Scientists Hope to Clone Woolly Mammoth 215
&y writes "Yes, and they appear to be serious. Here's a quote from the Seattle Times article: "When asked why scientists are trying to bring back a mammal that lived so long ago, Agenbroad said: 'Why not? I'd rather have a cloned mammoth than another sheep.'" A very convincing argument indeed."
Rich people ... (Score:1)
Of course, it will be interesting to see whether the newly cloned mammoth will be an endangered species
choice of animal (Score:1)
This is a mistake! (Score:1)
only guy on the block (Score:1)
Disease (Score:1)
OTOH, the mammoth itself could be a danger to humans for what its body may produce. A bacteria, virus, etc. could infect said mammoth, not effect, but mutate said bacteria/virus/fungus/whatever, infect a human and from there our hypothetical disease would destroy the human race.
Okay, so maybe I'm exagerating a little, but I can't believe no one has taken that into account the possble dangers to the mammoth and the environment it lives in before even considering this cloning experiment. Other than that these potential factors I think this is an interesting idea and I'm interested to see if they have any success.
-Alec C.
Just a few opinions... (Score:1)
I just don't have much of a problem with this idea, and don't understand many of the sentiments of
The opinion of many
It also seems that everyone has taken sci-fi movies a bit too seriously! I'm sorry but Jurassic Park is NOT a real valid reason to be against this kind of research! There are many valid technical and ethical reasons, but "because the dinos in JP/JP2 went nuts and killed everyone" in not one of them!
Now, about the aritcle, although I guess I could be counted as a supporter of this line of research (and others to restore both extinct/severely endangered species), but I believe that there are MANY more technical reasons that this isn't possible than ethical. I believe that if we could achieve this, it would be an absolute goldmine for biologists, paleontologists, paleobiologists, etc. But, as one stated earlier, the genetic damage from thousands of years frozen might have made cloning impossible(although I think I recall that elephants are VERY similar to mammoths and thus could help). I also believe that the lack of knowledge on the ecology and health requriements might hinder the project, but then again, our current understanding of elephant nutrition/physical requirements might be enough.
Also, as someone has previously mentioned, this would not be an attempt to bring a whole species back but a few individuals, so while this is still great for biologists, but ecologists can be assured that no rouge herd of rampaging mammoths will take over the siberian tundra! The ecological concerns are more important for species that are much harder to control, but a mammoth is NOT one of them (nor is the Tasmanian wolf). Look at elephant populations in Africa now - if we wanted too, we could probably kill the rest of the wild African elephant species in two decades at most. Thus even if we could bring back a mammoth species, it would not invade the world's ecosystem, as other alien, foreign-introduced species have (australian rabbits, cane toads, etc. Dutch Elm Fungus, etc).
In closing, I guess I see much more benefit from the knowledge that could be gained from even the attempt(I don't doubt that biologists would learn a lot about genetics/cloning even if the attempt ultimately failed), than possible harm. As for whether the research couldn't be better spent elsewhere, that issue does have some merit. However, the argument could be used against many other fields (space explorations, non-medical biology, heck, paleontology in general), also more $$ towards a research goal, or humanitarian goal in general (hunger, crime, etc) does not necessarily bring about faster, and/or more effective results. Oh well, I wish the researchers in this, and the many other similar projects the best of luck, and hey, in several years, maybe I'll join their research!
Respectfully,
Kevin W. Christie
kwchri@maila.wm.edu
Re:A la 'Jurrassic Park'? (Score:2)
Other ways of doing the same thing (Score:1)
This has obviously been possible for centuries, but he also has the benefit of being able to compare the original quagga DNA with his current generation.
I dont think it's going to be fast tho, iirc he's set up a foundation to carry on his work.
Re:Position vacant... (Score:1)
Unfortunetly, it only works under Irix 5.3 and below, so I can't run it at work.
Re:Position vacant... (Score:1)
Could it survive? (Score:2)
The article doesnt mention anything about if the animal could survive. When I think of a wooly mammoth I think big hairy elephant that lives in the snow. Would it be able to eat etc? What would the effects of bringing this animal back have on its food source? (i.e What if it eats manatees or some other endangered plant/animal). Haphazardly bringing animals back to life just because it would be cool doesnt sound like a good idea.
Er.. (Score:1)
What to do about rampage? (Score:1)
(Damn, I hope someone knows what I'm talking about.)
Not quite a mammoth (Score:1)
I wonder how many of the important phenotype differences between mammoths and elephants can be (even partly) attributed to mitochondrial mutations?
Playing God (Score:2)
Maybe it just from reading one too many Sci Fi books, but somehow the idea of bringing back an animal that had its chance and went extinct anyhow just seems plain wrong. I can't really intellectualize why it seems wrong, but it does.
Of course, it might just be that my racial memory is urging me to charge the beast and stick a spear into its side....
----
Re:Playing God (Score:2)
----
Re:Playing God (Score:1)
Now this is a pretty simplistic example, and not too terrible in terms of human life lost. But how about when geneticists get cocky, and for example, bring back smallpox, or make AIDS communicable by simple air. Not so simple.
I'm all for progress. But we mustn't get ahead of ourselves. For the first time in history, we have at our disposal more than we understand - more than we're mentally and ethically ready to accept. This isn't the sort of thing we can do lightly, because it brings up so many interesting and difficult questions later on. Why did the mammoth go extinct? Was it a climate change? If so, why would it live now? If not, what killed it? Was it humans? Why wouldn't we just kill it again? Could it survive? Why suffer another mammoth to live on this earth when all its kin are gone? Wouldn't that be a terribly lonely existence?
I'm encouraging further thought. Clone a wooly mammoth. Heck, clone a human. Do whatever, and then wash your hands of the consequences - it was in the name of science, after all. Don't accept responsibility for your actions. Or - do accept responsibility, and maybe think "Ok, so we can bring wooly mammoths back. Should they be brought back? I did see Jurassic Park, after all."
Re:Playing God (Score:1)
Sure, we don't have much cosmic importance. We're a tiny mote on a tiny planet orbiting a small star on the arm of an average galaxy flying through infinite space. But, another way to look at it is: We're all we are likely to find! We're all that matters to us! If we wreck us, what else is there?
Re:Playing God (Score:2)
The problem with tinkering with life is that we don't really understand it. Nuclear reactors? sure, we pretty much understand them. The physics of throwing a ball? pretty simple, really, given that you don't want to put relativity into the equation (and who would, on such a short distance?) But Life? That's a bit too steep an order. Whether God caused us to be by sheer force of will, or He caused a comet to crash into the earth carrying amino acids, or whatever happened, God or no, we don't understand the process fully. We couldn't hope to recreate it. It's when you're dealing with things like life and genetics that you start to question why or if you should do certain things.
Takes a lot of biologists to do that (Score:2)
Why not? (Score:1)
(sarcasm) YEAH LET'S HAX0R THE MOTHERSHIP WITH A POWERMAC FIZZNUGGETSDFWF#$@$! (/sarcasm)
Ahem.Now, I don't know much about genetics because I hate biology; however I don't see why we shouldn't do this. Let's see our arguments here:
I say just let the scientists do their jobs. I personally find it a little sicker to clone a human being. Besides what's the worst that can happen, they get foreign architects to build the cage in centimeters and provide the information in inches?
(hehe.)Do a sabre toothed cat next! (Score:1)
I'd like to see mamoths, sabre toothed cats, some of those horse/elephant type beasts they had there for a while, maybe some neaderethals (you know, the cats need to eat their natural food..)
Humane (Score:1)
I'd rather suffer a quick, semi painful electrical jolt, then loss of consciousness, than:
Slowly waste away over a period of months from cancer, after several unsuccessful years of chemo, radiation, and massive surgery. (as opposed to the Kervorkian alternative)
Bleed to death with my head sticking out of a shattered windshield, watching my insides ooze all over the dashboard, and onlookers in the other lanes creep by at ten miles an hour to get a peek. (because I couldn't afford a nice new Lexus with crumple-zones, antilock brakes, and airbags)
Hang by my entrails from a mountainside tree where my 737 crashed, and slowly roast as the spilled fuel burns below. (Because the govt. decided to not crack down on airline safety due to lobbying efforts of airplane manufacturers)
Suffer multiple gunshot wounds in my back from two LAPD police officers who didn't like the color of my skin.
Starve to death over a period of months because my government felt I should be a farmer instead of a grocer - even though there was no unfarmed land left.
Be the last in my village to be hacked to peices by machette due to tribal warfare.
As you can see - when you try to define the word "humane", if you really examine things, it's quite ironic.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:What DNA? (Score:1)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:Cool! (Score:1)
Wool from woolly mammoth - probably a lot scratchier.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:Cool! (Score:1)
Wool from woolly mammoth - probably a lot scratchier.
- - the other thing they have to worry about is Mitochondrial DNA - will be from the mother, not from the DNA source animal.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Re:What do we do with all the cows? (Score:1)
If that was supposed to be an argument against vegetarianism, it's just about the silliest I've ever heard...
Re:I wish them luck (Score:2)
Otherwise, you get massive inbreeding. That would be even more destrictuve to the mammoths than unrestricted hunting would.
Re:duh. (Score:1)
Re:Interesting, but it won't work (Score:1)
Not that I think that is very important compared to the enormous suffering of the to-be-meat-persons, but still...
Cooool (Score:1)
And "flamebait"? Maybe, byt if some christians want to flame don't punish the poster. This is actually a cool idea worth considering!
Re:this is verY old news. (Score:1)
dated august 19, 1996. thats over three years ago.
i had thought that intelligent people would be informed of such a thing and recognize that this is, in fact, very old news.
obviously i was mistaken.
Re:Climate? (Score:1)
cloning vs. gene expression (Score:1)
Re:stone-age cops (Score:1)
Re:cloning vs. gene expression (Score:1)
anyway, It was just an idea....I think it would be neat if we quit cloning and spent some more time working on isolating the gene(s) that are responsible for mental disorders, multiple schlerosis, alzheimers, etc. From there, we could use our knowledge of genetics that we obtained from cloning to splice non-disease genes in place of the ones that do cause disease...
just my $0.02
Re:Playing God (Score:1)
--
Re:Playing God (Score:1)
Religion versus science debates really irk me. Both are talking about the same things just from different perspectives. Religious folks tend to personify science.
I think it was Einstein who said something like his work allowed him to see into the mind of God. It's simply easier for us humans to personify science and nature.
A romantic notion, but it'll never happen (Score:1)
Re:Interesting, but it won't work (Score:2)
Re:A la' Jurrassic Park'? (Score:1)
We already have problems with animals still alive (Score:1)
Then again, it would be really cool to be the only guy on the block with a wooly mamoth! Hrm... wonder if the village has any laws about that....
Re:This is one of the.. (Score:1)
They're NEVER get past that. Har har har.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Re:Interesting, but it won't work (Score:1)
Absolutely not. The sharing of information between scientific disciplines is one of the main factors responsible for the rate at which our knowledge is advancing.
If all scientists were to focus in on one single issue, the solution would be found later, not sooner.
At least that's how it seems to me...
Hmmm... (Score:2)
I'm not against cloning, but I tend to agree that the reason that was quoted is simply not good enough. Cloning for the sake of cloning is asking for trouble. Moral and ethical issues aside, the tone of the argument suggests a blatant lack of consideration for the consequences and responsibilities that come along with trying to bring back a long dead creature, such as the mammoth. In the Seatle Times article they follow up the "Why not..." quote with another with another reason, to the effect of trying to find out what happened to the mammoth so we might be able to prevent it from happening to current species. While a more idealisting goal, I suppose, fail to see how the goal would be accomplished by this cloning.
Perhaps the second, more idealistic, reason is good enough. But the owner of the mindset that spawned the first argument probably should not be in the lead on this cloning project, nor any other. But then again neither should I, so who am I to say anything.
Bloom County (Score:2)
Oliver may or may not have used his Banana Junior, 6000 Series, 32 bit, 450 KByte, fully portable personal computer (with Bananawrite, Bananadraw, Bananamanager, and Bananafile) in his endeavours.
Remember kids, Gene Simmons never had a personal computer when he was a kid.
Agenbroad is not a geneticist (Score:3)
If one wants more info about Agenbroad, go to the NAU web site [nau.edu] and do a search.
Re:duh. (Score:1)
I wish them luck (Score:1)
However this does raise the question of whether or not we should be establishing a bank of samples from endangered species. Even if they go extinct, we could still have the possiblity of bringing them back at some point in the future.
Does anyone know of any efforts along this direction?
Ben
It does matter - see the article (Score:2)
Cheers,
Ben
This is one of the.. (Score:2)
What DNA? (Score:1)
So runs conventional wisdom.
In reality, even "dead for 70 million years" T. Rex somehow managed to have whole blood cells survive to our time. Methinks it resembles a weasel - but stinks of fish. In particular, "dead for 70 million years" Coelecanth, which you can buy in Indonesian fish markets today.
Extinction doesn't prevent evolution (Score:1)
Because humans exist as part of nature, anything we do is a completely natural process. In addition, let's define fitness as 'the ability to exploit natural processes for propagating DNA patterns'. This seems to imply that animals that are able to exploit the natural process of the human tendancy to ressurect animals and plants that we see as "cool" would be evolutionary fit.
As such, the cloning of 'extinct' species (which presumably means those species that don't currently have any living representatives) is every bit a legitmate method of DNA propagation as sexual reproduction. Given millions or billions of years of cloning being part of the natural process of DNA propagation, the ability to take advantage of that may be more important to long term survival than any other method. It's theoretically possible that life could develop, or we could develop life that relies completely upon cloning for survival (read: Terminator gene technology).
Re:Cool! (Score:1)
the similarities between the elephant/mammoth should benefit the young mammoth, i would think, but shouldn't contaminate the young'n enough to raise much question about whether or not the experiment worked...scientists and journalists will just have to turn to other aspects of the experiment to flame each other over.
Re:duh. (Score:1)
:)
Re:duh. (Score:2)
It seems most likely they were hunted to extinction. They'd die out again now because there simply isn't enough gene stock for them to survive. That and it's just not cold where elephants would tend to feed now.
they have close relatives... (Score:1)
People and "Natural Selection" (Score:1)
If "people kill all the XXXX" can be considered part of natural selection, then it only seems fair that "later people dig up some DNA and somehow come up with more XXXX" should also be considered part of natural selection.
Re:Playing God (Score:1)
Razor Blue, TechnoMage
shackled to tranquility / silenced for eternity / four walls no windows / in your bounding box
Re:Playing God (Score:1)
Razor Blue, TechnoMage
shackled to tranquility / silenced for eternity / four walls no windows / in your bounding box
Re:A romantic notion, but it'll never happen (Score:1)
Millions of people die every year due to (fill in the blank).
So what. We are all going to die. More people are dying of cancer because they aren't being killed by other diseases/causes at an earlier age.
The fact that X people die from some disease is no reason not to spend money on the arts and sciences. NIH already gets more money than NASA, not to mention other spending on health research.
War, disease, poverty and death are not going to disappear, no matter how much money we spend.
Re:2 isn't enough (Score:1)
Cheetahs, for example, are all almost genetically identical. They come from an extremely small population that survived the last ice age (there are theories that it ws a single, pregnant female...). One effect of having a very inbred population is that genetic defects express themselves and "fall out" of the gene pool. You get a high attrition rate (probably) in the first N generations, but after that it stabilizes.
Of course, you have the long term problem of lack of variability in the species, and adaptability problems that come with it. The cheetah is very much a "niche" predator.
Hey, Lets clone Einstien (Score:1)
Re:Call me crazy but... (Score:1)
Moral (Score:2)
Re:Playing God (Score:1)
I was about to start responding to posts with "the baloney detection kit" myself.
Re:Position vacant... (Score:1)
Re:Climate? (Score:2)
My guess is that, since they are mammals, and thus warm blooded animals, that there is a certain threshold in which they can live.
Re:Climate? (Score:1)
Re:Playing God (Score:1)
Re:People and "Natural Selection" (Score:1)
If natural selection were left unchecked, the Indians (US, not Asia) would have hunted the buffalo to extinction. They certainly could have found uses for the creatures, they didn't waste a single part of them.
The problem is that if they'd done that, they would have put themselves on a course for extinction by destroying their food source.
Natural selection is a very complex equation, with many variables acting upon the whole. The indians avoided extinction by adapting -- by not hunting their primary prey to extinction. They did this not through instinct, but because they KNEW they needed to let buffalo continue to breed and such. Only after "the white man" came, did the buffalo get slaughtered. We didn't need them for survival, so we weren't inclined to protect them the way the indians had. By that time, there were other food sources for the indians, so they didn't face extinction either.
Re:We already have problems with animals still ali (Score:2)
A couple reality checks for you...
1. The Wooly Mammoth is extinct by the hand of man. Early man hunted the mammoth to extinction in a manner almost exactly the same as what we have done to several whale species.
2. Kindly define for me - in logical terms - the difference between "natural selection" and "destroyed by man". Man (homo sapiens) is an animal just like any other, and a very vicious predatorial one at that. Just as the wolf's superiority might lead to one of its prey's extinction while another (more adaptable) prey might survive, there are no animals that have become extinct for any reason other than Natural Selection. If man (the top of the food chain) changed their environment, and they were unable to adapt to the polluted environment, that's natural selection. If man hunted the whales to the brink of extinction because the whales couldn't figure out NOT to swim near the whaling boats, that's natural selection.
I can certainly understand your point, but you also have to realize that natural selection encompasses ANY reason a species goes extinct. Whether it is a predator hunting them down or an inability to cope with a changing environment, a species will either adapt itself (as many species have) or it will become extinct. To say that one species deserves "protection" over another is simply wrong. They are all equally extinct (or endangered).
Re:Rich people ... (Score:1)
Can you imagine how disappointed those rich people will be when they find out that it just tastes like chicken?
---
Have a Sloppy day!
This is less dangerous than you think (Score:2)
Thrakkerzog, you have made an honest mistake. You probably think the wooly mammoth is...
Obviously, there would be grave risks in cloning such an animal. Fortunately, though, the animal you're actually thinking about is the wooly llama, not the mammoth. So I wouldn't worry.---
Have a Sloppy day!
Re:Climate? (Score:2)
As long as they have enough to form a herd, and wolves aren't too big a threat. Wherever Moose live, I guess, you could put a Wooly Mammoth.
-AS
Cool! (Score:3)
But if that's the case, we could also clone rhinos and elephants and other rare/endangered species, right?
However, the shortened teleomeres thing might put a damper on things. Also the fact that we need to take into account the 1 successful birth out of like 11 successful implantations out of 200 eggs created out of like 1000 attempts, or whatever the astronomical odds are.
Plus, are we just going to use elephants as hosts?
What about genetic incompatibility or contamination? Elephant antibodies and such?
-AS
Re:Playing God (Score:2)
Every time a technological advance comes along, it can (and usually is) viewed by some people as 'playing god'.
2 isn't enough (Score:2)
Having two mammoths isn't enough to sustain a reproducing population. The bare minimum amount of unique genomes necessary to breed a single baby mammoths (from two mammoths) is 1, and it must be male so that you have a Y chromosome. However, the offspring will be inbred, and suffer from all sorts of horrible problems such that they are unlikely to reach the age of reproduction. Even if you have two unique mammoth genomes, the second generation will inbreed.
The figure I seem to remember for mammals is 500 unique genomes to sustain a population, and that's really the minimum. For a species that's been extinct for tens of thousands of years, I'd guess we'd need much more than that. The wider the gene pool, the more likely that natural selection will be able to pick genes that might have been rare at the time, but now would be helpful to our woolly friends.
So in other words, a single mammoth might be a neat little trick, and we might learn something from it, but don't expect to see them wandering in your national park of choice any time soon.
Re:lets clone jesus (Score:3)
- code AIs for you
- fun at lan parties (plays a mean game of Quake)
- gets along well with sentient computers and RPN calculators
- doesn't like sushi
Re:Playing God (Score:2)
Unless you define your god as "a fertile female,"
then I don't know how you can seriously claim your
god creates life. Or have you recently found even
a single shred of proof to back your claims up
about the origin of life?
I'm not trying to start a religious flame war
again, but in one corner we have some facts, and
in the other corner we've got some books written
by religious (not scientific) people thousands of
years ago and transcribed/translated a million
times throughout the years.
You're entitled to your opinions, and you're
entitled not to mess with genetics if you don't
want to, but why would you think it's OK to
impose your beliefs against geneticism in order
to prevent SOMEONE ELSE from working on it? Are
you afraid your god will punish you for what
someone else is doing?
While you may consider genetics "playing god,"
I merely consider it another scientific step
towards understanding the origin of life and how
the universe works.
"The problem with tinkering with life is that we don't really understand it."
Duh! That's the whole point of these experiments
with genetics
constantly striving to learn more, even about
taboo subjects. I remember a few years ago, some
guy named Galileo was persecuted for his
scientific beliefs and discoveries, because they
were taboo. Today, most of us laugh at the fools
in the Church that condemned him for claiming the
Earth was not the center of the universe. I'd say
your frame of reference is a bit too biased if you
can't see the parallel here.
That's the problem with the world today
people trying to impose "morality" usually have
limited perspectives.
Personally, I'd rather learn as much as I can
while I've still got another 50 good years left
on this Pale Blue Dot.
You may enjoy standing scared in the dark, but
I'd prefer we light the candle of science whenever
possible.
-WW
(Cool, two Sagan references in one post.)
--
Once there was a time when religion ruled the world.
Japanese Radiation Leak is cloning opportunity (Score:2)
When that happens we can clone something REALLY impressive.
What's The Effect? (Score:3)
"Oh, go ahead and chop down the forest. We've got DNA samples of just about everything here..."
And then of course, who's going to bring back the ugly stuff? It's find and dandy to bring back the dodo, the spotted-buffeted snow pika, etc. Are we going to bring back the blunt-nosed, slime-covered ass worm once we kill it off? Or are we going to stick solely with creatures that look cute?
While this is an interesting science experiment, I think the resources could be better applied: Oct. 12th is Six Billion People Day. In 1960 we had 3 billion. We've doubled in 40 years. Better, cheaper, safer contraceptives would make the world a better place. Wooly mammoths would make one zoo a lot of money.
Let's try to keep things in perspective here.
Re:stone-age cops (Score:2)
Re:Interesting, but it won't work (Score:2)
We wouldn't have the technology to do this if everyone immediately assumed it wouldn't work. Genetics would be nowhere. Along with most of medical science and computers/electricity/etc. Think a little, please... We didn't get to where we are today by only doing things we -knew- would work. We tried and failed, tried and failed, and finally tried and succeeded.
Re:Climate? (Score:2)
Re:Interesting, but it won't work (Score:3)
Well, a Mammoth that can leap two and a half miles? Sounds like the people in Siberia better get their roofs strengthend.
Breace.
duh. (Score:2)
Re:Pot Belly Pig + Wooly Mamoth (Score:2)
Re:We already have problems with animals still ali (Score:2)
What exactly qualifies as a good reason to be extinct? Climate change? Having your food and or area taken over by another animal?
What is the difference in whether that animal is man or some shitty rodant that started eating your eggs or another predator that was simply better than you?
The whole guilt issue over extinction caused by man is really just another ego trip trying to justify us feeling special and different in some way. Well we are not: we are just another element of nature, playing its game like a million species before us.
Its a shame when an animal goes extinct because there is much we can learn from, and of, that animal. This goes for any extinction - naked monkeys involved or not.
-
Position vacant... (Score:3)
So, fellow
On the bright side you get to work in a cool 3D GUI and you can write code so sloppy that an eight year old kid can crack it!
-
Re:A romantic notion, but it'll never happen (Score:3)
Re:A la 'Jurrassic Park'? (Score:3)
Does this really affect anything? Maybe we'll learn more about mammoths. What harm could it do? Well, the worst thing that seems likely to happen is that we make a unhealthy and unhappy mammoth, which would be unfortunate, but doesn't seem inherently evil to RISK that fate.
For whatever reason mammoths died out, I don't think it makes a big difference. We're not restoring their species or anything - one specimen would hardly be adequate to repopulate anything, you need at least two (for mammals). I don't really think that matters though. If they died out because they're ill-adapted, it's going to be expensive to keep them alive. If they think it's worth it, I don't object to them expending their resources on this project.
Pot Belly Pig + Wooly Mamoth (Score:2)
Re:A romantic notion, but it'll never happen (Score:2)
In 1999 the National Institutes of Health received a *15* percent budget increase by $2 billion to $15.6 billion. The requested increase for 2000 is 'only' 2.1 percent but the chair of the House subcommittee that funds NIH was quoted as saying he intended to keep NIH on course to double its budget over five years (Nature 03-04-1999, sorry no URL with free access.)
R&D expenditure in the US on biomedical science is already twice that (per capita) in Europe and rising still faster. At least the NIH have their priorities right - maybe Europeans should follow suit?
Re:What's The Effect? (Score:2)
Good point. We could end up in a world full of only beautiful animals, just one goddamn peacock species after another...
OTOH, there's plenty of ugly people in that six billion. If you really want them butt-ugly critters, just buy your local genetic engineer a few rounds. Once the beer goggles are on, he'll clone anything. Just don't buy'm too many, he might not be able to get the DNA up into the oocyte.
/. all rolled up in one (Score:2)
/.post#1
I bet the black helicopters are behind this. The big Wolly Mamouth, Mr. Shufulufagas, comes to visit cute little school kids and out pops drunken waco ATF agents, smoking Ruby Ridge cigars, and HRF gun the local school LAN.
/.post#2
I bet Bill Gates is behind all this. Wolly 1.0b is just vaporware to mask that fact the Micros~1 doesn't have coherant software service portal stratagy.
/.post#3
I hear Linus is going to incoporate OpenWolly in 2.3 ;)
Re:Interesting, but it won't work (Score:2)
Yes, but different scientists always have and always will focus on different things. I understand what you're saying, but you can apply this to any situation, such as "Why do we waste money on a space program when we don't have a cure for AIDS?" I don't think you can really look at scientists as a monolithic group who would be better off if they all focused on one problem at a time.
Prevention vs. Reversal (Score:2)
I guess, like a certain Spealberg movie mentioned here a few times before, it's purely capitalistic. They care nothing about what they are doing and just want to make money.
Interesting, but it won't work (Score:3)
Of course, they could just fill in those gaps with DNA from frogs...
McMammoth burgers (Score:2)