Scientists Optimistic About Getting a Mammoth Genome Complete Enough To Clone 187
Clark Schultz writes The premise behind Jurassic Park just got a bit more real after scientists in South Korea said they are optimistic they can extract enough DNA from the blood of a preserved woolly mammoth to clone the long-extinct mammal. The ice-wrapped woolly mammoth was found last year on an island off of Siberia. The development is being closely watched by the scientific community with opinion sharply divided on the ethics of the project.
Unethical? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious about why one would consider this unethical? That nature had her shot and declared these animals unfit for habitation on the earth, perhaps? That this could open the door to more widespread tampering with genetics? We interfere with the "natural order" all the time, most especially when it comes to our own comfort and survival. I'm sort of curious why people would suddenly start worrying about bringing extinct animals back to life. I'll admit I haven't given this a lot of thought yet, but my initial reaction is that it seems like a fascinating opportunity if we can pull it off.
Maybe someone that opposes this on ethical grounds could enlighten me.
What would they taste like? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ethics? (Score:5, Interesting)
I want me a dodo. Apparently they were so tasty, the islanders couldn't bear to leave a single one living.
I don't think so. According to the wiki, it probably wasn't humans eating the dodo to extinction (the meat was described as "tasteless" and pigeon was considered a superior game bird) but introducing predators (pigs, cats) to an environment where there hadn't been any before.
As I understand it, the problem with the dodo is that there aren't any frozen carcasses from which to get intact DNA. I heard a carcass was found in a cave not too long ago, and was more preserved, but last I heard it was up in the air as to whether it could be done.
As to the ethics, why not? We breed animals to be pets, how is this different? I'm told that there is only one species of ferret in the world, for instance, that can still fend for itself in the wild.
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unethical? (Score:5, Interesting)
- Intentionally creating a life from incomplete DNA which may not end up producing a complete, healthy, and happy animal.
The whole point of the article is they're optimistic about extracting enough samples to get the complete DNA, so that's a non-issue.
- Then using that animal for an endless barrage of scientific testing throughout its life.
You phrased that to be inflammatory, while ignoring the realities of the situation. Elephants in zoos aren't subjected to some ridiculously invasive regimen and a mammoth wouldn't be either. They are very large, very powerful animals. You don't casually stick a needle into one of them. Invasive testing is something you keep to a minimum, because the animal is in a position to object when it's conscious, and sedating it is difficult and dangerous. So the "endless barrage" in question means a whole lot of stool and urine samples, and not so much with the vivisection.
- Creating an animal that normally lives a social life and forcing upon it total isolation from its species.
One hopes they would make more than one. And if they don't, the question becomes, how accepting of visibly different but roughly the right shape members is an elephant herd? If the answer is "accepting", then that's no problem. (And I'm curious to know the answer to that question.)
- Forcing an elephant to give birth to another species and all the potential health/safety and emotional problems that could cause for the elephant.
Either you're underestimating the power of motherly love, and she will accept her offspring regardless of its appearance, or you overestimate the attachment elephants have for their offspring, and she will reject an apparently "defective" offspring without trauma. I suspect she would accept her offspring. Baby elephants are actually quite hairy, as babies go, and get less hairy as they get older. If instead her baby gets furry, I don't think she'll object. As for health/safety, she'd be the best cared for pregnant elephant in history.
Unless there's real, valuable science that can be done that will justify the potential traumas that could be caused, it seems like a dumb idea.
This strikes me as one of those experiments that falls into the category of "we don't know; let's try it and find out." Is it real, valuable science? We have no idea. We might learn any number of things about genetics, gestation, fetal development, and a raft of other complicated biological things. Or we might learn nothing much. We won't know until we try it. I suspect developing elephant ultrasound will be useful elsewhere, if nothing else. Somebody will learn something, even if it's just engineering.