Woolly Mammoth Clones: Arriving Soon

[Josh Engen]

Woolly Mammoth Clones: Arriving Soon

A team of scientists from the Revive & Restore project are working to resurrect the woolly mammoth.

Until very recently, resurrecting an extinct species has been the stuff of sci-fi novels and monster movies. But a team of researchers from the The Long Now Foundation [http://longnow.org/] in San Francisco, California is on the verge of making this scientific wet dream a reality.

The Revive & Restore project has one very specific goal: the rescue of endangered and extinct animals. Right now, the team is focused on resurrecting the Passenger Pigeon, a species that was extinguished by overexploitation in 1914. But Revive & Restore is already working to pull the woolly mammoth out of extinction.

In an interview with the New York times [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/magazine/the-mammoth-cometh.html?_r=0], Stewart Brand, co-founder of Revive & Restore, explained that resurrecting the mammoth isn't just a publicity stunt. "We've framed it in terms of conservation," he said. "We're bringing back the mammoth to restore the steppe in the Arctic. One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success."

Several hurdles will need to be vaulted before the San Diego Zoo can build a Mammoth exhibit, though. The science of cloning is advancing quickly, but modern techniques don't have enough horsepower to handle the mammoth. So, the Revive & Restore crew may have to recuse a few other species first.

Also, and this is that part that makes mammoth cloning seem significantly less cool, a perfectly cloned mammoth will never be possible. In order to clone an animal, scientists splice genetic material into an existing egg. Unfortunately, no mammoth eggs exist (nor will they ever), which means that scientists will need to use a species that's closely related: the Asian-elephant.

What emerges, then, will be a mammoth/Asian-elephant hybrid. Researchers will attempt to refine the process so that the clone's DNA closely resembles the extinct species, but we'll never really know how much of the mammoth has been lost in the process.

Source: Revive & Restore [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/magazine/the-mammoth-cometh.html?_r=0]

Permalink

 

[TheEvilCheese]

News like this reminds me on a regular basis that we do indeed live in the future. It's awesome.

Side note, I don't know much about it but how long can genetic material remain in a usable state? It's been a while since there were any mammoths to donate it after all.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

I can almost hear Jeff Goldblum rambling about natural selection and chaos theory.

 

[JayRPG]

News like this reminds me on a regular basis that we do indeed live in the future. It's awesome.

Side note, I don't know much about it but how long can genetic material remain in a usable state? It's been a while since there were any mammoths to donate it after all.

I think I read a few months back that they found some perfectly preserved flesh or something of that nature. they were able to get blood from it or some very usable material at least.

Actually, here it is, they actually found a whole mammoth (or most of one) with blood still preserved:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/199561/wooly-mammoth-found-with-blood-still-flowing-is-twice-as-old-as-earth-says-bible/

 

[Leonardo Huizar]

Why does need to happen, really? Im not a animal rightstavist or got anything higher than a C minus in biology but does this really need to happen? Mammoths are already furry & full of fatness because they had to be in the ice age. Theres elephants in Africa & India... 2 of the most un-apologetically hottest places in the world and the elephants are bald. Kudnt the research be better spent on curing diseases, ending world hunger, or maybe developing energy that wont rely on foreign resources? This just seems like a Science:"because we can" and not a "because there is a need."

 

[Raggedstar]

Passenger Pigeons are one thing. Mammoths are a completely different beast.

If we assume the sample is viable for a happy, healthy clone, there are certainly a lot of natural hurdles. Elephants tend to breed once every 4 years (?) for a very brief period. If a baby mammoth is produced and is carried to term, the pregnancy for a mother elephant is about 2 years. It's a long and tiring process to even get REGULAR elephants to breed. If something happens at any time, imagine the process in starting over (or even finding a new recipient). Not to mention the possible ethical concerns regarding tinkering with an endangered species (especially one that many argue doesn't thrive in captivity, doesn't tolerate certain medical procedures well, and has the potential to be VERY dangerous even with handlers).

But hurray for science none the less.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

I can almost hear Jeff Goldblum rambling about natural selection and chaos theory.

Uh, Life, uh, finds a, uh, way.

OT: So will we get Ice Age Park? If so, I'm in.

 

[Bke]

I'm in two minds about this

99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, I think it's throwing a bit of a spanner in the works if we try to cling to something that that has no right to exist. And let's not forget that when our species kills off another that's still natural selection, and still proves that whatever we resurrect has no right to survive.

On the other hand I am an advocate of using biology in the same way we use our technology, if this is to make the steppe a bit more habitable for us then I'm all for it. Mind I don't actually understand what it is they intend to do there as the reasons given are vague at best, but engineering an environment using living organisms is the kinda thing I have wet dreams about so I can't complain.

Kudnt the research be better spent on curing diseases, ending world hunger, or maybe developing energy that wont rely on foreign resources?

The day we stop doing things like this is the day we die in a way that no amount of food, medicine or shelter can ever recover.

Side note, I don't know much about it but how long can genetic material remain in a usable state? It's been a while since there were any mammoths to donate it after all.

I was wondering about this as well. I vaguely recall reading a journal couple of months back that set the half life of DNA at 500 years or so. But it was only one study and as such only open avenues for research, rather than presenting conclusions, so let's see.

Of course we can't forget that Dolly ended her life riddled with cancer, and while our tech has improved should the genetic degradation prove to match the 500 year estimate I don't see these mammoths living all that long; but we can't know until we try.

 

[Neverhoodian]

The Revive & Restore project has one very specific goal: the rescue of endangered and extinct animals. Right now, the team is focused on resurrecting the Passenger Pigeon, a species that was extinguished by overexploitation in 1914.

I'm far more excited about this, honestly. As awesome as seeing a living, breathing wolly mammoth would be, I'm not sure it's such a good idea to bring them back. The world is a very different place now than it was during the mammoth's heyday, namely it's much warmer.

Passenger pigeons on the other hand would still be alive and well today if not for human interference, so I'm all for bringing them back. It's amazing reading accounts about them from settlers. They were once so numerous that flights of them would blot out the sun, sometimes for hours. The noise produced was deafening, and when they roosted branches would sometimes break under their collective weight. It's astounding and more than a little depressing that it was forced to extinction in such a short span of time, and I feel it only right that we try to bring them back to make amends for such wanton exploitation and destruction.

 

[SecondPrize]

Just hurry up and announce a miniature version so I can throw all of my money at you.

I'm in two minds about this

99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, I think it's throwing a bit of a spanner in the works if we try to cling to something that that has no right to exist. And let's not forget that when our species kills off another that's still natural selection, and still proves that whatever we resurrect has no right to survive.

The right to survive has nothing to do with it. The fittest having survived simply means they are still here, not that they earned a right to be here.

 

[Bke]

The right to survive has nothing to do with it. The fittest having survived simply means they are still here, not that they earned a right to be here.

Well actually it's implied in the entire philosophy that by simply surviving you have earned your right to do so. When you stop surviving you lose that right. Remember, no matter what laws we impose upon ourselves, justice isn't a natural property of the universe. As such morality doesn't really factor into natural selection, it's binary either you do or don't. It's not like you can earn the right but have it snatched away from you by some dastardly villain.

 

[SecondPrize]

The right to survive has nothing to do with it. The fittest having survived simply means they are still here, not that they earned a right to be here.

Well actually it's implied in the entire philosophy that by simply surviving you have earned your right to do so. When you stop surviving you lose that right. Remember, no matter what laws we impose upon ourselves, justice isn't a natural property of the universe. As such morality doesn't really factor into natural selection, it's binary either you do or don't. It's not like you can earn the right but have it snatched away from you by some dastardly villain.

By surviving you survive. Rights don't come into it. I don't need to have permission to keep breathing, I merely need to keep breathing.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

I can almost hear Jeff Goldblum rambling about natural selection and chaos theory.

Uh, Life, uh, finds a, uh, way.

OT: So will we get Ice Age Park? If so, I'm in.

If we get an Ice Age park, I want Ray Romano to be their spokesperson.

Also:

 

[RA92]

And let's not forget that when our species kills off another that's still natural selection, and still proves that whatever we resurrect has no right to survive.

That sounds so arbitrary. Who made up that rule?

 

[CriticalMiss]

Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but isn't the simple solution to the problem of putting more mammoth into the hybrid just doing the process over again with the mammoth DNA and the new hybrid's eggs, and then repeating until you're satisfied?

You're kind of right but the problem you have then is inbreeding. If the mammoth they use initially has some kind of mammoth disease or susceptibility to something then it's likely all the other mammoths will have it and they will be vulnerable in the wild. It would be a huge waste of money to bring them back only for them all to die again because of a cold! So it's probably better than we create some kind of hybrid and then perhaps attempt to make a sub-species of those that are truer to the original for old times sake.

I seem to remember there being a species of owl that was brought back from the brink by breeding the single living bird with the most closely related species and inbreeding them so they had more of them. But I can't find anything about them on Google

 

[SamTheNewb]

The right to survive has nothing to do with it. The fittest having survived simply means they are still here, not that they earned a right to be here.

Well actually it's implied in the entire philosophy that by simply surviving you have earned your right to do so. When you stop surviving you lose that right. Remember, no matter what laws we impose upon ourselves, justice isn't a natural property of the universe. As such morality doesn't really factor into natural selection, it's binary either you do or don't. It's not like you can earn the right but have it snatched away from you by some dastardly villain.

There is no such thing as a implicit right to survive. Nothing has an implicit right to survive, not even the living, so you can't use the lack of right to survive as an argument to not clone or re-engineer an extinct animal.

You can claim it is unethical to bring an animal or thing into a world that will is inhospitable to it. Inhospitably simply being whatever reasons for their demise. But that is a different argument on ethics...

 

[Liberte]

And then lets bring the Sabre-Tooth Tiger [http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6768/20140131/wooly-mammoth-comet-collision-younger-dryas-boundary.htm] back after that!

 

[Abomination]

No gods, no masters, only man.

I love the idea of humans giving natural selection the big "fuck you".

We don't control this planet until we can both destroy AND create whatever we want.