Tom Brady, the legendary seven-time Super Bowl-winning quarterback, has ignited a fresh wave of ethical and scientific debate by revealing that his new puppy, Junie, is a genetic clone of his late dog Lua. Lua, a beloved pit bull mix, had been a part of Brady’s life during his marriage to model Gisele Bündchen. The cloning was facilitated by Colossal Biosciences, a Texas-based biotechnology firm where Brady not only serves as a client but also plays an active role as an advisor and investor.
Junie was created using a non-invasive blood sample taken from Lua shortly before her death in 2023. According to Colossal’s Chief Animal Officer Matt James, the process was part of an ongoing collaboration with Brady, who has been contributing strategic insights to the company’s broader mission of genetic innovation and species preservation. Brady, in a statement, emphasized that the procedure offered his family a second chance to relive the bond they had with Lua.
This revelation puts Brady at the epicenter of a controversial and growing commercial trend—pet cloning. Though technological advancements have made it increasingly feasible, the practice remains fraught with ethical concerns. Critics argue that cloning pets raises serious questions about animal welfare, scientific oversight, and the moral boundaries of genetic manipulation.
The debate intensified following Colossal’s acquisition of Viagen, another Texas-based company with a long history in the cloning industry. Viagen was instrumental in cloning the first mammals and previously generated cloned dogs for celebrities like Paris Hilton and Barbra Streisand. The company claims to have cloned over 15 species, including endangered animals like the black-footed ferret and Przewalski’s horse.
According to Colossal, Viagen’s expertise and technological infrastructure are now being used to support more ambitious projects, including conservation and species revival. One of their headline-making initiatives involved engineering modern wolf cells with ancient DNA to produce three hybrid puppies—Remus, Romulus, and Khaleesi—that carry dire wolf genetic material. This effort, part of Colossal’s broader de-extinction program, aims to reverse biodiversity loss through advanced genetic engineering.
Colossal’s founder, Ben Lamm, addressed the ethical dilemma head-on, acknowledging public concern about “playing God” with life. “We already do—we alter ecosystems, drive species to extinction, and genetically modify crops,” Lamm said. “This is not about hubris; it’s about survival. We’re facing the loss of up to 50% of global biodiversity by mid-century.”
Still, the cloning of companion animals remains a point of contention. A 2022 study published in Nature found that only 2% of attempts to clone dogs result in a viable birth, and approximately 20% of those cloned pups do not survive infancy. These statistics raise red flags for animal-welfare advocates, who argue the risks and suffering far outweigh the benefits.
James insists that Viagen’s track record tells a different story, noting that the company’s two decades of cloning experience show cloned animals typically live normal, healthy lives. Yet, transparency remains an issue. Critics claim that the cloning industry operates with minimal oversight, leaving significant gaps in public understanding and accountability.
Animal-rights organizations have been vocal in their opposition. PETA, for instance, condemned the practice as inhumane and unnecessary, urging people to adopt pets from shelters instead of creating genetic replicas. “Cloning is a grotesque exploitation of animals,” PETA said. “Millions of homeless dogs and cats are already waiting for loving homes. Creating copies of deceased pets is not only wasteful but also deeply unethical.”
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) has gone even further, calling for an outright moratorium on cloning and bioengineering pets. The organization cites ongoing concerns about malformed organs, premature aging, and compromised immune systems in cloned animals—all issues that remain insufficiently studied or regulated.
Beyond the moral and scientific concerns, the commercialization of cloning services also highlights a growing socioeconomic divide. Pet cloning services, such as those offered by Viagen and now Colossal, can cost tens of thousands of dollars, making them accessible only to the ultra-wealthy. This raises questions about equity in scientific advancements and whether such technologies should be prioritized in a world facing far more urgent humanitarian and ecological crises.
Furthermore, there is a psychological dimension to consider. Experts in animal behavior and human psychology warn that cloned pets may not behave like their originals. While genetically identical, environmental factors—like upbringing, training, and social interaction—play a massive role in shaping personality. Owners who expect a perfect replica may face emotional disappointment when the new pet doesn’t exhibit the same traits or quirks.
Another critical aspect is the potential impact on animal breeding and genetic diversity. If cloning becomes a mainstream alternative to traditional breeding or adoption, it could lead to a narrowing of the gene pool, especially for certain breeds. This could exacerbate existing health problems among purebred dogs and undermine efforts to maintain robust, genetically diverse populations.
From a regulatory standpoint, most countries—including the U.S.—lack comprehensive laws dealing specifically with pet cloning. The industry is governed by general animal welfare statutes, which many experts argue are insufficient for addressing the unique challenges and risks posed by cloning. As a result, cloning companies operate in a legal gray area, subject to minimal scrutiny and few standardized protocols.
As biotechnology continues to break new ground, society faces a pivotal choice: embrace cloning as a tool for scientific and emotional restoration, or reconsider the ethical costs that come with replicating life. Tom Brady’s decision may have been personal, but its implications ripple far beyond one man’s desire to reconnect with a beloved companion. It forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about what it means to love, to lose, and to bring back the past—cell by cell.
In the end, the story of Junie and Lua is more than just a tale of canine companionship. It’s a symbol of our age: an era where science can resurrect the past, but not without challenging our values, ethics, and vision for the future.