Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Coming Back Soon... The Tasmanian Tiger?

Posted by chrisd on from the sheep-clones-are-for-losers dept.

adoll writes: "Melbourne's The Age is reporting that DNA has been extracted from a 110 year old Tasmanian tiger (thylacine) bone. Scientists are now wondering if genes can be implanted into eggs of an existing species and born to surrogate mothers (numbat and Tasmanian devil are mentioned as possible hosts). The last tiger died in Hobart, Tasmania on September 9, 1936. It was believed the tigers were hunted to extinction (CD: Thems was good eatin) on Tasmania, but unconfirmed sighting have persisted to this day".

8 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Breeding Population of ... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One? It's great to bring back an extinct species, but it kinda sucks if there's only one of them.

    --
    Dyolf Knip
    1. Re:Breeding Population of ... by lamontg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you read the article, they've got three DNA samples from different specimens.

  2. impossible.. by crazney · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The australian TV show, "the science program", described this idea as complete and utter rubish last night.

    They say that with current technology the scientists are "dreaming" to think such a thing as possible, and anytime in the near future.

    I would love this to be possible, but i am very very doubtful..

    anyway, a dodo bird would be alot nicer to re-create :)

    --
    stuff
  3. Re:Genes aren't the only thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that's utterly ignoring the mitochondrial DNA

    They're also ignoring the isotopic ratios, quantum phase, electro-magnetic field, and neutrino flux of a living Tasmanian tiger cell! You're right, there's no way this can work!

  4. Re:Good Eating? by base2op · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I say leave nature alone...

    Are humans not natural? Are not the things we create naturual? (Would not you consider the damns created by beavers natural?) Bringing back the dead should be considered naturual because we (of nature) would be the ones doing it. However, if this backfires (somehow) and we end up dooming ourselves (*gasp*) that would be natural too.

  5. Re:Moral dilemma by varaani · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We would be literally playing god. The species died off because nature intended it to( even if it was hunted to death we are still a part of a larger cycle)

    Huh? If we kill off a species, we're just a part of the nature. If we try to revive it (by whatever means), we're suddenly playing god. Where's the logic? I can't see any difference between killing and reviving in this respect. In either case we're stirring the balance in the ecosystem, which is bad for our own survival as a species.

    We're a part of the nature, and the nature does not intend anything. Our actions cannot be justified simply as "evolution in action".

  6. And what if they do return? by Zspdude · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Even if the tigers do return, what are we going to do with them? Re-introduce them to the wild and then hunt them again? Slowly develop their habitat until they become extinct for the second time? Or simply place them in zoos as an example of the great return of a noble species? I'm sure everyone is duely impressed with the "Jurassic Park" nature of this venture, but when the options are considered, we are left with the inevitable result.

    It will be a vain attempt at restoring something we destroyed, in a futile struggle to erase our poor decisions. We will feel good and proud because we have cleared our bad name with mother nature. Tazmania will never again become a suitable place for tigers to live: We want to live there, and it's a proven fact that there isn't room for the both of us! And we will achieve nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling for those willing to believe that something useful has been accomplished.

    --
    What's in a Sig?
  7. Re:Genes aren't the only thing. by DarkZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Jurassic Park totally ignored this whole point, which, to me, made the whole premise rather lame

    Actually, Jurassic Park didn't ignore that at all. They mentioned that the dinosaurs' DNA had to be genetically spliced with the DNA of a specific frog that offered the chance to fill in the needed pieces of DNA that were missing in the dinosaurs, but also posed little threat of creating a pygmy dinosaur-frog hybrid, as if the two animals had been cross bred. One of the major plot points of the book and the movie was the presence of certain frog traits in the resulting dinosaurs, specifically the frog's ability to change its gender for breeding on the fly, allowing some of the dinosaurs to become male, mate with the dinosaurs that remained female (they were all intended to be female), and create fertile eggs.

    And for similar people that will say, "But it's impossible to do that!", please note that Jurassic Park is a piece of science FICTION, not science FACT, and thus has the benefit of future technology and scientific discoveries that do not exist in real life. Personally, I think saying that Jurassic Park "ignored that point" (that "point" being the impossibility of the entire thing using current technology and scientific discoveries) is a nitpick to begin with, because it basically labels all science fiction stories "lame" because they don't use currently existing technology.

    I suggest you look up both Science Fiction and more specifically the FICTION part of the term that you are having problems with.