Scientists Create 'Woolly Mice' (npr.org) 57
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.
"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.
First step (Score:5, Funny)
towards our ultimate goal: the saber-tooth squirrel!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Encore! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Republicans are working on that -- they've got multiple paths to WW3 .. by promoting everything from destabilizing Europe or annoying China to climate change .
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans are trying to get a peace deal.
And I'm sure the Ukrainians are just beside themselves with joy knowing they are about to hand their country over.
Editorial question (Score:4)
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)
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)
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.)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But they don't live in the same terrain. And elephants require LOTS of food.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> It could have gone extinct for a variety of reasons
Being over-hunted by hominids is the most likely reason.
Humans haven't had an original thought in aeons (Score:2)
Hell, they're bringing back polio and measles, too. Hacks.
Pointless (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re:Just my .02 (Score:4, Funny)
(well the change way back then... not the recent one.. lol)
Everyone likes a good reboot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's worthwhile, not so much to bring them back to resurrect the species in the wild, but to be able to study them and find out what they were actually like
"Nature" (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: "Nature" (Score:3)
And you came out of it, only to repeat the same useless diatribe. This is one reason why I'm pro choice.
Do you trust _our_ decisions? (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Trusting ourselves to make the right decision is slightly more logical than trusting nature. If nature can be trusted, then our decisions can definitely be trusted since we're nature. We know nature didn't care that some species went extinct, who is to say it cares about keeping us around? We know that most humans at least want to keep ourselves or themselves around.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ok but, (Score:2)
"nature long ago determined" (Score:1)
Woolly Mammoths might survive quite well somewhere on Earth now.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Tasty mammoth meat (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Survival of the bitter.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell is this helping humans or animals living today?
Tuesday, March 4 2025? Not at all. But imagine if they are way tastier than cattle, and you can breed and free range em up north in areas not as suited to cattle. It could make tons of money a ton of ways and that’s not even counting what that understanding of genetic technology can do in other cases. Saying that is like saying how does working benefit me today, payday is a week and a half away and work sucks.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
(which you cant because giant ass mamals cant live off of little calories growing up north)
Can you explain then how they ever even existed in the first place since that's exactly the environment they're adapted for?
Mimmoth! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha!
Came here to make sure obligatory Mimmoths post was in place.
These creatures you call mice, you see... (Score:2)
I've seen this movie (Score:2)
I, for one (Score:2)
Using Mammoth for Carte Blank Experimentation (Score:2)
neckbeard the mouse (Score:2)
The future of slashdot is neckbeard mice.
Release them in the wild (Score:2)
Next ... (Score:2)
How long... (Score:2)
My prediction (Score:2)
"Failure" my ass (Score:2)
No, early humans determined they were delicious, and hunted them to extinction. Humans are the failures for wiping out such a magnificent creature.