Cloning A Mammoth?

[BobC]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/13/south-korean-scientists-plan-to-clone-woolly-mammoth/?intcmp=features

[AgrilusHunter]

Cloning is not a particularly hard thing to do these days assuming the nuclei of the donor cells are viable. What is more problematic is whether or not this should be done at all. While I would love to see a mammoth, I think the time, money, and effort being invested in this project would be better spent on an extant endangered animal. Besides, this researcher is in the habit of doing science for the sake of publicity and likely doesn't care about the long term effects his research, which I find distasteful.

[pleecan]

Let dead things remain dead. This is coming from an ex-molecular biologist......

[BobC]

I agree, Ag, but on the other hand sometimes you need some great publicity to get more funding for other scientific endeavors.

Plee--do you think it's wrong to try to bring back an animal that humans killed off, like the Thylacine or Dodo? If so, why?

[AgrilusHunter]

I agree, Ag, but on the other hand sometimes you need some great publicity to get more funding for other scientific endeavors.

This is exactly my point. This researcher is using publicity to fund this research, and likely other endeavors, without considering (or more likely, without caring about) the consequences of said research. A pointed debate for sure.

do you think it's wrong to try to bring back an animal that humans killed off, like the Thylacine or Dodo? If so, why?

The line is not as clear here but I still hold firm on my previous position. Consider that just last year we had two, that I know of, new mammal species declared extinct in the wild. Would the money being spent trying to re-create an already extinct species not be better spent trying to preserve the species we still have?

[pleecan]

I maintain that things that die off due to selection pressures remain dead.... that is just my belief.

[BobC]

I'm afraid the whole debate will become moot if we humans don't continue multiplying and destroying animals' habitat, as well as other things like over-hunting, over-fishing etc.

But to answer your question in purely moral terms, I think we can both protect existing species while also bringing back those we wiped out. Since a large expanse of New Zealand is protected and still wild, I see no problem with bringing back the moa, if possible. I also see no problem bringing back the Thylacine to Tasmania, or Australia. The mammoth may or may not have been wiped out by modern humans, but they have been gone so much longer that their case opens up a whole other can of worms in terms of disease and other things.

I love the idea of limited eco-tourism. I think a lot of people would pay lots of money to see a mammoth or moa in their natural environment and I think most cultures are moving beyond the concept of kill-everything-you-can, which was common just 100 years ago.

[Scylla]

Really? We spend far more on far less useful endeavers. I think that if we could (and why not we have brought back plants that old) we would learn a lot from the exercise, especially how to bring back other species. That or build annother big stadium for some rich sports team owner People spend a lot building robotic dinosaurs, computer generated movies of dinosaurs, etc. Here's a chance for a more authentic reanimated fossil experience (can't you just smell the wet mammoth?) I agree that money would be better spent preserving existing endagered species and habitat, but that is not happening and preventing mammoth rebirth wouldn't necessarily increase habitat preservation funding by a cent. Just my 2 cents

[BobC]

Plee--including species wiped out by man?

IMO--we are a species that has evolved extraordinary brain power, and that brings with it great responsibility that we've only, in recent decades, started to practice. I don't think undoing some of our damage is a bad thing.

[Auspex]

Man can't bring back their habitat; there is no place for them to be.

[AgrilusHunter]

Man can't bring back their habitat; there is no place for them to be.

Ding. Ding. Those worlds are gone, both ice age and pre-colonial earth.

Really? We spend far more on far less useful endeavers.

Hi Scylla, This is absolutely true. However, It think that extending this to support the claim that it should/could be done is a logical fallacy. Just because some people spend money on useless stuff all the time, it does not follow that other people should then be justified in spending more money on other useless stuff. I also suggest quotes be used around the name 'mammoth' for the rest of this thread to indicate we are not talking about bringing back an actual mammoth but 'mammoth/elephant thingy'. Not all of the genes that are in our bodies are contained in our nuclear genomes, in this example of cloning all of the mitochondrial genes would be elephant. If I were to employ the modern genetic barcoding techniques that I use in my lab on a sample of this animal I would conclude it is an elephant, because I would be looking at the mitochondrial gene Cytochrome oxidase I (COI). I maintain this is a bad idea, for many reasons.

Edited March 13, 2012 by AgrilusHunter

[pleecan]

Thing die off for a reason.... that is the natural course of evolutionary history that should not be tempered with....

[BobC]

When you say "things die off for a reason" what do you mean? That there's a grand design to it? Or do you mean it's just tough luck? Either way, if humans had a cure for the Black Plague in centuries past, would it be "tampering with evolutionary history?" Or cures for venereal disease? I am not attacking you, just asking. I can accept the fact that dinos died off without feeling any remorse, but animals killed off by our ancestors is a little different.

I'm not talking about Ice Age mammals--I'm talking about recently extinct critters that died out when we knew better--like the last century or two.

[Auspex]

...I'm not talking about Ice Age mammals--I'm talking about recently extinct critters that died out when we knew better--like the last century or two.

I think everyone else is talking about Woolly Mammoths.

[AgrilusHunter]

Hi BobC, just wanted to say thanks for the great post and discussion, if more people debated these issues, instead of who should stay on the island, the world would be a better place.

Here is a very small example of how hard it is to bring back an extinct species, and this one wasn't even really extinct.

http://www.npr.org/b...es-for-80-years

People aren't even sure they want these back because they are 'kinda icky'. Can you imagine trying to bring back an animal that needed a habitat of real size, like a thylacine? I too hate that these animals are gone, but I think the greater crime is allowing additional animals to follow, think polar bear et al., and that our energy and intellect should be spent there instead.

On a side note: How cool is "Ball's Pyramid"? Surreal for sure.

Edited March 14, 2012 by AgrilusHunter

[Scylla]

Woolly Mammoths? I thought we were talking about Columbian Mammoths

Cloning is not a particularly hard thing to do these days assuming the nuclei of the donor cells are viable. What is more problematic is whether or not this should be done at all. While I would love to see a mammoth, I think the time, money, and effort being invested in this project would be better spent on an extant endangered animal. Besides, this researcher is in the habit of doing science for the sake of publicity and likely doesn't care about the long term effects his research, which I find distasteful.

I admit that pointing out a worse use for resources does not logically argue for cloning a mammoth (my mammoth will be cloned with mammoth mitochondrial DNA added later), but it is equally logically fallacious to argue against it by finding a different use for the same resources. As far as habitat goes, look at the size of Siberia.

[AgrilusHunter]

(my mammoth will be cloned with mammoth mitochondrial DNA added later)

Thrust. Parry. Touche.

[ashcraft]

I don't know that the thylacine is a good example, I suspect its demise was more attributable to the arrival of the placental Dingo, then humans hastened what was already a foregone conclusion.

As far as helping animals that are highly endangered, it is a noble cause in some instances (I don't give a rats rear about an endangered species of rat-a quality judgement on my part-other rats will fill the void), but care must be taken not to reproduce the Black Footed Ferret fiasco.

Also keep in mind, cloning does not reintroduce a species, it reproduces an individual. It takes hundreds of different individuals to make a decent breeding population to ensure that the speceis is as it was, otherwise we are causing the "founder effect", and ending up with a significantly different species then what we are shooting for.

Brent Ashcraft

[ashcraft]

(my mammoth will be cloned with mammoth mitochondrial DNA added later),

I don't understand what you are saying....you are going to clone and THEN add mitochondrial DNA? Or you are going to actually clone from the mitochondrial DNA, which I don't think would work because mitochondrial DNA codes for a mitochondria (as I understand it anyway)

Brent Ashcraft

[AgrilusHunter]

(my mammoth will be cloned with mammoth mitochondrial DNA added later)

I'm pretty sure this was meant to be read with tongue in cheek

Edited March 14, 2012 by AgrilusHunter

[ashcraft]

Swish! (as I run my hand above my head, indicating complete missing of the point)

Brent Ashcraft

[Cris]

IMHO, anything that went extinct should stay extinct since another animal (or animals) may have evolved to fill its role in the ecosystem. Reintroducing them could throw things out of balance and cause unforeseen negative effects generations down the road. Other species that have gotten used to the extinct species not being around (and perhaps adapted to preying on the extinct animal's food source, lost it's defense against the extinct animal, etc.) could suffer from a sudden unnatural reintroduction of the species. This could even be the case with some animals that humans helped go extinct if enough time has passed. I suppose I could somewhat understand it if it was an animal that recently went extinct and it could be proven that, without humans, the animal would have thrived...even still, a lot of care would need to be taken.

If the goal wasn't to reintroduce an animal into the wild and just do it for publicity, to prove it could be done, or to have some kind of "prehistoric zoo," I think that's unethical and pretty disgusting.

There's so many instances of people introducing a species that isn't native to an area to keep the population of another animal under control...they calculate it as best they can, try to see what effects it could have in the future and still....10 years down the road, they realize the species they introduced it causing more damage than anything. The ecosystem is fragile and it's nearly impossible to know what kinds of effects a decision like this could have far in the future. IMHO, conservation is the way to go. It needs to be made so humans aren't destroying populations of things and then a "let nature take it's course" kind of attitude needs to be adopted. If an animal starts to go extinct through natural processes, I don't think people should interfere or it could be hindering the further evolution and advancement of other species.

[pleecan]

IMHO, anything that went extinct should stay extinct since another animal (or animals) may have evolved to fill its role in the ecosystem. Reintroducing them could throw things out of balance and cause unforeseen negative effects generations down the road. Other species that have gotten used to the extinct species not being around (and perhaps adapted to preying on the extinct animal's food source, lost it's defense against the extinct animal, etc.) could suffer from a sudden unnatural reintroduction of the species. This could even be the case with some animals that humans helped go extinct if enough time has passed. I suppose I could somewhat understand it if it was an animal that recently went extinct and it could be proven that, without humans, the animal would have thrived...even still, a lot of care would need to be taken.

If the goal wasn't to reintroduce an animal into the wild and just do it for publicity, to prove it could be done, or to have some kind of "prehistoric zoo," I think that's unethical and pretty disgusting.

There's so many instances of people introducing a species that isn't native to an area to keep the population of another animal under control...they calculate it as best they can, try to see what effects it could have in the future and still....10 years down the road, they realize the species they introduced it causing more damage than anything. The ecosystem is fragile and it's nearly impossible to know what kinds of effects a decision like this could have far in the future. IMHO, conservation is the way to go. It needs to be made so humans aren't destroying populations of things and then a "let nature take it's course" kind of attitude needs to be adopted. If an animal starts to go extinct through natural processes, I don't think people should interfere or it could be hindering the further evolution and advancement of other species.

Well said!

[ashcraft]

, or to have some kind of "prehistoric zoo," I think that's unethical and pretty disgusting.

Why would having specimens in a zoo be disgusting or unethical? We keep all kind of organisms in a zoo that wouldn't normally be found in that area (or time in this case) for education and study. How would this be different? I am guardedly against reintroducing them as a population, but I need convincing that a zoo setting is unacceptable.

Brent Ashcraft

[Scylla]

OK, first, yes the mitochondrial DNA was a tongue in cheek comment to avoid having to put the word Mammoth in quotes. As far as cloning an animal, we clone sheep, mice, goats, etc. Some of these (actually many of these) have fundamentally altered genomes for study. They represent new creatures never seen on earth before. They are not disrupting the worlds ecosystems or driving the wild creatures into oblivion. I agree with Brent that keeping a small population of Mammoths in a wild animal park or zoo would be OK. Besides, how do we know that polar bears don't love mammoth meat and only started hunting seals and such because their beloved mammoth carcasses no longer littered the tundra? We could save polar bears by letting them hunt the old mammoths intead of seals now that we have melted the polar ice.