Tom Brady has admitted to cloning his dog, a process he said cost more than $50,000.

The revelation matters beyond celebrity circles because it highlights a high-cost, technologically driven option for grieving owners at a time when, as the report notes, millions of dogs sit in shelters across the United States waiting for homes. The ethical implications of cloning pets are significant, raising concerns about animal welfare, health issues in clones, and the misleading notion of creating an exact replica, given that clones will always differ due to environmental factors and experiences.

The decision to pursue cloning came as the Brady family cared for their dog in late 2023, the family has said. According to reporting by freelance writer Nicholas Vincent for One Green Planet, the family pursued the procedure through Colossal Biosciences, a biotechnology firm in which Brady is an investor that acquired Viagen Pets. This procedure, known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, involves a tissue biopsy and the fusion of reconstructed embryos, which are then implanted into a surrogate mother.

Brady described the choice in simple terms: “the decision brought his family comfort as their dog was dying in late 2023,” he said. However, this choice stands in stark contrast to the many alternatives available, such as adopting from one of the thousands of overcrowded animal shelters that the ASPCA emphasizes could benefit greatly from community support and funding.

The cost of the procedure, described in the reporting as more than $50,000, places pet cloning in a distinct category from more common routes for finding companionship after a loss. The report situates that decision alongside the fact that shelters across the United States are overcrowded and struggling to place animals, a reality that highlights competing ways people respond to pet loss.

Details in the piece indicate the family preserved the animal’s DNA before the pet died and then used the biotech firm’s cloning service. The organization involved is identified generically in the report as a “biotech firm” whose work includes cloning pets for celebrities.

Advocates and analysts have long noted that cloning produces a genetic copy rather than a reprise of the same animal. The reporting includes the observation that “Cloning does not bring back the same animal; it only produces a genetic copy.” That distinction figured in reactions to the choice described by the Brady family.

Those reactions intersect with broader debates about where resources are focused. The report links the private, costly option of cloning with the public reality of shelter overcrowding in the United States, drawing attention to competing ways people respond to pet loss.

The story as presented to readers came via Nicholas Vincent of One Green Planet, who wrote about the Brady family’s choice and the surrounding issues. Background around pet cloning’s ethical and practical implications has been discussed in specialist outlets; for context on the science and ethical debates around pet cloning, see analysis at .

Where things stand now: the family’s account places the cloning decision in late 2023 and characterizes it as a source of comfort at the end of a pet’s life. The reporting names the outlet and author who published the account.

Source

Original reporting: view the original article.