Using Stem Cells to Save Endangered Species 73
RogerRoast writes "Starting with normal skin cells, scientists from The Scripps Research Institute have produced the first stem cells from endangered species. Such cells could eventually make it possible to improve reproduction and genetic diversity for some species, possibly saving them from extinction, or to bolster the health of endangered animals in captivity. The study was published in the recent issue of Nature Methods."
good idea and (Score:1, Interesting)
wouldn't it be easier to stop the killing of the ones in the wild first?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no, it's easier to make stem cells. That's why they take the trouble...
Re:good idea and (Score:5, Informative)
Actually no, it's easier to make stem cells. That's why they take the trouble...
The catch here is this: It is easier to SAY to stop killing them, but it's certainly not as easy to get them to stop being killed.
There is a vast number of reasons:
* The animals could be being poached - African Elephants, Rhinos, Lions etc?
* There may be an introduced predator doing the killing - Cane Toads in Australia for example.
* There could be some disease running rampant through the natural animal population - Tasmanian Devils in Australia are being wiped out by a cancerous growth on their snouts.
For the folks doing this research and development, it is not only easier for them to make stem cells, but it is the thing that they can do personally. A scientist working in a lab may not be able to suddenly pick up a gun and go protecting wildlife in another country - but he might be able to help save some through his medical research.
Re: (Score:1)
* There could be some disease running rampant through the natural animal population - Tasmanian Devils in Australia are being wiped out by a cancerous growth on their snouts.
Correct [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
And others like the Cheetah that have been interbreeding too long, so that there's not enough genetic diversification.
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:good idea and (Score:4)
In a perfect world, yes, but try explaining that to poachers, or to people demanding more land for living, farming, ect.
Re: (Score:2)
This might sound cruel, and I'm sure I'll be modded down too, but animals have been going extinct since the beginning of time... Isn't it the circle of life? Aren't species supposed to die off eventually?
Should we be interfering with the laws of nature?
Re:Death With Dignity (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it the circle of life? Aren't species supposed to die off eventually?
Should we be interfering with the laws of nature?
There is no "supposed to" involved (unless you believe it's a divine plan, in which case He, or She, or It, or They should let us know in unequivocal terms.) Species don't die off for the hell of it, they die off when their environment changes too much for them to survive and/or reproduce; and every species on Earth "interferes with the laws of nature" from every other species' perspective, simply by existing. Humans are, as far as we know, the only species capable of seeing the consequence of this interference and deciding to do something about it. If we choose not to do something about it -- guess what, we're interfering no less.
Re:Death With Dignity (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer is simple, but really worth saying, so I'll blow two moderations to make it (sorry, ChromeAeonium and Fluffeh.)
To quote Julian Huxley:
It is as if man had been suddenly appointed managing director of the biggest business of all, the business of evolution — appointed without being asked if he wanted it, and without proper warning and preparation. What is more, he can't refuse the job. Whether he wants to or not, whether he is conscious of what he is doing or not, he is in point of fact determining the future direction of evolution on this earth. That is his inescapable destiny, and the sooner he realizes it and starts believing in it, the better for all concerned.
Not since the beginnings of life on this planet has one species had the ability to affect so many others, so quickly. Species have started going extinct at a far greater rate since humans started mucking things up than before. What we've been doing to this planet's biodiversity is a lot more than it did to itself before we showed up.
Of course, stories like this one [livescience.com] pop up from time to time, but if the truth is that we really don't know, then it's probably wiser to be careful and protective than presumptuous and selfish.
Re:Death With Dignity (Score:5, Insightful)
What a lovely post... too bad you're just plain wrong.
>Not since the beginnings of life on this planet has one species had the ability to affect so many others
This is an utterly unproven assertion, I nearly left it at [Citation needed] but the reality is that if a comet wiped us off the face of the earth tomorrow, chances are in 20 million years there would be NO surviving evidence of our ever having been here. There could have been many other intelligent species who reached our levels and we would not have any way of knowing. It's possible we're unique, but it's by no means certain.
>Species have started going extinct at a far greater rate since humans started mucking things up than before
Not even remotely true - the history of life on this planet is filled with mass extinctions that make our entire existence look like a blimp on a chart. The Cambrian extinction wiped out 96% of the species alive at that time - we still don't know what caused it (we have some theories but nothing confirmed). The K/T event wiped out just about every species on the planet bigger than a rat. Lucky for us... our ancestors then were about the size of shrews, the few surviving large animals were all aquatic (nile crocodile and the great white shark for example). The history of this planet is one of repeated mass-extinctions, over and over just when life reaches an apparent high-point the universe throws a rock at us or the planet freezes over and 95% or more of the life forms around get wiped out in an instant.
The average life expectancy of a species is 10-million years (we're already there in other words) and 97% of the life forms that have ever existed are extinct. 94% of them were extinct before mammals arrived - let alone humans.
The good news is, each time there's a mass extinction it's followed by the greatest booms of biodiversity that we find in history. Right after an extinction there are no predators, no specialists so all sorts of bodyplans and weird evolutionary ideas can survive - soon they start to get weeded out as specialists do better and biodiversity eventually stabilizes around systems that have only a few species in each niche. We're in the middle of such a stable intermediary period.
There is a much more pragmatic reason to do conservation - exactly because extinction is such a guarantee. Mass extinctions would take us with it - and not all mass extinctions happen because a rock fell from the sky. Some are caused by life forms. One of the largest mass extinctions was caused by the evolution of photosynthesis in plants. Suddenly the air was pumped full of a terribly toxic, highly corrosive gas - ultimately making up 21% of the atmosphere - practically every other lifeform on the planet died out. But new lifeforms evolved - which turned this poison into a crucial part of their very biochemistry - for us (as their descendents) oxygen is not a horribly corrosive poison - it's the gas we cannot live without !
The reason to try and keep the natural order we evolved in as stable as possible with as few disruptions as possible, to preserve as many species as we can is simple: life will go on, the planet will survive with or without us... but every disruption we make - every species WE drive extinct, every forrest we chop down is risking OUR OWN survival. We can do only limited actions to protect ourselves from rocks falling out of the sky, but we can try to keep from melting the polar ice-caps ourselves. We can try to keep species alive, to preserve a balance we are evolved to fit into - or we risk taking ourselves out with them.
As Michael Chrighton says in Ian Malcolm's speech near the end of Jurassic Park (the book, not the movie), we don't have to worry about saving the planet- but if we're lucky (and smart), we may be able to save ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
In your first two paragraphs you argue that man has not had a massive effect on this planet's ecosystem compared to any other species, because natural events have caused mass extinction in the past.
No the original argument was correct. Compared to any other species that has ever existed, the influence of humans has been massive. Compared to natural events that no species had any control over, yeah not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
>In your first two paragraphs you argue that man has not had a massive effect on this planet's ecosystem compared to any other species, because natural events have caused mass extinction in the past.
I argued about man's effect on other species over the sum of the lifetime of the planet. I didn't argue that we have no impact, I pointed out how another lifeform caused one of the biggest extinction events in history by changing the structure of the atmosphere - any doubt that a lifeform can do so is settled
Re: (Score:2)
Homo sapiens has had more impact on biodiversity than any other species. The Great Oxidation Event lasted hundreds of millions of years and, while we have no means of establishing a survey of taxa from that era, it was most likely the result of a very large number of species, and indeed is such a long period of time that many speciation events could readily have occurred. Further, the autotrophs that released the oxygen in the first place had no means of affecting many of the anaerobes that live deep under
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I am not going to argue with somebody trained in the field. My point was much simpler and actually greatly overlaps with yours - particularly this bit:
"and we poison the water, air and soil with thousands of chemicals and chemical cocktails (an issue which is now so bad it's affecting us"
- Exactly. The impacts we're having will ultimately cause our own (possible) extinction.
Now it's quite true that our many varied impacts are more complex than (most) extinction events - but you COULD see it as one ev
Re: (Score:2)
I've re-read your post, and want to add two things. I quoted Chrichton (who - btw was is actually a real scientist - notably a biologist (more notably a medical doctor) and was one for a long time before he started writing) as a more jocular and less serious way to make my point. I never suggested that particular line should be taken as factual.
Secondly -you and I are saying the exact same thing - and arguing about the semantic detail. You are much more accurate and complex in your wording but your conclusi
Re: (Score:2)
I think it comes down to this: your position is that "we're harming the life and destroying something precious, and that's bad for us," and my position is that "yes, we're harming ourselves in the process, but the effects on the planet are more important." Like many biologists, I'll sleep better at night once we can pull ourselves off the planet and leave it to its business, and the thought of the human species going away is not quite as heartbreaking.
Biology and medical research use the same tools these da
Re: (Score:2)
Any quote is an appeal to authority. By itself that's a fallacy. It can only strengthen an already strong argument. It cannot make a bad one better. Despite Crichton 's legendary research efforts. ( the Jurassic park premise was only proven flawed several years later) I wouldn't call him an authority on conservation anyway. I just liked the way he worded an idea I agree with.
Wanting, indeed striving to survive is the prerogative of every life form. That does include us and I believe space exploration
Re: (Score:2)
Interferring with the laws of nature is what we do.
Yes, unfit species die out naturally but we're massively screwing with things to the point that very few species can manage to cope, and that's not a good thing. We need things to remain in balance, otherwise bad things like huge amounts of pests happen.
Besides, animals are a source of a huge amount of research. Who knows if the cure for cancer is going to come from the research of some animal that's about to become extinct?
For instance, the Axolotl is enda
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The "conservatives" are going to go off...science, playing with life? Ain't nobody allowed to usurp the powers of their God.
'Cept them, of course, if it is something that they can deploy against scientists and other forms of liberals...e.g., taking an inanimate object like an article of incorporation, breathing "life" into it, and giving it so many rights that it becomes a supercitizen that can overwhelm the voices of millions of the *old-fashioned kind of citizens.
(*You know, the human kind?).
This is quite possibly the most moronic statement I've ever read.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The "conservatives" are going to go off...science, playing with life? Ain't nobody allowed to usurp the powers of their God.
'Cept them, of course, if it is something that they can deploy against scientists and other forms of liberals...e.g., taking an inanimate object like an article of incorporation, breathing "life" into it, and giving it so many rights that it becomes a supercitizen that can overwhelm the voices of millions of the *old-fashioned kind of citizens.
(*You know, the human kind?).
Condescending remarks.... check. Stereotyping.... check. Paranoia.... check. Sarcasm and exaggeration as the basis for an arguement.... check.
Move on, nothing to see here.
unless we are talking GMO corn & soybeans (Score:1)
because goddamnit thats the free market!
Re: (Score:1)
End the Bailouts (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sick of us jumping in every time a species is about to die out. Too cute to fail? I say let them go extinct. The ones that survive who looked to the future instead of eating all the grass in the field this quarter are doing what's morally right, and will lead to a stronger society.
Before you know it, the lazy lower-class animals will be living in human-provided housing, with food handouts and arranged marriages, and the predation the superior specimens take part in will be outsourced to the hunters!
Re: (Score:1)
I get that this is likely satire but the fact that many feel rather similar to this position, really just makes this sad rather than humorous. I'm sure without more intense intervention we will continue into a steady collapse of local ecosystems followed by more wide spread collapse until the human population is no longer sustainable and begins to fade out as well. The planet will likely bounce back into an even more lush and diverse planet than before and so goes it until the Sun will engulf our former gl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
(...) most of the time it's us, the humans, who cause a species to go extinct, not the species itself.
But it IS the species itself in that case, because it did not adapt to our presence and our behavior. Which is perfectly fine. Who ever got the idea that we are "better" or "higher" than nature, and that it is therefore up to us to decide which species get extinct and which ones don't? It is all part of nature, and we are nature as much as any other animal. We will probably kill ourselves because of that, and that will be the best thing that ever happened on this planet. Of course, that whole stem-cell spe
Re: (Score:2)
Laudable, but wrong approach (Score:4, Insightful)
While I fully support what the scientists in the TFA are trying to do, I believe there is a danger that the sophomoric intellegentsia here (on /. that is) will see the headline and think "see, technology can solve the extinction problem, no need to worry" and go on to merrily support misguided and unsustainable policies.
Species extinction, ecosystem loss, and general loss of biodiversity are not a bad source code commits that you can simply roll back with enough technology.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't think we should end species extinction, regardless of our possible involvement in it occurring, I don't see why the attempts cannot be made to better understand how stem cells can be used for other uses.
Consider it testing on animals while keeping the anti-testing radicals at bay.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, it sounds like a good idea (Score:4, Funny)
But the next thing you know, you've got a theme park full of velociraptors hunting down the park's patrons.
Re: (Score:2)
What's with the "but?"
Sounds awesome. If they can't pull it off in real life yet, they should make a movie.
mine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the next thing you know, you've got a theme park full of velociraptors hunting down the park's patrons.
As long as they eat Richard Attenborough first, I'm OK with that.
How about mass domestication? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a radical idea I heard about: let's domesticate everything remotely domesticable. After all, cats and dogs aren't going to go extinct any time soon. I'm pretty sure that quite a few species like red pandas could make very viable pets. In fact they're probably endangered by their protection status. Who wouldn't want to have something this cute [novolitika.ru]? Allow people to keep them, and they'll get bred like rabbits. Videos like this one [youtube.com] suggest that they'd make pretty fun pets.
For breeds that are too large, breed them down to a manageable size (if we can make a chihuahua surely we can make a dog sized tiger).
Experiments with foxes [wikipedia.org] seem to show that domestication is quite possible in a reasonable amount of time, and research shows that only 40 genes [cell.com] seem to be responsible for the domestication.
So, here's the idea: domesticate everything, study what changed in the genetics, and if the wild population decays too much, use the genetics research to reverse the domestication, while drawing from the abundant pet population.
I think that this might be the better solution long term, as maintaining habitats and populations is a never ending struggle, while that is never a problem for any species people have an use for.
Re: (Score:2)
For breeds that are too large, breed them down to a manageable size (if we can make a chihuahua surely we can make a dog sized tiger).
The dog sized tiger has been done [wikipedia.org] already
Re: (Score:2)
Er, no. Cats and tigers are very distantly related. Cats were domesticated at their current size, nobody was breeding tigers down to a manageable shape.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's precisely the idea, yes.
A domesticated skunk might not be exactly the same thing as the wild version, but it's pretty darn close. And if the wild ones go extinct, it should be quite easy to recreate the wild population starting from the domesticated one. Cats and dogs are managing that just fine without any extra help, even.
Re: (Score:1)
like a russian bride is almost the real thing?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Hey, that's almost funny.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that quite a few species like red pandas could make very viable pets. In fact they're probably endangered by their protection status.
Quite a few? There are 8.7 million species. You name three species. That's not quite a few, that's barely anything. Maybe red pandas would work, tigers -possibly- though I can't really see a use for that (if my housecat were the size of a pony, I'd be dead when he got too playful). Domestication is not easy just because foxes did it. There was a big economic interest there.
We won't be able to domesticate giant pandas, we can barely get them to breed in captivity.
Orcas seem like an extreme long
why not? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Because we can't?
He haven't even recreated/cloned a mammoth, and in that case we have both genetic material and elephants that could be used as surrogate mothers.
Re:why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying the idea that every species is precious and any species going extinct is a disaster is clearly, demonstrably false.
Yes, I would even go so far as to call that idea specious.
Can it save the habitat too? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just a gimmick to make the public feel better about the loss of wildlife and wild places. The human population is set to double over the next thirty years (it has already doubled in my lifetime) and no politician seems willing to broach the subject.
Of course species will become extinct. It is entirely predictable. We are trashing the forest and bush where they would have lived.
Re: (Score:2)
If it makes you feel any better, any time you hear about improving women's rights in impoverished countries, that's bringing population growth under control.
Important questions remain (Score:1)
Are we supposed to save all of the species or just the cute furry ones that provoke empathy? On the other hand we are keeping cattle population for example at a naturally unsustainable level.
Massive amount of creepy insects and other strange and maybe extremely poisonous creatures are probably also on the brink of extinction. The ecological niches are not indefinite. The natural course is that species come and go. The humanity has sped up the process immensely too, and many can't adapt... If we try to save
This was the case with pandas? (Score:1)
Are we supposed to save all of the species or just the cute furry ones that provoke empathy?
Every time I've seen someone mention pandas or saving furry ones on /. for the years I've been reading has run to this argument. It's flawed not because they are furry but because *gasp* even furry and cute animals have the possibility of providing novel solutions.
Case and point was with the panda itself in a recent /. article [slashdot.org] from a few days back. The headline is misleading but if you read TFA you understand that we learned about some cool bacteria while we were busy finding them cute and cuddly.
AC
Re: (Score:1)
The headline is misleading but if you read TFA you understand that we learned about some cool bacteria while we were busy finding them cute and cuddly.
AC
That's not terribly relevant to his point. His point is that we a) can't save every species, and b) probably shouldn't save every species. Human beings are a species just like every other animal. We have adapted extremely well, which is why we're the controlling (if not exactly dominant) lifeform on the planet. We should do what we can to make sure we can still survive (which might mean trying to keep some species from going extinct), but the idea that we should drastically impact our own survival to sav
Re: (Score:2)
That's not terribly relevant to his point. His point is that we a) can't save every species, and b) probably shouldn't save every species.
The real question is why the some species are endangered and some die en masse. Can we do anything to the fundamental reasons or do we end up having a zoo of resurrected species ot species that can't survive, an ark sort of. That would be beautiful and tragic at the same time, a sort of testament to what we can do - in every sense. The truth is that many species are dying, and there's nothing unnatural about it. The Earth's resources are limited, and an extinction is a natural consequence to the resources r
End game for natural selection? (Score:3)
its the ecosystem stupid (Score:2)
endangered species are mostly endangered by habitat destruction. you cannot have forest panther without the forest. you cant have a desert elephant without the desert. you cant have a polar bear without the polar. saving a single animal's DNA is just moronic.
Re: (Score:1)
TFA is about northern white rhinos, which are critically endangered by heavy poaching.
So actually for some species, human-caused extinction could be avoided simply by such artificial reproduction techniques. In fact this may be the only way, since there are now so few of these rhinos left that we don't have time to try more experiments to find out how to encourage breeding. (We certainly can't figure it out by observing wild populations, since we've poached those to extinction already.)
Also, if we had a tec
Unintended consequences (Score:2)