Cloning of extinct Huia bird approved 405
kade writes to us with the news that New Zealand scientists and ethicists have decided that attempts to clone the extinct Huia bird should begin immediatly. The birds were declared extinct in the 1920s, their fault being they had white tipped black feathers that were "used" in a European fashion craze in the 1920s. IMHO, more stuff like this should happen-and for the organisms in danger of extinction, we should procure cell samples in hope of cloning later. Of course, first priority should be saving them then, but what do you all think?
Re:Already have a freezer full of endagered jizz (Score:1)
Re:There is a still a major problem of cloning... (Score:1)
I see this endevor as an acedemic 'can we do it', not as a solution to any kind of problem. There isn't a problem with that particular animal not being in existance.
huia.sh (Score:1)
Re:...But you can alleviate them (Score:1)
Is there some intrinsic value in keeping endangered animals locked up in unnatural surroundings? I say there isn't. Creatures become extinct because other creatures like to kill them, or because their habitat changes too drastically. Their place in this world simply went away. It pains me to be so blunt about it, but it's true. Instead of covering up our mistakes, we should try to raise the value of life in our culture.
YOU should try to raise the value of life in our culture. Go tell somebody that the animals on our planet are precious, and anything we do that hurts them unnecessarily should be stopped. That's what will turn things around.
Finally, read stuff by Daniel Quinn, and visit the Ishmael website [ishmael.com].
Re:In life, there is no UNDO button (Score:1)
Er, what's the difference between "natural causes" and humans? We are natural causes -- natuarally evolved creatures that, in our spread, have caused the extinction of some native species that were unable to adapt to us. To a real "believe[r] in Darwinism", the distinction between "natural" extinction and human-caused extinction doesn't exist.
As a specific example -- was the Americn horse driven extinct by natural causes (a new predator that crossed over a natural land bridge from Asia), or man (which happened to *be* that new predator)? (Anyone who says that "well, man hunts for sport while other animals don't", please see Stephen Jay Gould's "Bully for Brontosaurus" for remedial education.)
That isn't to say that we shouldn't make efforts to not drive species extinct. But this goofy natural/man dichotomy is indefensible unless man was created separately.
If you're a creationist, fine, I can respect that.
If you're a Darwinist, fine, I agree with you.
If you're a self-proclaimed Darwinist that still holds to the man-nature dichotomy of creationism you were taught by our culture, STOP AND THINK IT THROUGH!
Save the Whales, Hug a Tree (Score:1)
And as for getting tissue samples of endangered species so that we can clone them later, that's just not practical. How long would it take for us to take tissue samples of all the M$ users out there, cause it's not gonna be long before they're extinct... And do we really want to clone more? (Hope Bill hasn't thought of that already!) :-)
Re:Bad idea - amino acid baloney (Score:1)
Miller left out oxygen because he knew it would destroy the proteins he was trying to make. In fact, there have been oxidized rocks in the earth as deep as man has dug. There is no evidence that earth's early atmosphere had no oxygen, and of course life on earth requires it.
Miller used electrical sparks as a catalyst. Unfotunately, sparks do more tearing apart than putting together, so Miller had to draw the product out of the spark chamber in order to preserve them. This obviously would not have been possible during biogenesis without an informed intelligence.
The experiment produced an equal amount of long, short, left-handed and right-handed amino acids, whereas only short and lefthanded are used in living cells. The long and right-handed acids joining with the short and left-handed acids would prevent the coiling necessary for a useful protein.
Finally, the simplest life forms require many more than just one protein! The chances of these forty-plus proteins coming together to form a single solitary bacterium capable of reproducing (and which must now survive without oxygen, remember) are zilch for all practical purposes.
Re:What's the Impact? (Score:1)
Re:There is a still a major problem of cloning... (Score:1)
I for one, enjoy a walk through a national park now and then (together with all the associated flora and fauna).
Forgive the attitude, I'm a New Zealander and I'd like to see the recovery of a few more of the endangered and "previously extinct" birds of New Zealand (particularly the giant Moa!).
We will leave little trace (Score:1)
Aside from the remains of the lunar lander and a plastic flag on the surface of the moon, probably the only thing future civilizations will find that points back to us will be the plastic stuff like packaging and six-pack binders, and a curious bottleneck of biological diversity in the late 20th century to rival that of the extinction of the dinasaurs, there will be little for future archealogists to find. Given a few tens of thousands of years, even the satelites in orbit will have long since fallen back to earth.
Tales of a space faring civilization in 10,000 years? I doubt it, given that we haven't even bothered to go back to the moon in 25 years. Tales of a civilization that practically worshipped consumption and greed, to the point of (nearly) consuming the entire world and ultimately consuming itself? Quite possibly.
Just another cheery thought for a Wednesday morning.
Mass extinction (Score:1)
Ah but we ARE god. (Score:1)
While I do not think we can make light of our decisions of what animals to promote, and what animals to drive out of existance, we certainly can not deny that we have that power, and have had it for a long time. Look at cows. What the hell is that *natural selection* ? *darwinism* ? No folks, its time to go read "out of control" and realize that we are no longer the children of this planet, but the parents of a great many life forms which may not even exist yet.
There is a great amount of nostalgia when we think of how things *used* to be. When we were growing up, we lived in a very sheltered universe. The planet was full of biomass, and we consumed and consumed and consumed. Just now as we are on the brink of running out of natural resources, we suddenly start to grasp that we can no longer afford to be frolicing around the planet in childlike bliss. Yet we still have not owned up to our larger role, our greater responsibility.
We have already altered this planet plenty by being "GOD". And we say it with distain, because we have up until this point been a childish selfish god. An infant god. Now as we are just begining to realize the complicated nature of our responsibility there is a very strong tendancy for people to want to walk away from it all, and not be "god" any more.
It is not a choice we can make. We are now the parents of the planet which reared us. To look at in any other way is wishful thinking, and nostalgia.
We should be careful. We should think more often than we act, but we should not hope that "God" knows what to do, and its not out place to mess-a-bout.
Evolution itself evolves. We are just the latest feature of nature. There is a real problem if we start to view ourselves as "other" than nature. We are an interesting evolutionary experiment. We can reincarnate species we accidentally destoyed in our youth. Is there any reason to? Maybe not. Could there be dire consequnces? Perhaps, but I think it is unlikely.
Worse case scenario: the bird has no preditors, they take over the world, and then decide to clone extinct humans.
Humans will reshape the galaxy (Score:1)
In a few thousand years every last piece of the planet will be dissassembled by human beings for use as raw materials to support our outward expansion into the universe.
Earth has supported us well so far, and the species that evolved on the earth will outlive the planet.
Nothing you can do about it either.
Bring back the giant Moa (Score:1)
I vote the next bird to be bought back is the giant Moa. I want a bird I can look up to and really respect
Re:Some thoughts... (Score:2)
Researchers have shown that while Dolly is aging at an accelrated rate due to the use of older donor material, the natural born offspring of Dolly do not experience this problem. Cloning may make it "easy" to start a species, but as some have pointed out, diversification is a real issue. The lack of a diverse gene pool can cause severe genetic defect amplification. This happens in all species of animals. It shows up most effectively in dogs when a particular breed becomes popular a puppy mills are established to meet the demand. The result is poor vision, bad hips, poor immune systems, bad hearing, and even bad temperments.
While some defects can be beneficial to the regions, as has happened in humans based in disparate regions of the world, most are harmful to the species as a whole. If there is a significant portion of genetic material available to create a diverse gene pool for an extinct, near-extinct, or endangered species, then cloning should be considered. Otherwise, an inferior version of the species could be the result and as such could possibly become re-extinct easily as a result of genetic maladies.
Re:We're monkeys... (Score:1)
Ok, I just have to point and laugh here. Does anyone complain when fireants erradicate a species in an area? This is Natural, well, so would whiping every elephant on earth out with machine guns. Because we are PART of nature. No other creature on earth is equipped to stand up against us. I'm a devout christian, but just because God created the Earth doesn't mean he can't change it, or allow it to change and grow after that. Creationism and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive. But certain facets of evolutionism are exaggerated, for instance, if Man were once Ape, then why are Apes not continually in the process of becoming Man? Creationism is frequently overblown as well, some people seem to think that The Earth is still in the exact same state as when God created it, which is obviusly untrue....
The Bible states in Genesis that man is the steward of Earth, we are supposed to watch over and take care of everything while we are here. If we kill off something, then decide to bring it back, then that's just fine.
I wanted to write a much more cohesive essay, but I'm at work and have to go earn my paycheck.
Kintanon
What's with the Luddism? (Score:1)
I don't undestand people who are afraid of genetically engineered tomatoes - it's the same thing as normal farming, just sped up.
Now that's not to say we should just start cloning everything indisciminately (releasing a pack of T-Rexes into the wild might be a bad idea) but reviving dead species - especially ones WE wiped out, strikes me as being good Karma.
And if they're tasty too, hell, so much the better.
DG
Don't Let Them Go Extinct in the First Place (Score:1)
Better to spend the $$$$ on saving the species in the first place than to blow it on some SiFi dream of bringing them all back.
I hope they... (Score:1)
Re:Ah but we ARE god. (Score:2)
It is not a choice we can make. We are now the parents of the planet which reared us. To look at in any other way is wishful thinking, and nostalgia.
We should be careful. We should think more often than we act, but we should not hope that "God" knows what to do, and its not out place to mess-a-bout.
With regards to playing God, merely changing the face of the earth is not playing God. It is terraforming, and I admit that we humans have a lot to learn about it. We're decent terraformers, but not very good ones yet. But that isn't playing God.
In fact, per the Judeo-Christian mythos, this is exactly what we are supposed to be doing. The first commandment God ever gave a person in the book of Genesis is (paraphrasing here) to go forth and multiply, to fill the earth and to subdue it.
I don't expect everyone to agree with this perspective; there are a number of religions among the Slashdotters. However, not all of them think that we are playing God with the earth. IMHO, we are not "raping the planet". We are doing our job, but stumbling a lot when we are doing it.
Re:Close, but.... (Score:1)
Screw Evolution -- Clone Everything (Score:1)
Why not? Obviously the preferable solution would be to responsibly manage populations back to viable levels, but in the case of extinct species, I say go for it. If someone is willing to pay to grow dodo birds, then I say more power to him/her.
Of course I tend to be radically pro-biotech (from extensive Shadowrun gaming) but I can't see much of a downside.
Re:What's the Impact? (Score:1)
FRAGILE MY ASS! Our ecosystem is about as fragile as a 30 ton boulder. Why must every wacked out Environmentalist flunky spout off about how "Fragile" our ecosystem is?? It's a PLANET people, No matter WHAT we do to it, it WILL recover if we kill ourselves off, and if we don't kill ourselves off then who cares what we do to it? If you want to keep some Rhino's around for aesthetic purposes, go ahead, I want to eat Rhino steak for lunch every day for a month. Rhino's as a species aren't that important, neither is any other species really... The Earth will recover eventually, and if it doesn't then who cares? It's just one planet out of an unlimited amount. The only motivation we have for keeping it up is that we'll die if we screw it up too bad. The universe isn't going to end if we blow the planet to pieces. We're a insignifcant speck in the universe, get used to it.
Kintanon
As dead as a Dodo (Score:2)
Re:We will leave little trace (Score:1)
There is a still a major problem of cloning... (Score:2)
hrm...looks like we are getting closer to making jurassic park a reality. yikes!
Re:Bad idea (Score:1)
Anyways not all mosquitos are bloodsuckers, only the females. The males drink nectar.
Oh, and they perfer certain people, the trick is to bring one of the unluckey as a distraction. And don't where blue (or is that sharks?)
For the record spiders are of the class arachnida not insecta (hexapoda). So they are spiders not insects. Oh and the lady bug is not a bug it's a beetle (Order->Choleoptera). True bugs are members of the order Hemiptera.
Now a fun fact
There are more ants by mass then there are mammals.
Now back to the topic: If they succed the breeding population will be tiny. There will be genetic problems..
This is a good way for us to understand life, and ageing , just don't let em touch my insects or spiders.
Re:Bad idea (Score:1)
While they are at it... (Score:1)
The sheep of the world must be getting pretty pissed that they alone have to provide all the wool for the world. Just think of the wool you could get off a mammoth! Damn! Of course they would also have to genetically alter sheep dogs to be bigger, because a mammoth sure as hell ain't going to get herded by no freakin collie.
Of course, the other advantage to this is that I could finally fulfil my dream of opening a Wet and Woolly, the world's first water park/woolly mammoth petting zoo. It would be a hit with kids aged 6-12, and would be located on the island of Guam because it has a cool name.
99% already extinct. (Score:1)
-russ
Small Gene Pool (Score:1)
Good idea; was bad idea (Score:1)
Diversity of an ecosystem is important if you want it to be stable. Witness the Linux hydra which is constantly developing in unforseen ways
Re:Defeatism (Score:1)
Once the planet is too warm the situation is analogous to the species being extinct. However, if you prefer a different example :
Activist : "That man's hand was chopped off. Let's see if we can reattach it."
Passivist : "No. He must live without it - there are things in which we Must Not Meddle."
Exploring the distinction between a hand cloned using cells taken from the original and the true original might be interesting. A hand cloned from a cell sample taken 10 years ago would be 10 years younger than the rest of you...
Re:Oh, that's easy. (Score:1)
Darwinism, consumerism, what's the point (Score:1)
These animals did not die out for natural reasons; we slaughtered every last one of them. One could argue this is still Darwinism, and because the remaining Huia's couldn't shoot back or breed fast enough they deserve to die, but this arguement is flawed. That kind of environmentalism means there's no room on the planet for anything but humans, cockroaches, rats, ants, and e-coli.. not very good company.
We can also bring back the dodo, and the whooly mammouth, and there's talk about that too. Restoring parts of the ecosystem we unbalanced is good overall, the problem is we're only going to restore prey not predators, so we'll still be tipping the balance.
Taking this restoration a step further there is evidence that Neanderthal man died out not by natural means but by homo sapiens moving in and killing for territory. If that evidence is true, should we restore neanderthals? I'm not suggesting a yes or a no...
Lastly, what's the point if the boundless appetite of the world just chews them up again?
I live north of Boston, MA... a lot of towns *mandate* new homes built must consume 2 acres of land, presumably to "preserve open space" but really to exclude economic undesirables (they don't say "darkies" in New Hampshire anymore). As a result of the home building boom, most of the land in this area is gone... mile after mile of suburban sprawl. Where's the habitat? How about the environmental damage every time people take their SUV 4 miles to the nearest convenience store .
Save the animals? There's a bigger issue people miss. Like a virus, we consume the planet and slowly kill it.
I'm not heading to the hills like some hermit or advocating anyone else do this (but we could reproduce a little less often - PLEASE). I am saddened that it will take several MAJOR ecological disasters to catch our attention for longer than the average commercial.
I'm just thinking this is so much waste given our habits. Of course, some insensitive redneck will just accuse me of being an unpatriotic anti-capitalist treehugger with no values.
Re:We're monkeys... (Score:1)
I'll bet that you'd find most species would kill unneccesarily, if they had energy to waste.
screw the birds (Score:1)
Re:Not inhumane, just irresponsible :P (Score:1)
Moreover, you are assuming that suppressing the technology will head off the evil effects, which is patently untrue. It's been over fifty years since the last time a nuclear bomb was detonated in anger; yet millions of people today still know the ravages of war. And people have been causing extinctions (both through hunting and through habitat destruction) for a long time now, even without the excuse of reintroducing clones later on. It seems to me that these problems will be solved not by suppressing new technologies, but by addressing their root causes, which in most cases have little to do with technology.
save the planet! kill a human! (Score:1)
> billion or so, which could easily be done in one
> generation, and
Yeah! bring on the death camps!
> 2. Figure out someway of keeping superstitious
> asian men with small penises happy. Viagra
> donations, anyone?
Oh, that's easy. Just castrate them all. That'll also help take care of #1.
</SARCASM>
---
Re:Bad Idea (Score:1)
Don't fight the Mother Nature.
Following that line of logic, we should stop:
birth control (if mother nature says you're gonna have a kid, you should have that kid regardless of the quality of life you can provide for it).
any sort of medical research (cancer, aids, alzheimers...who needs to know anything about that anyway?).
any sort of medical ethics (i.e. pulling the plug, Kevorkianesque euthanasia).
everything else that would advance humankind's knowledge of itself or that has a chance of making the world a better place.
Re:Bad idea (Score:1)
Birds died because of natural selection (Score:1)
Re:Not inhumane, just irresponsible :P (Score:1)
This isn't what would scare me. Hitler sounds like he had the potential to be a really cool guy. The problem I see is that someone might try to raise 1000 Hitlers.
Nature vs. Nurture... I think that Nature is what gives us potential; Nurture is what focuses us on a particular path. As in, you're born (and even clones are born, today anyway) to be any of a million or billion possible individuals. You're nurtured to be exactly one of these.
Hitler's genes didn't lead the Nazi to war- it was his personality.
Re:Bad idea (Score:1)
Umm, we're not cloning the parasites and diseases. If they went extinct, they'll still be dead upon the recloning of the bird.
Now, maybe the Huia bird was only prevented from "world domination" because a disease or parasite kept it in check, and that species died with the Huia. In that case, we're in big trouble... but somehow I doubt it.
Re:Get your Pepsi Cabbits! (Score:1)
Woah, you're eerie, how did you know there was a brick wall to my left?!
*looks around for those hidden wal-mart cameras*
Kintanon PH33Rs 13373 Wal-Mart H4X0Rs Now.
...But you can alleviate them (Score:1)
With such a limited genetic pool, it is unlikely to be feasible in the near future to actually reintroduce a species with any success. But then again, although the cheetah went through a genetic bottleneck (all cheetahs are genetically similar enough that you could graft skin from one to another without a rejection problem), they are still here. Even with the limited genes and the homogenous population, I still say it's better to have the animals/plants than not.
Some problems to be addressed are: habitat destruction - where can we put these animals, if they were driven to extinction by lack of a habitat to survive in; the human factor - if people are hungry, if they need firewood, if they need money, they will continue to hunt these animals and destroy their habitat; then there's that genetic problem - limited genes make for a less healthy population. So they're problems - they can be solved! Maybe not right now, but then again I never thought I'd be around when cloning finally became an option for extinct species - and yes, I have been waiting.
For more information on captive breeding and reintroduction (and maybe a little less dogma
Wildlife Preservation Trust International [wpti.org]
Leilah
Speaking of Disease (Score:1)
Re:Leave nature be (not!) (Score:1)
Um, what he said. I agree completely. Ever hear of a fellow named Heisenberg? He came up with this neat idea that You can't observe something without changing it. (paraphrased).
He was talking about particles at the time, but I think it applies to more than quantum theory. We're not just oberving Earth, though, we're part of it. What's done is done, and until somebody finds a way to affect the past, we're stuck in the now.
Technology isn't going to go away. Especially not something that attracts as much attention as cloning. I think the best we can hope to do is use it responsibly. What, I ask, is more responsible than cleaning up your own mess? If we don't succeed this time, then somebody will try again, somewhere else, with another species. You can count on it.
As someone pointed out earlier, Australia's done fine without the bird for years. So if this attempt fails, we won't have done any terrible damage.
If it succeeds, then we know more about the technology. The next time we use it, we'll know more about just what we're doing. We'll learn more about how species integrate into an ecosystem.
How is this a bad thing?
Re:Cloning (Score:2)
> etc. even to fix a mistake on our part, whats
> to prevent us from having made to order humans
> in the future?
If we *don't* start cloning things now, what's to prevent us from having made to order humans in the future?
In any case, we can't *start* cloning humans and animals now, as we have been doing it for many years already. The big discussion you probably remember from some time ago was about cloning *adults*, not cloning in general.
Cloning is a well established technique, in particular for plants.
Re:Bad idea (Score:1)
phenotypic plasticity (Score:1)
--
Re:Good debate topic (Score:1)
Re:Cancer...AIDS... (Score:1)
-
Asbestos suit - ON (Score:1)
For all the carping Europeans do about us, you'd think they never did a bad thing in all of modern history.
Sheesh...
--Corey
Re:If we really want to stop extinction (Score:1)
Perhaps you are asking for a condom drop over the Vatican. Or hoping the Chinese will 'request' that three of every five citizens 'volenteer' to off themselves.
Or maybe you are thinking of the REALLY easy way of just nuking large areas of the world. Of course, that has some other side effects that doesn't help the situation.
Anyway. It would be perferable if the world didn't have 5+ billion people but dropping it to 2 billion in one generation I don't think is fesable.
The "Blind Cavefish of Mars" effect (Score:1)
Why? Because I think science fiction has people convinced that everything written about in science fiction novels, etc, will be proved true. So, while I hope people would be pretty excited at intelligent life on Mars (or, horrified if they looked like those things in Mars Attacks!) they'd be pretty bored by the concept of blind Martian cave-fish. Or cloning extinct birds as opposed to say, velociraptors or Tyrannosaurus Rex, which would probably be page one news (I hope).
Hope I'm not too off topic here. Any thoughts?
Re:Why they want to clone humans (Score:1)
Pz
Re:Isn't this totally unnatural? (Score:1)
Eventually (I hope) we're going to be heading out to other planets and colonizing the universe. Assuming that there isn't already an atmosphere and life there, we're going to have to terraform the planets we want to live on. Which means we're going to need to take along our own ecosystems. And bottling up a square mile of rainforest will kill your cargo space pretty quickly. Instead, we should take genetic samples of everything on earth. Then we can pack a cloning lab and cases of genetic material in our colony ships, so that they can create the flora and fauna when they get there. Much more space/mass efficient than "cold-sleep" or anything of the sort.
Of course, there are a few problems with this.
1. We don't yet understand too well how everything in nature gets along. We'd have to create all of the appropriate bacteria and fungi and all those other microscopic lifeforms that we don't normally think about but which are a crucial part of the ecosystem.
2. Learned behavior would be lost. But how many animals have a significant amount of learned behavior in the first place? Instinct would be preserved, but we would want to find some way to teach the learned behavior.
2a. How appropriate would earthly learned behavior be on a planet with, say, 3 times our gravity? I imagine getting birds to fly in such an environment would be much harder than just teaching them.
Re:We're monkeys... (Score:1)
Well, they probably are, just they won't end up just like us. But then, it's tough to come up with proof, unless you will live 2 million years or have a camera that will watch...
Re:Spotted Owl lunch meat! (Score:1)
Re:Gene pool too small for species survival? (Score:1)
Re:Bad idea (Score:2)
Massive spraying for mosquitoes kills the larvae which live on the surface of the water among mangrove roots. Many fish feed on these larvae as one of their primary food sources. The massive killing of the larvae caused a precipitous drop in the numbers of these fish. Those drops were blamed on commercial fishermen, and netfishing was banned. Lots of hard-working Floridians were suddenly left without livlihoods.
Worse (in the minds of some) sportfishing declined somewhat as the number of snook and other popular quarries declined. Now, to eat snook commercially, one has to import it from Lake Victoria in Africa.
All because mosquitoes are annoying.
Of course, I'm not complaining too much. They are nasty vectors of disease (I got malaria in Africa from one of the buggers), but is is incredibly arrogant of humans to feel that they can meddle with links of systems that have been in existance for millions of years without causing profound imbalances in those systems.
My two bits.
-awc
natural evolution tastes good - less filling (Score:2)
In the words of the great thinker Homer (Simpson). "We don't need a thinker, we need a do-er! Someone who is willing to take action without considering the consequences!"
--Help me hack root on 127.0.0.1
--panZ
Re:Finally a good cause to use cloning for! (Score:2)
grown on their own in cultures
Or that they can be grown inside the body of the person who needs the spare.
Re:Close, but.... (telomeres) (Score:2)
Re:Science: Fiction as a deterrent (Score:2)
That life mirrors science fiction (or art in general) is only true to a limited extent. The less understood the science in question the less accurate the statement is. Jurassic Park only made use of dribblings of science fact mixed in with a lot more fiction to propel the story along. That's ok, its fiction, it isn't an essay.
Suppose tomorrow we find out somebody has reproduced dinosaurs on an isolated island in the south pacific. Also suppose that these people abandon it for whatever reason. If certain predators such as the velociraptor were as efficient as portrayed in the movie the population would quickly die out. The birth rate of what the velociraptor consider foods just wouldn't be fast enough to maintain its food supply. The large herbivores would defoliate the island quicker than new foilage could grow.
The point is that the book was written with a goal in mind: Dinosaurs run amock due to the capricious actions of scientific man. A certain amount of science fact to make the recreation of dinosaurs plausible was added. A whole lot of abuse of science went on to not only let the island run away but generate a sequel (or is it at 2 sequels now?)
These extinct birds are a lot more understood than dinosaurs as well. Details such as its diet, flight range, mating habits and any special dietary staples may well be known. So for instance if it prefers to dine on an insect which is also preferred to be dined on by a 'modern' avian then it can be taken into consideration. Hopefully this is being done otherwise these people aren't scientists.
... paved with good intentions! (Score:2)
OK, folks, this sounds all nice and noble, but it is a damn bad idea. Some of these points have already been made; others have not. But here goes:
1. If the attitude becomes "don't worry, we can always clone 'em later," we'll have no reason to protect endangered species anymore. This is bad, because
2. At the present time, cloning is not sufficiently advanced to be a truly viable replacement for reproduction. And seeing as how there's only that one cloned sheep running around, has anyone checked to see whether or not Dolly is capable of reproduction? We could be pseudo-breeding a bunch of sterile animals, and have to keep cloning them, in which case the quality of the genetic "copies" will degrade in much the way that a copy of a copy of a copy etc. of an audio tape does.
3. Introducing a species into an ecosystem, without full knowledge of how it interacts with the stuff that's already there, is a BAD IDEA . Cases in point: the Australian feral cat problem, chestnut blight, and even some attempts to reintroduce captivity-bred endangered species into the wild.
4. That reminds me, do cloned animals have the same "survival instincts" that their normally-bred counterparts do? The whole thing could become a big old exercise in futility if not.
I understand the nobility of the instinct. But you know what is paved with good intentions
"The bats are doing just fine. There are hundreds of them. I have a terrible feeling we're in trouble." -Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See
they are extinct for a reason (Score:3)
I'm waiting for a saber tooth tiger to gaurd my lawn
-eric
So many animals... (Score:5)
Cloning of extinct species (Score:2)
Salis
Re:Stop the whole crap, even good intentions (Score:2)
I don't see any problems with disease resistant plants. And I would have no problems with being disease resistant myself ('cept that they can't use the same methods, for many and varied reasons). While I suppose it is possible for the crops to become weeds, if it's done right (which requires research and experimentation), then there will not be problems
I also have no problems with experimentation on animals, and yes, humans. Being a furry and a transformationist, that's actually one of the things I look forward to in the next few decades (I wanna new body!).
Experimentation on humans also has major medical benefits. If your kidney was becoming disfunctional, would you rather they grow you a new one from your own cells (or DNA at least), or have to wait and, maybe, get one from a donor? I'd rather have the first, myself.
Knowlege is a valuable thing, and all stopping the research will do is slow down the increase in knowlege. It won't stop it, as illicit research will still continue, but it will make it be in the hands of those who would use it to do exactly what those who wish to stop the research are fearing. And we will have no defense, no way to counter it.
I'd say biotech is one of the best things to happen to us this century. Without it, many of the advance that proponents of nanotech envision would be impossible (particularly medical nano). Without it, we would be unable to grow skin for burn victims, and, according to some reports, soon entire new organs.
Rhys Dyfrgi
---
Not inhumane, just irresponsible :P (Score:2)
OK, so I can perfectly grow a sack or five of spare parts, and have no fear of ruining my body, because I can just pop a new liver, set of lungs, or whatever in?
Yeah, sure. I bet the tobacco industry would just love that. *smirk*
Of course, this logic falls apart at a few critical points: how bad does your quality of life due to the malfunctioning organ have to degrade before it's time for a replacement?
Also, even if I can just pop in a new heart after a few too many five-egg omelettes with lots of nice greasy bacon, that's not going to fix my blood vessels. Do we have to clone those too?
And of course, eventually folks will run out of quality replacement parts, and whatever bad habits have been established are going to be even trickier to break (smoking, too much alcohol, too much caffeine, too much fat). It's not going to make us immortal.
Why are they extinct? (Score:2)
As man takes over more and more natural habitats and destroys the homes of these creatures, we are killing them and the only way of life they know. Will cloning them stop that destruction? No.
The Great Panda is going extinct from this destruction and the fact that they don't mate all that often. The only thing that kept them around before was a large enough space to have a large enough population to overcome the slow reproduction rate. Is cloning going to solve the space issue?
In the case of the Huia bird the reason they are extinct is that man hunted them down. Cloning might work in this case... but it won't in all others.
Persnickity
Re:Bad idea (Score:3)
We are a part of nature too! So if we interfere, this interference is part of natural evolution. Many people seem to believe that man made stuff is unnatural, as if we were something special next to nature.
Consider this: :)
This bird has of course an evolutionary advantage, as it is able to be cute enough in our view to motivate some effort to genetically restaurate it (as much as this is possible). You can bet that some ancient 10ft tall slimy hairy monster creature that went extinct won't get this privilege.
(I assume that billg or some other weirdo with bucks is not a big fan of ancient 10ft tall slimy hairy creatures
Re:Not inhumane, just irresponsible :P (Score:2)
In the specific case of nuclear "stuff," it's tightly regulated for various reasons (not just the potential for some crazy person to blow us all up, but also for the potential of some careless person making others very sick with radiation poisoning). I'm not saying that scientists shouldn't be allowed to study cloning, but I'd really rather they weren't getting government funding to perfect it. I also have always believed that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
What's the Impact? (Score:4)
Return of the birdies part XII (Score:3)
But something went wrong. Something went very wrong in the laboratory, which had fatal precussions.
From director John Woo. Starring Bruce Willis as a farmer from New Zealand, and Gary Oldman as the master of the Huia-birds.
Coming soon to a park or forest near you.
Re:Not inhumane, just irresponsible :P (Score:2)
It would be nice, wouldn't it? However, legislating that X technology should/shouldn't be used is a heck of a lot easier than persuading people to be ethical, responsible, and/or intelligent.
Granted, it is the easy way out. I'd rather that society as a whole become more ethical, responsible, and intelligent. However, I'd rather not [be blown up by a nuclear bomb/have some idiot clone 1000 Hitlers/allow people to hunt a species to extinction because "we can always clone it later"/etc.] while waiting for society to mold itself into what I wish it was.
Good debate topic (Score:2)
Ethically, I think it makes perfect sense to undo damage that we have done. From a purely species-centric standpoint, more biodiversity makes for a more beautiful planet, as well as a healthier environment for us, overall. From an altruistic standpoint, our arrogance and shortsighted selfishness caused the extinction in the first place, and if we have the opportunity to undo our actions, we should.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Re:Leave nature be (Score:2)
The tampering was done in the 1920s when man made hats out of the entire popupation. In a sense, this is an attempt to minimise that impact.
Re:great idea (Score:2)
Which from a evolutionary point of view is a perfectly good reason as it gives you an increased chance of mating with women of objectionable ethics.
This is NOT a good idea... (Score:2)
First, you see, you need to find intact DNA of the birds. Considering how long it has been, finding intact DNA of a Huia bird is going to be exceedingly difficult, particularly since you need to find the DNA of more than one (at the absolute least you need one male and one female).
One male and one female, however, is hardly enough. You need to find hundreds. Why? Well, consider this: if you clone two birds and mate them, the offspring will all be siblings by definition. Who, now, do you mate these with? Your only choice is to mate them with each other. This leads to an entire species of inbred birds, which (because the birds would inherit every single recessive gene which the parents posessed) would be devastating to the gene pool (even more so than unrestricted hunting, which is why cloning animals of an endangered species also would not work).
Our technology isn't at the point where engineering the necessary differences into hundreds of clones is a feasible thing. We haven't even mapped out the Huia bird genome yet; that alone will take years (if it's even possible, given that the species is extinct so the effects of the various genes cannot be observed).
That's the thing. This would be a great idea, if it could be done. But with our current technology, it can't. We're simply not at that point yet. It's a good dream to have, but for now that's all it will remain: a dream. Any attempts to do this now will result in nothing but millions of wasted dollars, money better spent developing the technology that will make this dream actually work.
Cross and back breeding (Score:2)
That problem may be solvable by cross breeding with a similar bird, and then selectivly breeding the offspring back to the original genome. That is already being done with a few species where it wasn't possable to find enough breeding pairs to produce a robust gene pool.
The result isn't exactly the original species, but it is close, and has enough genetic diversity to be viable.
Effect on Ecosystem (Score:2)
Man, I wish scientists would actually be a little more broad-minded about what they're doing.
Technology use and abuse (Score:2)
As I've seen posted online elsewhere "If I invoke the deity Electricity, it doesn't matter from its perspective whether I use its power to light my house or electrocute my neighbor. The society I live in will have definite opinions on the matter, however."
Nothing wrong with progress or with scientific research. Lots of things wrong with progress-for-its-own-sake. I'm also VERY "iffy" on genetic-based science thanks to my experiences in the les/bi/gay community. Find us a conclusive "gay gene," and folks will start aborting genetically gay fetuses. OTOH, find "straight" folk with the "gay gene," and the fundies get more proof that we're a bunch of perverts who can change if we really WANT to. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. It sucks.
I'm not sure what the answer is. Disallow "abusive" uses of new technology? "Abusive" by whose standards? Like I said before, we can't just "implant" a moral code of any kind into someone's brain. [See the previous paragraph for one very obvious way in which this fails
The thing that you can't ignore, however, is the very real extent to which politics drives scientific and medical "discoveries." (Compare the history of Viagra with the history of either the Pill or RU486 sometime
Re:Leave nature be (Score:3)
Nuts and berries forever!
While at it (Score:2)
Some thoughts... (Score:5)
Second, if this thing does work, it will be very interesting to see how they plan on reestablishing an entire species population from one (or a few) cloned birds. There is a common problem in genetics called a bottleneck. Every animal of a species contains specific genes for certain traits. When the population is reduced so greatly, the genes for some traits are lost forever. (Someone with some experience in genetics can correct if i'm (likely) wrong here). Some genes are lost forever. So the species that will result from this cloning project won't be a nearly as diverse as the original.
Anyway, I know this has been a problem for species like the California Condor, when its population dropped so low.
Third, Dolly the clone is having some serious genetic problems right now. She is not a normal sheep. She is aging quicker, because her very first embryonic cell was not a fresh cell like a normal embryo, but an already aged cell from her
"mother." I wonder what effect this will have on the birds if their entire species is founded this way...? Will they only live half the normal life-span of their original counterparts?
Anyway, I like the idea. I don't have any ethical problems with it, but I think there a lot of practical problems that need to be addressed, and I wouldn't expect this species to miraculously reappear in New Zealand, healthy and unchanged from its original.
LL
Re:Technology use and abuse (Score:2)
Well, you see, there's this other problem with scientific research. It has this interesting tendency to reinforce any bias that might already exist on the part of the scientist or the society that reads (and frequently misinterprets) the scientific research. Phrenology, anyone? Penis envy, how's that for a TRULY inane concept? And more recently, the psychiatry-created epidemic of MPD and "recovered memories" (don't have the link in front of me; go hang out at www.religioustolerance.org if you're interested).
And YES, it is absolutely the best idea to deal with ethical issues head-on. I would certainly not say anything to the contrary. But this is NOT being done, in most cases. You either get one extreme (the inane hoops that have to be jumped through to prove that certain medications are safe, for instance, when it's pretty darn obvious that they are), or you get the other (raising endangered species in captivity and then wondering why there is a problem when reintroducing them to the wild).
One of the biggest problems is that to a lot of people, Science is God. And to a lot of other people, God is Science. Pretty much precludes ANY discussion on moral issues between the two extremes. "All scientific advances are progress and must be encouraged at all costs" vs. "I don't see that in the Bible, so it must be evil."
The chances of a rational ethical debate in this society at large are almost nil, I fear. [And going with the off-topic bit: Yes, I agree that the gay community segment that is supporting genetic research is shooting itself in the proverbial foot. However, given that some people will Only Listen To Science, it's all that segment thinks it has to go on.]
I suppose this is one issue where the questions are more valuable than the answers, but do you really believe that the majority of the population is going to bother to think this through rather than knee-jerking one way or another? *wry smile*
You can't reverse the mistakes... (Score:3)
By saying that it's okay to clone previously-extinct creatures, we would be condoning even more widespread unnecessary slaughter of creatures. Poachers would feel even more justified in their actions because the scientists could just clone up some more. Farms of once-vanished creatures would spring up to stock hunting preserves.
We should let them lie in peace, and learn our lesson from their absence. Destroying creatures for any reason besides preservation of our own lives (either to serve as a source of nutrition or in self-defense) is an abhorrent practice. If learning that means we have a few guilt trips from time to time, then so be it.
Re:Cloning (Score:2)
As for Gattica, and people with defects being considered "less than human", I invite you to spend some time observing people today. (in America; I don't know if this holds true in other countries) Listen to reports of people getting pulled over by police for DWB (driving while black). Watch tv news reports of white supremacist churches. Visit a junior high, and look at how the fat kids are treated, or how the ones with thick glasses are treated. All the horror of Gattaca exists today. And we don't even see people as less than human because they have "defects". We look down on them simply because they are visibly different from us.
Science: Fiction as a deterrent (Score:4)
The public loves to see science gone awry and so science fiction authors and script writers use scientific cause and effect hyperbole to make money. This is a shame because in reality science and the scientific method has helped mankind more than its harmed it. Plagues were dampened in the bad old days by the scientific method: A statician noticed a correlation between disease outbreaks and proximities to contaminated water. The scientific method kept our ancestors alive: Eating berries from this bush makes us ill. Science brought us vaccines, analgesics, anti-inflamattories etc.
This doesn't mean blindly accept all scientific concepts or endeavours, but don't point at by-and-large poorly written science fiction as evidence.
NZ Ecosystem, Huia (Score:2)
I doubt that re-introducing the Huia will disrupt the ecosystem that much. There may be a problem that some of its food sources are now scarce though, which could make its continued survival difficult.
NZ has some really interesting (many extinct) animals. Some would be 'interesting' to clone - the moa, which was bigger than the emu, and an eagle that could hunt moa - now that had a seriously big wing-span (imagine if that crapped on your windscreen)
BTW, there is some serious searching going on at the moment as there may be evidence that the Huia is not extinct. A similar thing happened with the Takahe, which was believed (until fairly recently) to be extinct. Also, blaming its extinction on whites is being somewhat politically correct - the Maori played quite a large part in decimating this bird too.
Nice thought, bad principle (Score:3)
Granted, this case of cloning birds is silly. This is being done as a PR stunt for the cloning industry to show the positive uses of cloning. Since it's politically correct to help animals, people will have a hard time arguing with this.
But as a general principle, "leave nature alone" is simply not an option. Unless you decide to execute 80% of the population, we have to tamper with nature, or nature will execute those people the slow way. Our only option is to try and understand the complex system we are living in a minimize unwanted side-effects.
Tampering with nature does produce unexpected consequences, but if we do our job right, the benefits outweigh the consequences. Penecillin saved millions of lives (perhaps even a billion), but it generated some drug resistant diseases. Do we regret penecillin? No. Someday we might, but as long as we can stay ahead of the bacteria, we'll be okay.
Or how about the plow? That gave us agriculture, (which gave us cities, etc.) but also indirectly helped cause the overpopulation problem we have today. Do I regret being well-fed? No! I have faith that we will figure out a way to deal with overpopulation.
So, you're right that "every time we tamper with nature, it has led to unexpected consequences." It has also led to some expected consequences which are often beneficial to us. The only decision we have to make is which is more significant.
What flavor do these birds come in? (Score:2)
Origional, barb, etc
In life, there is no UNDO button (Score:2)
Cloning something that we've either driven into extinction, or that has died out on it's own, is playing God.
I strongly believe in Darwinism, and if the animal died out for natural reasons (without humans being the accountable cause) then we must leave nature be.
If the animal died out as a result of direct human abuse, then by bringing it back we are openning the door to further exploitation of that animal. This would not only be cruel to the reanimated species, but to all others, since the sense of human responsibility vis a vis the environment would diminish.
Once we see that we can be irresponsible with life, simply because we have the means to reverse extinction, we will be less willing to stop ourselves. Consider pachyderm hunting. It is now illegal to kill elephants and rhinoscerosesusesi for tusks and horns. It still happens, but the governments forbid it. If governments had the means of assuring that the animal will not go extinct, then the hunting bans would be lifted or relaxed, or at least, bribing officials would become even more common. In either case, the animals would be slain left and right.
We may be able to bring back the dead, in terms of species, but we'd be less respectful of the lives of individual animals (for one) and the welfare of entire species (for another) if we knew that all we have to do is splice some genes, and prosto chango!! We can all have a pet do-do bird, carrier pigeon, or velociraptor.
This is all just my opinion, but we get one chance at life after all. If we die (you, me, individually) we may be cloned as individuals too - but it won't be 'us' anymore. We only get one chance through this world, and if we screw it up, it's a lesson we have to learn, and a consequence we - and those who follow - must face.
Wow man! (Score:3)
Re:What's the Impact? (Score:2)
Re:Close, but.... (Score:3)
Close, but.... (Score:2)