Cloning Endangered Species

JackMonkey writes "As SFGate.com reports, scientists have successfully cloned an endangered species. "The clone -- a cattlelike creature known as a Javan banteng, native to Asian jungles -- was grown from a single skin cell taken from a captive banteng before it died in 1980." Maybe Jurassic Park isn't too far away after all." See our previous cloning story also.

Comments

Quick!

[KDan]

Somebody clone a record company executive before they die out!

Daniel

Speaking of Jurassic Park

[nocomment]

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
- Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park

We are witnessing the end of the scietific era. Science, like other outmoded systems, is destroying itself. As it gains power, it proves itself incapable of handling that power. Because things are going very fast now. Fifty years ago, everyone was gaga over the atomic bomb. That was power. No one could imagine anything more. Yet, a bare decade after the bomb, we began to have genetic power. And genetic power is far more potent than atomic power. And it ... will force everyone to ask the same question - what should I do with my power? - which is the very question science says it cannot answer.
- Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park

Re:Speaking of Jurassic Park

[PD]

Ah yes. Quoting from bad Spielberg movies is a terrific form of argumentation.

Remember kiddies, UNIX is better than Windows, because it's recognizable to 9 out of 10 annoying sidekick child actors badly in need of an artificial plot device!

Re:Speaking of Jurassic Park

[nocomment]

Ah yes. Quoting from bad Spielberg movies is a terrific form of argumentation.

I wasn't, I was quoting a good Michael Crighton book. I think Mike (I can call you Mike right Mr Crighton?) has a lot of interesting quotes on the state of science and the drive of those scientists to do what they perhaps should not. I admit though, I am a bit of a hypocrite as the woolly mammoth cloning project really interests me.

Re:Speaking of Jurassic Park

[PD]

The problem with you quoting a Michael Crighton book instead of a Spielberg movie is that it doesn't set anyone else up to follow with a lame post about the girl who knows UNIX. So, I used artistic license.

Re:Speaking of Jurassic Park

[barakn]

#1, it's Crichton. #2, I read Jurassic Park long before it became a movie. I thought the science in it was extremely weak. In fact Jurassic Park convinced me that Crichton had stopped writing novels and was now selling screen plays masquerading as books. The "science" in Jurassic Park was merely a plot device to allow dinosaurs to run around chomping people: great Hollywood fodder.

Re:Speaking of Jurassic Park

[schmink182]

I read Jurassic Park long before it became a movie.
Great.

The "science" in Jurassic Park was merely a plot device to allow dinosaurs to run around chomping people: great Hollywood fodder.
Or maybe it's a stepping stone to get to the ethical question of whether bringing back things from the past is a Good Thing. Not everyone is a sellout, some people care about humanity and nature.

Re:Speaking of Jurassic Park

[dnahelix]

didn't stop to think if they should.

...clone a bunch of dinosaurs!

Imagine the possibilities...

[infernalC]

Now that we have the ability to clone animals who are endangered whilst destroyoing the habitat they live in, we can let our consciences be at ease, because even though they have no place left to live, they exist.

Next month's manager special: the McBateng (with special sauce, of course).

Repopulating Extinct Species ... NOT

[mattsucks]

Several friends have picked up on this story and are all excited that now we can bring back extinct species. The dodo, ivory-billed woodpecker, etc etc and so on. I had to explain to them that for any species to survive, IN THE WILD, there must be a population of sufficient size and more importantly sufficient genetic diversity. We can clone 1000 dodo's (insert politician joke here) but it will still only be ONE dodo. Not to mention that pretty much all the dodo's natural habitat is gone gone gone .. where will they live? The suburbs?

If all we want is to have a couple of living specimens around to look at, cloning will be fine. Anyone expecting to use cloning to re-introduce extinct species to the wild is fooling themselves.

The reason the last one died in 1980...

[Jethro73]

...is because there were a bunch of scientists poking, prodding, and stealing its skin cells. :)

Seriously, though. I agree with some of the above posters. There is a reason the animals are no longer with us. And one can argue that it was humans that caused the extinction in the first place, and it was therefore our fault. However, the last time I checked, humans were part of the animal kingdom. Drawing off that fact, it becomes easy to argue that any forces we exerted on species were natural, albeit not in the best interest of other species on this planet (or even ourselves).

Extinction has been occurring for millions of years. It is natural, folks. The scientific community needs to try and get over their "god" complex.

For all the foibles and blunders committed by the human race in the name of science during the last few hundred years, this one personally gives me the most reason for concern.

Jethro73

Re:The reason the last one died in 1980...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that some species are not really destined to survive long term because they fail to adapt to a changing environment. However, when it is us that is causing the massive changes in the environment, how can you expect every animal species to cope? In particular, larger animals tend to be some of the most interesting to see, but they generally breed less often and take longer to mature and hence are the most vulnerable to sudden change.

Humans could easily cause the extinction of most large animals if they set about it - would that be "natural"? Indeed, without even trying, many species (eg white rhinos) are now endagered for no real need of ours. It amazes me how many animals are killed just because some rich tart wants a nice fur coat or ivory necklace or something. (To be honest, I would sooner see her dead.)

Yes, humans are part of the animal kingdom, but we are the single priviledged species that can appreciate the consequences of our actions in the wider sense. In my view, we have a responsibility not to abuse the powerful position our intelligence gives us and to aim to have as little impact on the rest of the animal kingdom as possible.

A better use

[BortQ]

With an clone army of RMSs GNU would be unstoppable!!!

Re:A better use

[hashwolf]

RMS/GNU not yet extinct.

In addition....

[spotted_dolphin]

1000 dodos of the same sex isn't going to do a lot for the population in the long run. Even dozens of each sex will cause problems; purebred dogs usually have some sort of genetic disorder because not enough genetic variation in the gene pool has led to bad genes being paired together.

Genetic diversity.

[Christopher Thomas]

I had to explain to them that for any species to survive, IN THE WILD, there must be a population of sufficient size and more importantly sufficient genetic diversity. We can clone 1000 dodo's (insert politician joke here) but it will still only be ONE dodo.

I've heard about the 50/500 rule, but I still don't quite understand why having a starting population with identical genes is a death sentence.

As long as the original genes were good, none of the first generation will have crippling deficiencies. Yes, recessive traits will show up in the second generation, but as long as you breed individuals that don't have two copies of the bad gene (or better yet, select for individuals with two copies of the good one), this doesn't kill your population.

In the short term, you should always have enough normal individuals for the population to survive, and in the long term, mutation will build up genetic diversity again anyways. The 50/500 rule, AFAICT, is geared towards making sure there's a population big enough that healthy individuals do exist. Starting with that many distinct individuals seems like overkill.

What am I missing about this scenario? Genetics isn't my field of expertise.

Re:Genetic diversity.

[Vellmont]

I think what you're missing is that "good" genes are a moving target. Nature is really a battle between species, and if something else finds a chink in your armour, you're dead. If all members of a species have the same genetic makeup, they're all vulnerable to the same things. For instance, a disease might take out the entire population since the species wouldn't have enough genetic diversity for enough members to survive. Farmers that raise mono-crops see this all the time. There's a certain species of Apple (I think it's the Golden Delicious) that originates from a single plant found in the US many years ago. All current trees are genetically identical to that first tree. New trees are produced from cuttings, not from seed. Anyway, these trees are problematic because of their lack of genetic diversity. A blight could wipe them all out.

Re:Genetic diversity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, recessive traits will show up in the second generation, but as long as you breed individuals that don't have two copies of the bad gene (or better yet, select for individuals with two copies of the good one), this doesn't kill your population.

But if there's a bad gene in the first animal, there is NO way to mask that gene in successive generations. If the original has two genes for the recessive trait of cross-eyed-ness (or whatever), then every animal bred from it receives that recessive disability, because there is no place left to get a dominant gene from.

Now say it is something like, "susceptible to pneumonia". The animal seems fine for a while, it can breed and eat and whatnot. Then you have lots of little animals, all of which are susceptible to pneumonia. One season, along comes some pneumonia and BAM they're all dead. Any bad traits that don't kill the first organism off right away are passed down, so every other organism has the same problem.

Re:Genetic diversity.

[zenyu]

There's a certain species of Apple (I think it's the Golden Delicious) that originates from a single plant found in the US many years ago.

All the apples you eat are clones. Apples "go to seed." If you plant apple seeds, 99.999% of them will be inedible. But, apples actually provide a bit of a clue here. All the popular apples except for the Granny Smith got that way because they were both hardy and sweet. Today they are still sweet, but are the least hardy things we grow. We have to absolutely bathe them in insectisides. A cloned species would be similar, at first it's hardy but then the microbes catch up with them. See they are clones too, but they can try more mutations in any given decade. But impossible odds are what humans are all about, I think we could bring a species back, it would just require some serious shepherding the first couple dozen generations.

Consider this, you produce millions of these cow clones. Then you expose some of them to a high stress environments, high viral infections for some, high radiation for others. Then you mix and match, repeat. You always keep animals in completely seperate environments so that no plague wipes out the whole herd. I know it sounds hard, but one day we will stop wiping out more and more swaths of nature and start reversing the process. The atheists will have more guilt about it than the Germans have for the Holocaust or the Americans have for wiping out the "Indians." The popular monotheists all have standing orders from God to treat the world as they would have it treat them. Many of the polytheists believe in reincarnation...it's gonna happen...

Re:Genetic diversity.

[dalek_killer]

Having a small population with the same of good genes only goes so far, you also have to take into account recessive genes as well. and with in a small population these recessive gene can become the dominate gene, and here is where you can run in to problem. One of the biggest is an increase of birth defects, other hereditary disease, and a shortaning of life expecance. I only know of one case that a single species that is till around to day that came back from extinction from a single pregnant female. But there is still one other thing that we all seem to be for getting "Dolly", she had to be put down because of permature aging. How can we try to bring back and species when we know that the generation that we are able to produce will have to start a shortend life span. We also have know idea how make of the extinct species raised their young, or the conditons that are needed to have the clones to be successfull produced.

I think the big fly in that ointment...

[leonbrooks]

...is that critters have more than one gene, and they are often randomly mixed/expressed at mating. This means that selecting for one good feature may mean selecting against several other good features. Your only hope is to start with samples from lots of the animal, so expect Axel Heiburg Island to become a very busy place.

There is also some design input from the support machinery in and surrounding the nucleus, which means that your host animal is going to have an impact too. Your cloned critter won't be a pureblood in the strictest sense of the word. I'd be working hard to preserve whatever DNA I was able to recover, in the hope of having better techniques to apply later. But I guess the recovery they're doing is a lot better than nothing.

Preservation of the species

[leonbrooks]

In order to do Jurassic Park things, you need intact DNA, and DNA is extremely frail. On does wonder about conditions of interment that can somehow preserve intact DNA across sixty-plus million years, when the best technology we have wouldn't do much better than a few tens of thousands of years in the best of circumstances.

Long-term survival?

[jpop32]

With as little formal education in genetics as I have (none, that is :-)), I'm compelled to ask:

Would cloned animals really have a chance of prolonging the life of the species?

As far as I know, species need genetic diversity to survive. It is proven that a herd/flock/community that is mostly inbred has a much higher chance of developing illnesses, being susceptible to hereditary disesases and genetic deformations.

From that I extrapolate that a species based on a _single_ copy of DNA is highly unlikely to be able to sustain itself over a longer period of time.

Basically, cloning from DNA is good for producing individual animals (for zoos and such), but isn't really a tool to prolong the life a species.

Anyone care to correct/confirm this?

Re:Long-term survival?

[soren.harward]

Would cloned animals really have a chance of prolonging the life of the species?

Not very likely, because basically what you're getting is a 100% inbred population. You may be able to get a couple of generations out of the species if you're careful (like keeping them locked up in a zoo), but in the wild, a species thrives on its genetic diversity. If you have a totally heterogenous gene pool, then other than random mutation (which is more often deleterious than beneficial), you have no chance for evolution. If selection pressures start acting against your species, it'll be wiped out pretty quickly.

Re:Long-term survival?

[gene_tailor]

>Would cloned animals really have a chance of prolonging the life of the species?

Well, if we are talking about starting with an extinct species, it doesn't seem likely (at least given current techniques and success rates) we can revive enough variation for the species to be viable in the longer term. Certainly trying to re-start a species from one individual alone is doomed, because there is no genetic diversity to deal with adverse conditions, as you point out. However, in this case of the bentang, there are 3000+ additional animals in the wild and the animal being cloned was dead, so making one more might help. At least it could be bred back into the existing gene pool. Would this help significantly in saving the species? Weeell, maybe. The experiment has never been done, so I'm hesitant to say it can't possibly do any good.