Slashdot Mirror
The Lazarus Zoo: Resurrecting Extinct Species
An anonymous reader writes "The Australian Museum is attempting to resurrect the extinct Tasmanian tiger, using pup cells harvested from storage jars in alcohol from 70 years ago. The tiger was hunted to extinction, and has the ironic distinction of receiving legal protection the same year that the last of its kind (named Benjamin) died at the Hobart Zoo on September 7, 1936. Other cloning attempts at conserving endangered species include the South Asian banteng on an Ohio farm, the world's last burcado (a Spanish mountain goat), a wild Asian ox called the gaur, and even a woolly mammoth." They're hoping for a live birth in 2010.
Mention "Woolly Mammoth" and "Goat" in the same story. They are just asking for it. :)
I just had this GREAT idea for a movie! We could get Jeff Goldblum, and have this sort of theme park on an island somewhere, and... oh, DAMNIT!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Clones have short telomeres. But, do the offspring of clones have normal telomeres? Dolly had some lambs, so the answer should be known. If the offspring's telomeres are normal, that's good news because even if the clone has problems, the offspring might not have those problems.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Cenozoic Park: Cloning the Tasmanian Tiger, nearly a year old, much better than the 2 hour gap we were seeing.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
'A Spanish mountain goat.'
Right, but do we REALLYneed more goats? I mean, a goat is a goat is a goat.
Informatus Technologicus
Wow, with a seven-year gestation period, it's no wonder they went extinct.
Actually, some of these animals might be vary useful to agriculture. Especially if they can be bread with current stock in some way. I'm not sure how this list was selected. It sounds more like a zoo list than a useful one, but I have no real knowledge here.
I recently received an email from someone who has discovered a way to lengthen genitals. I'll forward it to the Australian Museum.
Discovery Channel, 9p.m. 1st April in the UK.
Cloning the Tasmanian Tiger
(It's been shown before).
Couldn't they have found something better to resurrect? Like unicorns? Or maybe that one female computer engineer that I keep hearing about... I've got this nagging feeling that one o'them is just mythical, though.
Integrated application integration with synergistic synergized synergy
Embryonic growth involves a complicated, precisely timed, and crucial exchange of regulatory signals between embryo and mother. The chances of accomplishing this without any living relatives (same genus) are vanishingly small. Even getting the right regulatory proteins to kick the process off in the "egg" sounds impossible. I don't believe this will work.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
Principal Skinner: "I'm not sad about losing my job, Bart. I'm working on a movie about a magical park where dinosaurs are brought back to life by genetic engineering. We'll call it 'Billy and the Clone-a-saurus'"
... best seller list for six months!..." "...HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING UNDER A ROCK, SIR?....uh...I mean, thank you, come again."
Apu: "What? First you take a concept that's already been done, then you give it a name that nobody could possibly ever like..." "... biggest movie ever!
I'm hoping they'll bring the DoDo back!
Actually, some of these animals might be vary useful to agriculture. Especially if they can be bread with current stock in some way. I'm not sure how this list was selected. It sounds more like a zoo list than a useful one, but I have no real knowledge here.
Actually, it's probably FAR more important to look at the species we're using for agriculture NOW, instead of trying to bring back extinct species.
We would do a LOT better to introduce at least some measure of diversity into our farms, and our diets, and we would probably profit far more from this than from bringing back some strange-ass species which might one day possibly maybe have some value.
Here are the facts.
1) Most species are rare. Very few species can be considered to be common.
2) Most species have ALWAYS been and will ALWAYS be rare.
3) Rarity is not something that is special in and of itself.
4) Extinctions have been happening since the dawn of time.
5) If a species is extinct, there's most always a reason for it. What has changed that would allow them to survive now?
Conservation is VERY important, but our time and effort would be much better served by preserving what we have, not trying to undo what we have done. What's done is done. Concentrate on the present.
WE MUST SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THAT CAUSE HUMANS TO DRIVE SPECIES TO EXTINCTION, THEN AND ONLY THEN SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SPECIES THAT WE HAVE LOST.
Rabid conservationists, please flame away. I'll reply, don't you worry.
I want the giant sloth back.
Think of the technique and other knowledge that will be garnered from this. It's far more than just resurrecting species.
the difference is that this was an unnatural exticntion. it was the result of the actions taken by man.
You seem to assume that any efforts at resurrecting extinct species will either prevent the success of or take resources away from efforts to minimize human contributions to future species loss. This is probably not the case.
It's true enough that it is no substitute for working to prevent further human-caused extinction, but I doubt anyone seriously thought it would be.
Yeah. Definitely a "dont fuck with me" creature. Able to snap trees in half simply because it couldn't be bothered walking around them. Yep ... want one!
Bitter and proud of it.
And what would you say to those that want to clone the wooly mammoth?
Ressurrecting animals species is a whiz-bang tech demo, but nothing else.
This is a futile exercise. Genetic stochastic effects would drive a small population to extinction.
See my response "Re:False dilemna" to jensend's post "False dilemna" below for a further explanation.
That indeed is the only valid argument that I see for researching these techniques. From a conservation/preservation point of view, however, they are sorely lacking.
"Doom on you! Doom on you! Doom on you!"
Cells that are very active / replicate a lot through an organisms lifetime (eg in the small intestine, the uterus) do contain telomerase. I don't know whether anyone has tried cloning cells from one of these areas of the body.
"...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
Slashdotters are always opening their yaps without a second thought. If we wipe out a species due to habitat loss, hunting, whatever, its up to US to clean up our own mess. Biodiversity is valuable for its own sake, not just so some asshole can make a buck off it or create a new drug from a creature's ground up eyeballs.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
they have.
cells from the intestine are one of the prime area for harvesting. Also less nuclear damage...
omard-out