Beingable to patent biological creations will encourage most large-scale commercialbreeders to produce their own modifications. However, the increasinglyeasy methods of genetic engineering will allow individuals to constructthings Dr. Moreau would recognize. A flood of highly innovative but tragicallydysfunctional creatures could result. Disturbingly, gene transfers betweenanimals and plants are possible; it's conceivable that we could createmacabre animals that bear fruit or have flowers for our amusement. At leastamong animals transferred traits are variations on existing themes suchas size or strength. Plants differ so much (think about bark) that suchtransfers could drive a creature, with no possibility of instinctivelyunderstanding its new traits, to a sort of animal insanity.

Asbioengineering technology become easier, the mentality that created "puppymills" seems ripe to exploit this new science. Our society has had littlesuccess curbing the abuses of these high volume dog manufacturers. Newbiologically-based puppy mills have the potential to create even greaterhorrors.

Currently,there are no laws against the creation of transgenetic animals. The FDAhas laid claim to the legal authority to regulate products derived fromtransgenetic animals. They are fully engaged with the safety of foods withtransgenetic components, the potential impact of these products and theirproduction processes on the environment, and the safety of test animals.The last of these focuses on administering drugs, not the viability ofresultant animals. There is very little debate on the question of our ethicalright to create these new dogs, perhaps because of our long history ofmanipulating their genes.

The EthicalDebate

Thereare debates going on inside and outside the scientific community concerningbioengineering. The discussions center on human consumption of bioengineeredplants and animals, as well as the safety of the ecosystem. Organizations'ranging from the 'Artists for Responsible Genetics' to the 'Natural LawParty' have sprung up, demanding labeling and, in some cases, bans on thewhole science. There is not much discussion about the welfare of the animalsexcept for those used in scientific development and testing.

Thebroader potential of genetic engineering is now just being considered bymost animal advocacy groups. The NationalHumane Education Society, an animal advocacy group headquartered inLeesburg, Virgina, has taken a position opposing such work, but only withina narrow framework, food development. Believing that it is "inherentlycruel to alter an animal's genes to produce healthier food for humans whenthese genetic engineering attempts do, in fact, subject animals to painand suffering," they are responding the food industry's highly visiblerecent press. However, they do not speak to the broader potential for geneticmanipulation that seems to be brewing in the future.

Wehave engaged in the genetic manipulation of animals and plants throughmost of our history. Much of this has been done for "good" purposes suchas food production. Today even that purpose is being challenged, due toconcerns for possible effects on the ecosystem. A new and more profoundproblem has arrived with the approach of a time when anybody will be ableto develop something new very quickly and with very personal goals.

Cancontrols limit the harm to animals during an invention process? Shouldthere be requirements for the ongoing welfare of animals that don't "workout"? Today, breeders often arrange adoption for less than perfect results.Significant deformities may make transgenetic failures unadoptable. Animalswith negative social attributes, perhaps bred exclusively to kill, arejust as easy to make as any other. Is this exploitation a form of abuse?Is it ethical? Should it be illegal? Some European countries have lawsagainst cosmetic surgery for animals. On the other hand, history suggestswe generally feel we have a "right" to build such creatures.

Oneof Eduardo Kac's exhibits, "Genesis," is built on a verse from the Bible:"Let man have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of theair, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." The meaningof our dominion, and perhaps our accountability, is changing. With mankind'shistory in the dog/human partnership, it is not clear that we are up tothe task.

Andwhat of ourselves? These technologies will eventually be transferable tothe human species. The same ease of use and speed of implementation willeventually apply. Then the challenge will be both legal and practical.Constraints and laws now being debated in the press may become moot. Modificationsmay be so easy to do that law enforcement may be impossible. The complexethical issues could be resolved by practices of the population not debate.Our dealings with dogs foreshadow how we will form ourselves. It will bean opportunity with no small risk and, again, it is not clear that we willbe up to the task.


*Note

Proto-Dogs

In spiteof centuries of specialized breeding, prized confirmations vanish whena pure breeds "return to the wild." Highly developed traits disappear asdogs mongrelize and the sleek, athletic shape of the ancient proto-dogbreeds through. You see these dogs wild on the streets of Bombay, Nirobiand Austin. Short hair, ginger colored, they have long, runners' bodieswith curved, undocked tails. The wild dogs, the dhole of Asia, the dingoof Australia and the Carolina dog of North America, the singing dog ofNew Guinea all have the same look. This proto-dog shape returns as sureas if it had been hiding somewhere in a secret genetic basement, held incheck only by the constant vigilance of the breeding community, waitingto come home.



ReaderComments


DanDerby is a product designer by training and a writer/consultantby vocation. He's designed and patented hi-tech gear, fixed dysfunctionalorganizations, and lectured at Stanford University. A southerner by birth,he's lived on both coasts as well as overseas, and is now dug in on a hillin rural New Hampshire where it's warm, snowy, and the people are strongand true. Dan's previouspublications in Strange Horizons can be found in our archive.

Linksand Further Reading

Books

Abrantes,Roger. TheEvolution of Canine Social Behavior.

Budiansky,Stephen. TheTruth About Dogs : An Inquiry into the Ancestry, Social Conventions, MentalHabits, and Moral Fiber of Canis Familiaris.

Coppinger,Raymond, and Laura Coppinger. Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution.

Scott,John Paul, and John L. Fuller, Eds. Geneticsand the Social Behavior of the Dog.

OnlineArticles and Websites

BioengineeringFor Dummies

FDAon bioengineering

Genomics

HowTransgenics Are Produced

PrimitiveDogs

Wolfto Woof: The Evolution of Dogs

AnimalRights Organizations

AnimalAid

NationalHumane Education Society

Peoplefor the Ethical Treatment of Animals

TheSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Canada)

TheSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (US)



| contents| art | articles| fiction | music|poetry | reviews| editorial
|archive |bookstore| comments |submit|about us| links |

editor@strangehorizons.com    webmaster@strangehorizons.com