Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Modern Day Noah's Ark Dying 134

Posted by Hemos from the down-into-the-great-blue-under dept.
hype7 writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is running a story about the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development's Gene Bank, which appears to be running out of funding. It seems a terrible shame, because the Bank has managed to accumulate thousands of Australian and foreign endangered species; a kind of modern day Noah's Ark. At the moment it's in limbo, using funds diverted from other projects to keep it in ER, but the prospects aren't looking good."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Modern Day Noah's Ark Dying More

Modern Day Noah's Ark Dying

Comments Filter:

  • Noah's Ark (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mattcelt ( 454751 ) on Monday February 04, 2002 @02:33PM (#2951248)
    Hey, Noah only had to house the animals for forty days and forty nights, right? That seems like a waaaay smaller budget than these guys!

    • Read Genesis, you'll see it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, but in 7:24 "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."
      • Sorry, humor does not require detailed accuracy, only truth in precept. (id est, it isn't the details that make it funny...)

        Still, it is sad that this might be going away. I always thought it a noble and interesting cause. (Imagine someday rebuilding a lost species!) I sincerely believe (and hope) that someone steps up to the plate and preserves this menagerie.

        I wonder if PETA or another preservation organization would consider this within the bounds of their mission... I never considered that in vitro might be the beginning of preservation of animals. Something to ponder, for sure.
        • Humour doesn't require detailed accuracy unless you didn't think of the quip first! ;P

          PETA's got their hands full taking care of the animals that already exist on the planet. Plenty of humans have considered in vitro to be a starting point for preservation of humans--why wouldn't this apply to animals?
          • PETA's got their hands full taking care of the animals that already exist on the planet.

            Translation: They are too busy trying to get mean people to stop eating meat and wearing leather to do anything important.
    • They were in the ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The water still had to dry up after the rain stopped.

      Keep in mind, the calendar in use at the time had 12 months of 30 days each. (There is some evidence that the earth's orbit has slowed down. Many ancient civilizations had a 360 day year.)

      On the 17th day of the 2nd month, it started raining (Gen 7:11), it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Then:
      "at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased. And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible." (Gen 8:3-5)
      Then:
      "in the first [month,] on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. Then Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the surface of the ground was dried up. And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. Then God spoke to Noah, saying, "Go out of the ark..." (Gen 8:13-15)
      • ---They were in the ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The water still had to dry up after the rain stopped.---

        I love how someone can say something entirely screwy, and then try to reason from it, and scold others for not reasoning properly. Tell me, where was your good sense about what "had to" happen to all the water when it was back in the sentence before, imagining 40 days/nights worth of rain suddenly flooding the entire world? Where did all the water come from? If the answer is "god made it," then suddenly there's no reason to bother reasoning about what anything "had to" do anymore.
        • Ever heard of the "Canopy Theory?" Search google for it. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. (Heck, my post was a semi-serious response to a certainly non-serious post.) I like reading about differing views. There's always some interesting stuff in it. Maybe even a tidbit of truth. (I first heard about the Canopy Theory in a book lent to me by a Young Earther concerned about my Old Earthness.)

          • The Canopy Theory is one of the best examples of how "scientific" creationism is intellectually bankrupt. It sounds wonderful until you actually spend five brain cells thinking about it. (Note: fast order of magnitude calcs follow.)

            Assume we have enough water in the atmosphere in the form of vapor to cover the earth 30k feet deep. All that water weighs exactly what it weighs in liquid form and thus presses down with that same force: IOW, the Earth would have had an atmospheric pressure equal to about that of a deep sea trench. Given that humans have major problems dealing with more than a few atmospheres when scuba diving, not likely. (Oh, that's right. God took care of that.)

            How can we see under all that water, or plants photosynthesize? The ocean is pitch black from 300 or so meters down in even the clearest water. (God again)

            Next, work out how fast the water actually fell. 10k meters/40 days*24hours = 10.4 *meters* per hour. No chance of breathing under that kind of deluge. (God fixed it, check)

            How about the kinetic energy of that water? (Again, real fast calc-I may be off by an order of magnitude or more. Feel free to check.) You have 10 km worth of water falling at least 10km. PE converted to KE: PE is mgh: g = 10 m/s^2, h = 10km, mass = 4/3*pi*(r2^3-r1^3) *h2o density, where r2 = r1+10km, r1= earth radius of 6378140m. Mass is roughly 5e18 tons = 5e21 kg, PE = mgh = 5e26 joules. A big H-bomb puts out 1e17, so this an energy output roughly the equal of 5e9 H-bombs exploding. Where did all that energy go- oh yeah, God fixed it.

            Where is the water today? Oh, that's right, God miracled it away.

            There's no science here at all, just a pathetic rationalization of a biblical story. Even one "God fixed it" takes it out of science altogether.

            Eric

            • > There's no science here at all, just a pathetic rationalization of a biblical story. Even one "God fixed it" takes it out of science altogether.

              While I agree with your factual statements which disprove the canopy theory, you seem to make one assumption which is simply false. You assume that the canopy theory is an attempt to rationalize a biblical story. The canopy theory was first proposed in 1874 by Isaac Vail, who was an evolutionist. Sure, creationists have tried to use this theory to support their arguement, but they used a theory originally proposed by the "other" camp. Science continually changes and disproves itself. (Quantum Physics, anyone?) Theories are just theories. We could get a whole lot more science done if we could get over our religious preconceptions (I'm talking about _both_ sides here) and simply look at facts. Humans just don't seem to work that way, though. And, NO, I don't buy all the "God Fixed It"s. If it's true, it can be proven scientifically.
              • And, NO, I don't buy all the "God Fixed It"s. If it's true, it can be proven scientifically.


                The way I reason it, is, if it can be proved scientifically, then there's no reason to have God. The point of there being a god (not just a Christian God) is to help people explain things that just don't have an obvious rationale behind it. If somebody were able to scientifically explain the Great Flood, I don't think that would convince either you or anybody else of a reality of a Greater Being.

                It's like any of the other miracles presented in the Bible. They're called "miracles" because they're unexplainable by scientific means. I don't think your issue (I don't mean this in a negative way) is believing in whether there is a god, but believing whether miracles can really happen. Only if you believe in miracles can you start accepting that some other being is at work.

                <tim><

              • ---You assume that the canopy theory is an attempt to rationalize a biblical story. The canopy theory was first proposed in 1874 by Isaac Vail---

                But it WAS an attempt to rationalize the Biblical story! Explicitly! The man published phamphets about such things as Eve, the flaming sword, and other such things. He was interested not only in the Bible, however, but rather more broadly on finding scientific truth in myths from many traditions that supported the Biblical account. The fact that he was or was not a proponent of a then largely circumstantial and still nacesnt evolutionary theory is entirely beside the point: all that matters is that his theories, even under the best conditions, would put the temperature of the earth at a nice, comfortable 220 F

                You talk about the value of science being it considers and refutes ideas. Well good: it refuted this one long long ago. You might have mentioned that when you first posted about it. Even most creationists don't hold with it any longer, because it doesn't stand up to either science or even most litteralist Biblical interpretations. The problem with this, endemic to creationism in general, is that even when something like this is roundly disproved, or even when most _creationists_ declare it verboten, at least in public, it STILL gets recycled again and again as a something "you should check out" because it proports to support the biblical account: even sometimes by the very same creationists who had publically said that it was crap. But for some reason, even universally agreed upon bad ideas are somehow okay to use, as long as they attack evolution and support creation accounts. As Paul said and Martin Luther concurred: (and I paraphrase) "hey, if I tell lies to sell the faith, what's the big deal as long as the faith is sold?"
      • Keep in mind, the calendar in use at the time had 12 months of 30 days each. (There is some evidence that the earth's orbit has slowed down. Many ancient civilizations had a 360 day year.)
        Care to offer a reputable cite for that "earth's orbit has slowed down" statement? Every case I'm aware of as an orbit decays it gets *shorter* and *faster*. Furthermore there's never been any relationship between our planet's orbit and it's rotationial speed (years/days.)

        Or is this one of those bits of knowledge handed out in those little paper tracts I toss away?

        • I normally read at +2 so didn't see the original of this, but you might also tell him/her that those ancient civilizations also inserted intercalary days at various times to keep their calendars synchronized with the seasons (except the Egyptians, who didn't seem to care that the seasons marched through their calendar).
    • It is significantly more difficult to keep animals from dangerous boat-rocking mating in a maritime environment, be sure to add that to your total cost of ownership.
      • It is significantly more difficult to keep animals from dangerous boat-rocking mating in a maritime environment, be sure to add that to your total cost of ownership

        Hardly, unless Noah had a huge drum he was beating (like the old slave galleys) to keep all the critters "in synch", the various sizes of the animals combined with the various timings of the thrustings would result in negligible boat rocking.

  • I find it hard to believe that all the effort they have put in will go to waste. Anyone know if they have tried other countries? I didn't see anywhere in the article where they actually went for funding. Is there a clause or something that prevents them from going outside the country to get funding? If all else fails, maybe Crocodile Hunter Steve can give them some cash, you know the Australia Zoo has a bunch of money coming in from Croc Hunter.

  • getting the priorities right. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Monday February 04, 2002 @02:39PM (#2951277) Journal
    The Gene Bank, the only one of its type in Australia, has lost its technician and the laboratories used for the program face being taken over by a well-funded program on cattle breeding.

    [shakes head] Sounds like the government there really has it's priorities straight.

    I mean, wouldn't even a tenth of the money spent on "protecting" the morality of the Australian websurfing public be better served by setting a good example and protecting the future of the planet?

    • I'd agree with you, but I'm from the US, so I have no basis to feel any sort of superiority on this issue.
    • Irony runs deeper than you think. One of the top causes of habitat destruction and species extirpation (as well as extinctions) is the raising of cattle. Australia wouldn't have nearly so many endangered species if its colonizers hadn't tried to turn the continent into a fucking ranch.

      Over 1 billion cattle graze the planet, mostly in environments that are not suited to their presence. This is insanity. Eat less beef!

    • [shakes head] Sounds like the government there really has it's priorities straight.

      I mean, wouldn't even a tenth of the money spent on "protecting" the morality of the Australian websurfing public be better served by setting a good example and protecting the future of the planet?

      That's a sound point. Let's take it a little further. The government, due to it's practice of filtering the 'net and not telling its citizens what is being filtered, must be considered to have an ulterior motive. When considered in light of their relatively recent act of seizing guns from it's citizenry, it seems likely that this motive is self-serving, and therefore that said government is corrupt. And yet it stands, because its people allow it to stand. They are complacent with these events, and since this event hasn't shaken them from their complacency, it is reasonable to conclude that ecological devastation and loss of biodiversity are not going ooncerns for Australia's citizens. That, ultimately, seems to be where the burden of responsibility lays. It's just more comfortable to blame the government, because it allows continued inaction. Just a socially-accepted way of saying with one's actions, "I'm trashing the environment, destroying life on a grand scale, and jeopardizing the continued survival of every form of life on Earth, and I don't give a damn.". And the surprising part of it is that most of them aren't even having that much fun doing it. If I were going to destroy the planet, I'd sure as heck better be enjoying every moment of my existence to the fullest in the process.

  • Text of the article in case server dies... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ekrout ( 139379 ) on Monday February 04, 2002 @02:39PM (#2951278) Journal
    Species rescue program faces extinction
    "You can't create biodiversity. But it's something you can lose" ... Professor Alan Trounson in the Gene Bank. Photo: Simon Schluter

    By Tom Noble

    A program that saves the genetic material of threatened animal species faces a bleak future because of a lack of money.

    The Gene Bank at the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development has material from thousands of animals in storage, mostly native species facing extinction.

    But work on storing new specimens and developing cloning techniques that could mean the survival of some species has been slowed because of no direct funding and little interest from corporate or private sponsors.

    "I think it does say a little about our priorities, which I think is sad," said Alan Trounson, IVF pioneer and deputy director of the research institute that is a world leader in IVF and stem cell work.

    "I don't know how many boardrooms we've been in, how many people we've seen ... we always get a good hearing, but not the support financially."

    A key project has been on the northern hairy-nosed wombat, which once roamed across large areas of Victoria, Queensland and NSW. It is now Australia's most endangered mammal with fewer than 100 remaining, confined to a small area of the Epping Forest National Park in central Queensland.

    The wombat's only hope of survival may lie in a silver barrel at the Gene Bank, where cell lines from more than 40 of the wombats (grown from little bits of flesh when the animals were given ear-tags) sit cryogenically frozen, ready to be cloned when the technology becomes available.

    Set up in 1996 with a Federal Government grant and corporate sponsorship, the Gene Bank - dubbed a Noah's Ark of endangered animals - began by storing sperm and eggs taken from endangered animals that had died, often in zoos. The advent of cloning meant any part of the animal would do, as long as cell lines could be grown.

    The cells of thousands of animals - mostly natives, but other endangered species such as the African black rhino - from dozens of species are now stored.

    A modest amount of money has allowed the Gene Bank to survive, diverted from other institute programs. "It's been put into neutral for the time being," said Professor Trounson.

    Requests from NSW authorities to store native fish taken during a clean-out of rivers, as well as an oyster species threatened by pollution and disease, cannot be met.

    The Gene Bank, the only one of its type in Australia, has lost its technician and the laboratories used for the program face being taken over by a well-funded program on cattle breeding.

    "You can't create biodiversity. But it's something you can lose," says Professor Trounson. "Every animal we lose that doesn't have a common close relative is a big problem. It's something you can never get back."

    Since European settlement, at least 19 animal, 20 bird and three amphibian species have become extinct in Australia. Hundreds of species are now regarded as threatened.

    "The community don't seem to care really deeply about biodiversity because they are not facing it every day. But it's a big concern among naturalists, conservationists and scientists. There's a decimation of these species."

  • Depressing. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZaBu911 ( 520503 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .retskcaz.> on Monday February 04, 2002 @02:40PM (#2951285) Homepage
    This is the kind of thing that would lead to great things, if people continued support for it.

    Would anyone please post information, if they know, pertaining to how we can donate to this museum? I think that many of us would like it.

    "The community don't seem to care really deeply about biodiversity because they are not facing it every day. But it's a big concern among naturalists, conservationists and scientists. There's a decimation of these species."

    The above quote was from the actual article. Their community doesn't care, for whatever reasons. Maybe they don't understand, maybe they don't know, maybe they're just shallow. But I think some of us may care.

    We can use our computer skills to volunteer for them, maybe. Save them some money on hiring a designer for their web presence, making their databases more efficient, etc. This is what we're here for. Show the world that "hackers" do more good than harm.

    • Re:Depressing. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rscrawford ( 311046 )
      There are a lot of environmental organizations out there that need computational help, from web design and development to network support to bioinformatics programming. Unfortunately, with the economy the way it is, the funding for these organizations (almost all of which comes from charitable donations) is drying up, so they can't pay for these services (though you might be able to get a tax break for your time). On the other hand, there are a lot of unemployed web programmers now looking for something to do.

      I'm personally spending some volunteer time helping to establish a web presence for a local environmental group building an environmental scorecard for the Say Francisco Bay Area.

    • Not that it would help "much", as I'm sure these guys need millions, but I'd gladly send them $50 or so. PayPal is simple and easy enough for most.

      Throw in the Slashdot effect and we should be able to get them started with a few thousand. Then, just cross your fingers and hope for the snowball effect from a few other sites.

      "Please hold off on the endangered species sig jokes," he added.

    • How to donate (Score:2, Informative)

      by hype7 ( 239530 )
      http://secure.metro.net.au/monashiv/donate.htm

      That's the link to donate. Remember folks, that's in Australian dollars - roughly 2 AUD:1 USD

      -- james

  • National Seed Storage Lab (Score:5, Informative)

    by cybrpnk ( 94636 ) on Monday February 04, 2002 @02:44PM (#2951298)
    You don't have to go to Australia to find lack of funding endangering valuable genetic resources; The National Seed Storage Lab [ars-grin.gov] in Colorado is in exactly the same boat...er, ark. Read about their funding problems here [vt.edu]. An excerpt:

    What does this lack of funding mean? It results in another major problem for the banks:
    germination backlog, currently of about 30,000 samples at the NSSL. Periodic germination tests
    are important to assure the quality of the samples. Also, since seeds will not store indefinitely,
    they must periodically be removed, grown out for new seed, and collected. Says Major
    Goodman, a crop scientist at NC State who investigated the status of the samples, "Evaluation,
    regeneration and utilization are essential parts of a functioning germplasm system. Yet the entire
    emphasis...is based upon acquiring larger and larger numbers of samples to be stored in so-called
    seed repositories..." A more accurate name, according to Goodman, is "seed morgues." The
    samples that are most at risk are older or unusual varieties that are rarely requested, and
    germination potential of these samples deteriorates. According to NSSL director Steve Eberhart,
    who estimates that it would take 25 years to catch up with the backlog, "We normally test seeds
    every ten years to make sure they'll still viable...we've had to eliminate our retesting in order to
    process new materials. We don't know which material is deteriorating because we don't have the
    staff to the do the germination." For example, there are 30,000 varieties of corn from Latin
    America with four scientists assigned to grow and evaluate them. Each person can do 30 varieties
    a year, totaling 120. At that rate, it would take 250 years to evaluate them all! Many of the corn
    varieties will not survive to be regenerated.
    • Wasn't Gordon Moore promoting a several million dollar foundation [moore.org] that he founded for preserving biodiversity?

      Might be worth it to hook these institutions up with the money. Does anyone have a definitive list of all the biodiversity conservation efforts that need funding?

      In the meantime, concerned geeks/citizens can resort to the Paypal/Amazon tip jar while all the bureaucratic garbage gets sorted out to get these institutions hooked up with major foundations in the long term.
    • Maybe I'm just dense, but do we really need 30,000 varieties of corn from one continent?

      This is a serious question. Is there a measureable differnce between each of the 30,000 variety? Perhaps if the scientists could distill their samples to say 1,200 different varienties of each plant they wouldn't have such a funding problem.

      People throw around words like "evironment" and "biodiversity", but is anyone holding these scientists accountable to show some value (doesn't have to be monetary) in exchange for the funding?

      When the discussion was about wether software developed with government grants should be open the overwhelming response was "of course, the taxpayers should get the source because we paid for it." I'm just asking what the ROI if for storing 30,000 varieties of the same plant indefinately.
      • "Maybe I'm just dense, but do we really need 30,000 varieties of corn from one continent?"

        Yes.

        With the advent of genetic engineering, the possibility of a "superstrain" of modified corn, replacing wild variants is quite possible. Think of the genetic code of these variants as building blocks for the engineering projects of the future, and consider the fact that, once gone, they can never be replaced.

        • And ... while the thousands of variants undoubtably have a lot of genetic overlap (as do all organisms) sifting out the unique from the redundant, and correlating genetic information with expressed traits is extremely complex. Think of the time and money spent sequencing the genome from a single human. Think about the fact that this sequencing will be followed by a much harder task of determining the proteins the various bits of the genome code for, and then and then and then ... you get the idea. This is hard stuff.

          The day may come when these "building blocks for the engineering projects of the future" can be cheaply and easily distilled from the thousands of variant strains being stored.

          Until (or if) that far-off day come, though, keeping the seeds around is the one way we have to maintain this genetic diversity.

  • lies (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    it's getting closed not because of the lacking of money but because the director of the institute got caught importing "Grand Theft Auto 3" (original version) and making lil' some'ng some'ng on the side.

  • Don't know what you've got till it's gone (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maggard ( 5579 ) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Monday February 04, 2002 @02:47PM (#2951322) Homepage Journal
    If the Aussies can't fund their own program I'm sure any number of other nations or private institutions would be willing to receive the materials and maintain them.

    Or no doubt some biotech company might be willing to do so in return for rights to the contents and any future derivatives thereof...

    Of course these sorts of prospects usually spur native donors and the project is thus "rescued" but it is sad that things come to such a crisis, particularly when the Australian fauna (and flora) are unique in the world.

    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot
    With a pink hotel, a boutique
    And a swinging hot spot
    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot.

    They took all the trees
    And put them in a tree museum
    And they charged all the people
    A dollar and a half just to see 'em
    Don't it always seem to go
    That you don't know what you've got
    Till it's gone
    They paved paradise
    And put up a parking lot.

    ...

    - Joni Mitchell - Big Yellow Taxi

    • Anonymous Cowards filtered. If their words aren't worth so much as a nom de plume why should I value them any more?

      Arrogant pricks filtered. If they can't be bothered to read the opinions of others why should I value them any more?
    • Yes, but by giving the rights to a privatly owned company.... Just look at what's happening with the research for breast cancer now that the gene used for this research is owned by a private company! Prices have gone up extremely. Normal people will no longer be able to pay to have there breast examined. (Oops, getting of topic here....)
  • If only there were a way for us to transport all our politicians to a world of their own creation, taken 50 years into the future, and lock them in it for a year or two. Somehow, I rather suspect the sudden shift in perspective, combined with having to live with their decisions, would wisen them beyond our ability to comprehend.

    But, in the meantime, I look forward to higher quality McDonald's big macs!

    • Why pick on politicians? In general, they are only doing what we want them to do. People want cheap steaks, cheap milk, and cheap leather. So the cattle farmers get the subsidies. We need to send everyone into the future to take a look at what those attitudes have done to mother earth.

      In the case of the wombat, the two listed reasons for their decline are the introduction of grasses that have taken over the land that the wombats won't eat, and the introduction of cattle competing for the grasses the wombats do eat. Add to that the decline in habitat due to the spread of civilization, the introduction of feral cats, rabbits, and other non-indigineous creatures, predatory dingos who have been pushed out of their native hunting grounds, pesticides, acid rain, Microsoft (ok, don't know what MS has to do with it but I'm sure they're involved!), and well we've screwed up a lot. There's no easy fix.

      But you know what? Send everyone 50 years into the future, and what do we have? 49 years before we really need to look for a solution- call me a pessimist if you'd like...

      • Good point. Look at slashdot; most people here tend to consider themselves relatively scientifically savvy. But bring up something like global warming, and ideology shoves through.

        Do a search on here for prior stories about global warming, or recycling, or alternative fuels, and you'll find plenty of people here who are convinced any environmental problems are simply some vast liberal plot against their beloved laissez-faire philosophy.
  • With the possibilities opening up from the human genome and near sci-fi areas like stem cells and tissue regeneration its likely that as complete a catalogue and sample of the world's funa and flora will be collected for research as climate change and natural habitat destruction will allow and, really, if anythings missing we can just substitute frog DNA and raise it up.

    BTW why does the post page have my submission date Sunday Feb. 3 7pm? Like I'll get an answer ha
  • Although I'm in awe for projects of this kind of size and the fact that it's all for the sake of preserving stuff that needs preventing to get lost, I always shake my head a little when I see projects like this. There's so much stuff to collect and archive... it's like google trying to make a complete usenet archive. Cool, nice, usefull occasionally and for sure a nobel act, but in the end, you'll have to give up sometime. There's simply no way you can archive anything of a certain size.
    Sometimes you just have to let things go.

    It reminds me of a professor here who 'collected' the time of death of people. He tried to find correlation between birth date and date of death (for the freaks : there IS a correlation !) After a few years he had hundreds of thousands of data, but refused to stop collecting. It became collecting for the sake of the collections.

  • Seems to me the major expense in a program such as this is the long-term storage of the 'data' - and there doesn't look like there's an easy way over that obstacle.

    I wonder, however, given the current thrust of the genome mapping projects around the globe if this issue can become irrelevant. With the ability to codify the genes in a species comes the ability to store the information in a much less expensive manner - and for much longer periods of time. Simply back it up to tape!

    I know it's a fairly far off vision, but hey...

  • A program that saves the genetic material of threatened animal species faces a bleak future because of a lack of money.

    What's the point in saving the actual genetic material? Storing the genetic code would make more sense, assuming that we can create the species from a given genetic code in the near future.

    • Re:Whats the point (Score:2, Informative)

      by jfengel ( 409917 )
      First off, it's unlikely that we'll have the ability to "create the species from a given genetic code" any time soon. Our ability to create proteins from specific sequences goes to mabye hundreds or thousands of base pairs, not tens or hundreds of millions.

      And even from there it's a long way to living cells, and still further to multi-cellular organisms.

      Second, Celera may make it look easy to sequence a genome, but it still takes months to do and millions of dollars. Plus you still get lots of errors, any one of which could make it impossible to reproduce an organism.

      And finally, there's a lot that goes on in cells that's not coded up by the nuclear DNA. There's mitochondiral DNA, for starters. And the whole bootstrapping problem: producing an organism requires an incredibly complex environment provided by its mother. The instructions for that are, of course, largely in the DNA, but it's incredibly tricky to bootstrap it from there.
    • It's very expensive and time consuming to sequence a genome, and even when you've done that, we don't currently have the ability to build an entire organism from it's code.
  • What is the point of saving a species in a test tube? The planet is only getting worse. if we cannot find a way to co-exist with nature NOW I doubt we ever will.

    I read in todays paper that a forest area the size of Poland is lost each year .. thats over 10 New York city blocks / second .. burned to the ground. We dump sewage, filth and pesticides into our fresh water .. nature is supposed to survive on this while we wont go near it without chlorinating it / filtering it.

    Storing genes in test tubes will not save Endangered Species ... only a strong global commitment to changing our (evil) ways will make a difference ... and then a Modern Day Noah's Ark won't be necessary.

  • Ethical dilemma. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Typingsux ( 65623 )
    Is it the natural order of things for man to come along, industrialize, and cause extinction of thousands of species?
    Is it the natural order of things for when man has technological enough assets to save genetic material to resurrect long gone species?
    Or since it is mans fault for the extinction of a diverse number of animals is it our responsibility to have facilities such as this?
  • We just need to build a large fleet of spacecraft, and place all these seeds in orbit around Saturn....
  • Or was that just a reference to a mythical story?
    It strikes me that if the Noah's Ark story is true then what goes with it is true as well... or do we believe some of the story and not the parts we don't wanna believe?

    I hope they gain funding from somewhere, it's a cool project. Even if we couldn't save certain species now, in the future no doubt we'll be able to regain some of the lost. It'd be nice to populate remote islands with lab-grown dinosaurs... or new planets with lab-grown dogs/owls/leopards.
  • If things get truly desperate, they can always go to Rupert Murdoch, who will no doubt suggest the following:

    Figure out which two species are the least likely to go extinct, put one of each in a cage, and see which one lives. Murdoch will broadcast the results on Fox as "When Endangered Species Attack."

  • As unfortunate a statement as it may be about today's society, I believe that one the chief hindrances in this extremely worthy cause finding adequate funding is its poor public image.

    Take for example the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) [wwf.org]. With their people-friendly, Panda Logo [wwf.org], they manage to secure millions of dollars of funding on an annual basis. Thanks in no small part to having this cute & cuddly, little monster as their mascot, the organization has been able to save numerous lesser-known and less adorable species from total extinction.

    Alternatively, the Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development's Gene Bank, lists the far less lovable Northern Hairy-Nosed Wombat [nt.edu.au] as a "key project"...

    Should the fact that the northern hairy-nosed wombat does not closely resemble the fury little teddy bears we all grew up loving make it any less worthwhile in saving - of course not. Does it make it a more difficult sell to the public and subsequently corporations when attempting to secure research funding - what do you think...
    • Well, yes, you've struck upon a problem that conservationists the world over are aware of. In the US, at least, we call creatures like the panda "charismatic megafauna". Big, cute animals, in other words.

      It's relatively easy to get people excited about conserving such species.

      It's relatively hard to get people excited about conserving other species. It's especially hard to get people excited about plants, insects, bats, and the like.
  • They can store it all at my house.
    I think I have extra room in the basement I can spare if they need it. ;)
  • There is a natural reason that species die off. Whether it's weakness, climate change, etc: it's only natural that things evolve and species no longer exist. It is, however, not natural to play God and maintain or revive a dying species.

    best,
    dig
    • Yes, but we are the cause of this destruction in most cases (that is most cases in the past 150 years or so) while artificial preservation might be "unnatural" so is the level of habitat destruction that we have inflicted upon these species. The project is merely making a small attempt at checking the horrible damage that the human species has inflicted upon others.

      I personally don't like the idea of a world with only animals that survive due to their ability to exist in urban settings or due to their usefulness to humans.

      Though I suppose it would make biology simpler. Instead of so many confusing latin species names, we would only need to know "meatbeast, foodplant, pigeon, and rat"

    • It is not more a "natural" course than YOU becoming personally extinct because someone kills you. WE are the sole reason they are dying, no other reason. This is not a necessary, nor intelligent way for us to deal with the planet and its life. WE are responsible and we SHOULD be intelligent enough to STOP it and recover those that we've sent too far otherwise.


      I think I'll kill someone and use YOUR defense: "Well, that loser was too weak and couldn't adapt to a world with ME in it. It's THEIR fault they are gone, it was only natural."

      • Since when is an animal's life as important as a human's? (Everyone's so violent! Kill him or her, man.....)

        I don't understand how *we* are the cause of any species' destruction? Give me an example.

        CFCs you say? Automobiles and hairspray? One volcano erupting spews more CFCs than mankind has throughout history.

        Rainforest destruction and deforestation? We plant tenfold the trees we cut down. It's also a fact that twice the diseases COME FROM the rainforest than what we discover from the rainforest.

        I'm not sure why humans are responsible. It's just natural course of evolution. I *wish* we had control over nature, but we don't.
  • Has anyone ever stopped to consider whether a dying species is dying for a reason? That reason being their inability to adapt to their environmental changes?

    This is the cold hand of evolution, showing no favorites, holding no hands of the children.

    What makes them think that a species they save now (cryogenically or not), would be able to survive in a climate N years from now, possibly one that is much more hostile?

    Oh, so they want us to save these creatures so we can do what with them then? Release them into futuristic zoos, for the public to peruse en masse?

    This is not a viable solution.

    • Re:For the better? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DoctaWatson ( 38667 )
      Saving DNA doesn't mean that we're saving the creatures.

      Taking DNA samples from creatures on the verge of extinction keeps the doors of research open, which will hopefully lead to breakthroughs in medicine and biology.

      If you can't have the animal, having the DNA is probably the next best thing. It's one more piece of the puzzle that we put together to figure out why extinction is happening in the first place.

    • Riiiiight. They are dying because WE are killing them, flat out.


      This is HARDLY necessary (nor intelligent).


      Would it not also be true that if someone murders you, oh well? You just
      weren't able to adapt properly to the fact that someone was out to kill you. You lost
      the "struggle" and, thus, deserved to die.

      • Who is feeding this misinformation to you?

        0.001% of species on this planet are in danger. Of that, 0.001% of which we may be directly responsible for.

        "Would it not also be true that if someone murders you, oh well? You just weren't able to adapt properly to the fact that someone was out to kill you. You lost the "struggle" and, thus, deserved to die."

        Out of context. There aren't many things that "deserve" to die, however everything else you stated is correct. If someone attempts to murder me, and I am unable to adapt and defend myself, I will die. I was not strong enough/smart enough to defend myself within the environment dictated, which evidently, as you make it seem, is an environment of murderers (we are talking species branches, not individuals). In this situation, it would take a person much stronger/smarter than me to overcome them and survive. That person will survive and breed. This is darwinistic evolution in its simplest form. Thank you for backing up my statement with a reasonable analogy. (though I would imagine that much of the general human ego may find the analogy of this paragraph tough to swallow, while the intellect will easily its logic.)

        If we cryogenically save some of "the green ants that breathe dishwater," and for some reason all of the dishwater on the planet has evaporated, where do we expect to place these green ants after we revive them? They will only survive where we artificially create an environment for which they may survive. .. I.E. A zoo. Oh, put the ants back from whence they came, you say? OK. Let's revert their previous habitat back, restoring the dishwater --- oh! Look at that. We just killed off the species that evolved over the green ants to begin with. We have effectively stunted the natural evolution of the superior branch of the "green ants."

  • See Noah's Initial VC (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    With such an analogy to the Catholic religion, they might want to contact Noah's sole sponsor, or its local branch: The Vatican.

    I DO NOT mean to be disrespectful in any way, but I'm pretty sure they still are the wealthiest entity on the Planet, right?

    And preserving such richess can only be viewed as a valuable cause.

    Just thought I'd mention it.

    Cheers.

  • Frozen Zoo (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sjh ( 29820 )
    The San Diego zoo has dna from over 4000 species
    on ice.

    http://www.sandiegozoo.org/cres/frozen.html

  • Who care?? It wouldn't work anyway (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The premise is totally stupid anyway. You would need to have several dozen dna samples from several different lines of the same species in order to recreate them. Heard of something called in-breeding? If you only took one or two samples of the same species, and tried to re-breed them, within a few generations, there would be so much genetic problems, you should just kill them anyway to get them out of their misery. Don't even bother.

  • Endangered project? (Score:4, Funny)

    by colmore ( 56499 ) on Monday February 04, 2002 @05:12PM (#2952212) Journal
    Well, if the research is in danger, perhaps we could just take the DNA from all of the scientists involved and store them in some sort of bank. Then when society comes to its senses we could clone them and start the project over.
  • For those of you who might be interested, there is now a scientific hypothesis for the origins of the Great Flood story. Go to your favorite book selling site, and search for Noah's Flood. The author of the book are Ryan and Pitman. Or you can read this little blurb [sciam.com].
    Bob Ballard recently conducted an underwater survey to try to find evidence that would support the hypothesis of Ryan and Pitman. There is a National Geographic video/special about this work.

    BTW, the flood is hypothesized to be the flooding of the Black Sea over seven thousands years ago.
  • I mean, it's the longest lasting permanant deepfreeze that comes to my mind.

    There are solid rock mountains there that could have caves dug in them and biomass placed there for some future time when more compassionate humanlike people live on earth.

    I don't know about you but I don't know if I'd want to live in a world without animals and plants and nature.
  • Yea, just think, without the wombats we would have never had that wombat chant by Kevin Costner in the movie 3000 miles to graceland. What a loss that woulda been so we should save the wombat, yea thats the ticket.
  • excuse me, how much does it cost to just keep these gene samples in a refridgerator?
  • Hey! They might even patent those genes and live from royalties. At least that's where the world seems to be going anyway: Noah's Ark, Inc. ! :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close