Slashdot Mirror


Scientists To Breed the Auroch From Extinction

ImNotARealPerson writes "Scientists in Italy are hoping to breed back from extinction the mighty auroch, a bovine species which has been extinct since 1627. The auroch weighed 2,200 pounds (1000kg) and its shoulders stood at 6'6". The beasts once roamed most of Asia and northern Africa. The animal was depicted in cave paintings and Julius Caesar described it as being a little less in size than an elephant. A member of the Consortium for Experimental Biotechnology suggests that 99% of the auroch's DNA can be recreated from genetic material found in surviving bone material. Wikipedia mentions that researchers in Poland are working on the same problem."

9 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Yum by ari_j · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It sounds delicious.

    1. Re:Yum by Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wonder what it tastes like?

      [*Gets in line first*]

    2. Re:Yum by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, being delicious may make them go from being extict->recreated->common. Look at the mighty buffalo of the midwest. They were on the edge of extiction until they were commercially marketed, which made it viable to raise them as livestock, which made their numbers swell. In many parts of central USA you can buy buffalo meat, which many say is very lean and good tasting.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  2. Re:Already Been Done, Seventy Years Ago by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The main difference, I think -- besides the fact that the Nazis were motivated by loony ideology and the modern researchers, presumably, are motivated by scientific curiosity -- is that the Hecks could only breed for phenotype, while the groups currently working on the problem are breeding for genotype. A project like this is really impossible without modern DNA sequencing technology.

    That being said, it would be interesting to know how close the Hecks got. The Wiki article doesn't mention if there's been any comparison of the Heck genome to the reconstructed aurochs genome; I'd like to know the results of such a study.

    It's also amusing to speculate what would have happened if sequencing had been available back then. Der Fuehrer's apoplexy upon learning that an awful lot of the Jews and Slavs he was bent on exterminating were genetically indistinguishable from the general German population would have been a site to behold.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. Re:Scientist comments on story by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What, could it have been that Creationists were going to breed the auroch from extinction?

    Well, no, Creationists pray for it, and get one delivered to them from heavens right there and then.

    In any case, I think that "scientists do $something_awesome" is a traditional, respected, and still wonderful meme of its own. It reinforces the notion that so many cool things that we have, we owe to science; which just happens to be something well worthy reminding about these days.

  4. Re:Scientist comments on story by Fred_A · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are you saying that anyone who does experimentation with DNA is thereby a scientist?

    I thought the common term for those people was "parents". And apparently it doesn't seem to require a degree (although from what I see around me, maybe it should).

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  5. Linguist Protest by dierdorf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm amazed that nobody has commented that one of the beasties is (or was) an AUROCHS, not an "auroch". Two of 'em would be auroches or aurochsen. Talking about an "auroch" is like talking about a Chinee or Portugee. More to the point, it would be like talking about "ock" as the singular of oxen, since "ox" is the second syllable of aurochs.

    --
    -- John Dierdorf, Austin TX
  6. Re:Scientist comments on story by ari_j · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Exactly. The person and his claims should be evaluated independently. You shouldn't disbelieve everything an astrologer says just because he's an astrologer, nor should you believe everything that a whale biologist says just because he's a whale biologist.