Pet cloning cryonics: what cloning can, and can’t, do for pets

Biotech companies are expanding ways to cope with the death of a pet, offering more than grief counseling. A growing menu includes longevity drugs for aging pets, cloning a pet’s DNA to make a genetic twin, and cryonics, which involves freezing a deceased animal in the hope future science could revive it. The options are detailed in a recent MIT Technology Review overview, which researchers say is sparking both interest and debate among pet owners and scientists.

For owners who want to extend a pet’s life, several drugs are in early or mid-stage testing on dogs and cats. One U.S. startup, Loyal, is developing a trio of daily pills aimed at helping senior dogs live longer. LOY-002, the lead drug, is currently being tested in about 1,300 pet dogs across the United States. Regulators have looked at the drug’s safety data and accepted it as a step toward approval, though it is not approved yet. If all goes well, Loyal expects to apply for conditional approval in 2027. The market includes other companies testing similar approaches for age-related problems such as obesity and arthritis in pets.

Cloning takes a pet’s DNA and places it into an egg from the same species, with a surrogate carrying the resulting embryo. A Texas-based company charges about $50,000 to clone a cat or dog. The result is described as a genetic twin, not a copy with the same personality or memories. For grieving owners, the appeal is immediate but the reality can be disappointing or confusing, your new pet could look similar in appearance but won’t carry the same experiences or temperament as the original animal.

Then there’s cryonics, which stores a deceased animal in a frozen state with the aim of revival in the future. Arizona’s Alcor and similar facilities have begun to include pets in their portfolios. Experts quoted in the piece warn that revival is highly unlikely, and some worry that it could send a misleading message to children about death being reversible. The broader worry is that an industry built on emotional bonds could encourage people to view death as solvable through biotech, potentially reshaping how families grieve.

Beyond the specifics, the report raises a larger question: should pet owners chase technologies that may or may not deliver on promises, and at what cost to ethics and expectations? Lori Kogan, a Colorado State University professor who studies bonds between people and animals, is quoted asking, “who are we to judge?” when considering the push to revive or clone a beloved pet. Her comment captures the tension between compassion and realism in an industry still finding its footing.

What this means for ordinary readers is clear: these options aren’t standard veterinary care. They’re experimental or niche services with substantial price tags and uncertain outcomes. It’s essential to weigh your emotional needs, your finances, and the likelihood of different results before pursuing them. If you’re curious about these paths, talk to a vet you trust and consider the potential emotional impact, especially if children are involved.

What happens next depends on regulatory decisions and how far the science progresses. For now, expect more clinics to explore pet longevity drugs and for cloning and cryonics to remain debated choices, not routine offerings. If you’re weighing options, start by researching the costs, the likelihood of successful outcomes, and the long-term implications for your family and your pet’s memory.

What’s next for readers: If you’re considering any of these paths, gather questions for your veterinarian and compare real-world costs and timelines. The field is moving, but the pace and direction aren’t guaranteed.