Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Create 'Woolly Mice' (npr.org) 54

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
EmagGeek shares a report: Scientists have genetically engineered mice with some key characteristics of an extinct animal that was far larger -- the woolly mammoth. This "woolly mouse" marks an important step toward achieving the researchers' ultimate goal -- bringing a woolly mammoth-like creature back from extinction, they say.

"For us, it's an incredibly big deal," says Beth Shapiro, chief science officer at Colossal Biosciences, a Dallas company trying to resurrect the woolly mammoth and other extinct species. The company announced the creation of the woolly mice Tuesday in a news release and posted a scientific paper online detailing the achievement. Scientists implanted genetically modified embryos in female lab mice that gave birth to the first of the woolly pups in October.

My editorial: One has to wonder why it is necessary or even a great idea to bring back species that nature long ago determined were a failure.

Scientists Create 'Woolly Mice' More | Reply

Scientists Create 'Woolly Mice'

Comments Filter:

  • First step (Score:5, Funny)

    by hackertourist ( 2202674 ) on Tuesday March 04, 2025 @11:44AM (#65210159)

    towards our ultimate goal: the saber-tooth squirrel!

    • Hopefully the current acorns species are adequate. Is there a need to create a wooly acorn?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Better of the only two "official" jokes on the story. I noticed a number of attempts at humor, but it seems the moderators have high standards for Funny?

      I was expecting some kind of joke about Rocky the Flying Squirrel or Bullwinkle, but...

  • I guess people want to have an encore for extinction events?

    • Republicans are working on that -- they've got multiple paths to WW3 .. by promoting everything from destabilizing Europe or annoying China to climate change .

  • Editorial question (Score:4)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Tuesday March 04, 2025 @11:56AM (#65210193)

    One has to wonder why it is necessary or even a great idea to bring back species that nature long ago determined were a failure.

    Maybe they're hoping to establish a precedent, to encourage some future intelligent life form to revive humankind in the event of our species' failure!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 )

      We're going to trust Nature's "decisions" why? The premise of it is stupid. It could have gone extinct for a variety of reasons, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have some qualities that could serve us today. Besides, there are indications that humans are the ones who drove it to extinction. We can't miss out on woolly mammoths because some of our ancestors were evil or stupid.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Well, ONE of the reasons was predation by humans. It's looking like that wasn't a major cause, though. And as for reviving them, where are they going to live? A mammoth would eat a mammoth amount of green stuff. (It would also generate a mammoth amount of methane. Some people thing cows are bad, but there would really be no comparison.)

        • Size of the mammoth was roughly equal to that of the modern day African elephant. So it would eat the same amount of the green stuff and fart the same amount of methane.

      • It could be worse. There have been several attempts to bring back the Aurochs [wikipedia.org], the wild ancestor of today's cattle that survived in the wild until the early 17th Century. I'm not sure that's a good idea, considering the beast's known aggressive temperament. We have enough big wild beasts who like to fight back even when not attacked that we probably don't need to bring this one back.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        > It could have gone extinct for a variety of reasons

        Being over-hunted by hominids is the most likely reason.

    • Have you looked at Hollywood recently?

      Hell, they're bringing back polio and measles, too. Hacks.

  • If we could clone an actual wooly mammoth from found that would be amazing, but just recreating a visual approximation by modifying modern elephant DNA seems a bit pointless. Its not a natural species that ever existed, its not likely going to be well suited to modern times anyways.

    And honestly I'd rather see work done on resurrecting a Thylacine as those have been more recently extinct and so we have better quality DNA samples. Plus they're more likely to survive in the modern environment.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Well, it would be considerably closer than "a visual approximation", but you're right that we don't have even one complete mammoth genome to validate it against. (Still, elephants are close relatives, so they ARE a reasonable choice to fill in the missing parts. We're *mostly* the same as orangutans. Or perhaps gibbons would be a more reasonable distance, and we're still mostly the same.)

  • Just my .02 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Smitty62 ( 918272 ) on Tuesday March 04, 2025 @12:04PM (#65210225) Homepage
    "My editorial: One has to wonder why it is necessary or even a great idea to bring back species that nature long ago determined were a failure." Technically not a failure, just a victim of climate change.(well the change way back then... not the recent one.. lol)

  • "Nature" (Score:2, Interesting)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 )

    We're going to trust Nature's "decisions" why? The premise of it is stupid. It could have gone extinct for a variety of reasons, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have some qualities that could serve us today. Besides, there are indications that humans are the ones who drove it to extinction. We can't miss out on woolly mammoths because some of our ancestors were evil or stupid. Nature is full of shit that can fuck us up. Nature created pedos, it created killers. It's not some benevolent. It also created the w

    • And you came out of it, only to repeat the same useless diatribe. This is one reason why I'm pro choice.

    • We're going to trust Nature's "decisions" why?

      That's not the questions to ask. Our world and even our species is a direct result of nature's "decisions". Overturning decisions that led to both ourselves and our environment is not something that you should do lightly. It's not a matter of whether we "trust" nature's decisions, the question is do we trust _our_ decisions to lead to better outcomes that nature's?

      Sometimes the answer is a clear yes - curing diseases is much better than letting nature take its course but returning an extinct species? Th

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tragedy ( 27079 )

        It's not a matter of whether we "trust" nature's decisions, the question is do we trust _our_ decisions to lead to better outcomes that nature's?

        Quite happy with cures for cancers, lower infant mortality, not dying of starvation, trauma medicine, antibiotics, sanitation, etc., etc. We humans certainly make some pretty stupid decisions, of course. For example, the solutions to the dying of starvation one are in the process of potentially looping back around to starvation being a thing again what with rivers that don't reach the sea any more, rapidly dropping water tables, finite easily accessible mineral resources (including oil) for fertilizers, etc

        • alternately, that humans are part of nature, so everything we do is part of nature's "decisions" so the question of whether our decisions lead to better outcomes than natures is meaningless.

          The premise of the original question requires that human decisions are separate and disctinct nature's "decisions" since we are being asked why we should trust those over human decisions.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tragedy ( 27079 )

            I'm not married to the viewpoint, nor even to the idea that the two possible viewpoints that I presented were the only possible ones. Of course, the viewpoint that it's all nature, even fission and fusion reactors (which both occur in nature, incidentally) has the benefit that you don't have to draw a bright dividing line. Humans used to draw that at tool use, since animals didn't do it and humans do. Except of course for all the exceptions we've found since then. Turns out even Corvids can figure out how t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tragedy ( 27079 )

      backslashdot, in regards to your post, can I get your take on this post [slashdot.org]. Roger W. Moore argues that "The premise of the original question requires that human decisions are separate and disctinct nature's "decisions" since we are being asked why we should trust those over human decisions." and I argue that's not actually the case. Of course, I'm now realizing that perhaps they were referring to the "editorial" in the actual Slashdot summary, but since that's not actually posed as a question, I assumed they

      • I was referring to the editorial, sort of. But I would say that human decisions and nature's decisions are separate in the sense that we are less clear about nature's "intent" vs. human intent (or at least most human intents, especially our own). Nature seemingly has no motive. We know it either doesn't seem to care or can't do anything about (at least a certain threshold of) suffering. at least for certain moments during our conscious existence.

  • Can I at least get one with gills so I can take the adorable lil’ tribble in the water to swim? I’d pay even more if they added the bioluminescent genes from some jellyfish and algae so I wouldn’t step on the poor thing in the dark.

  • "nature long ago determined" (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nature does no such thing. Either they were unfit for specific conditions they were exposed to at the time (whether warmer weather, change in flora, or an increase in the number of spear wielding two-legs), or they were purposefully exterminated. "Nature" doesn't like to be personified, and you wouldn't like Nature when she's angry.
    Woolly Mammoths might survive quite well somewhere on Earth now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      The only places they could survive well these days in in circuses, zoos, and film studios. The permafrost is melting. And there isn't enough anywhere for them to eat (except tropical jungles, but elephants are more adapted to that).

  • The mammoths were likely too tasty for their own good and were hunted down and eaten to extinction.

    • The mammoths were likely too tasty for their own good and were hunted down and eaten to extinction.

      If futurama has taught me anything, sardines are next.

  • Mimmoth! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Langalf ( 557561 ) on Tuesday March 04, 2025 @12:37PM (#65210347)
    Girl Genius had it right!
  • They are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vast hyperintelligent pandimensional beings. The whole business with the cheese and the squeaking is just a front.
  • New York is probably screwed
  • Welcome our new wooly mice overlords.
  • I doubt that the woolly gene is the same for each.

  • The future of slashdot is neckbeard mice.

  • Maybe this will keep mice from coming into my house for warmth in the winter.

  • ... work on the roar [youtube.com].

  • How long before I can get one of these wholly Mouse from my Pet Shop ?
  • If they recreate Wooly mammoths, they will not have resistance to many diseases and viruses that other animals have adapted to in the thousands of years of evolution since their time.

  • My editorial: One has to wonder why it is necessary or even a great idea to bring back species that nature long ago determined were a failure.

    No, early humans determined they were delicious, and hunted them to extinction. Humans are the failures for wiping out such a magnificent creature.

Slashdot Top Deals

In specifications, Murphy's Law supersedes Ohm's.

Close