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."
It sounds delicious.
I know it's no longer accurate, but for the longest geneticists thought humans and chimps were 99% similar genetically.... but there does seem to be a gulf...
OTOH, in unrelated cow developments, (not new) is the Super Cow
See, given that our genetic similarity so many known animals is at least 95%, would 99% of the dna really be enough to recreate the animal? It appears as though small differences (1% of a very large number of genes is a large number of genes) are sufficient to make a new species, or, most likely, a non-functioning animal.
Would love to be proved wrong.
Why is it that every time something neat in biology comes up, the first thing everyone says is 'What could possibly go wrong' implying, of course, that something exceptionally negative will come about as a result of it? Jeepers, this thing only died out four centuries ago. They're not going to hunt you down in trained squads.
Aurochs, the "ochs"-part meaning "ox" and the "aur" being a nomer for something like "original" or "ancestral"...
"The number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
A bit offtopic, I know, but can we please stop referring to everyone and everything as scientists? If you need better terms, try "Geneticists" or "Breeders" or "Italians." Saying that Scientists are going to do it is an overused catch-all phrase that doesn't actually add any information. What, could it have been that Creationists were going to breed the auroch from extinction? Linguists? Liberal arts majors?
The ______ Agenda
A 30min radio offering via bbc iplayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hc946/b00hc6xc/Jon_Ronson_and_the_Quest_for_the_Aryan_Cow/ (runs until 9:32pm Thursday 21st January 2010 ) covers the trip to Munich Zoo by John Ronson. "Jon Ronson investigates the controversial story of the work of Lutz Heck, the director of Berlin Zoo who attempted to resurrect several pure-blooded, extinct animal species as part of the Nazi programme to control the genetic destiny of all creation. He visits Munich Zoo, which proudly advertises its 'formerly extinct aurochs' - a type of large and powerful cow - but does not refer to the fact that behind this apparent triumph lies the story of Heck's collusion with Goering's aspiration to replace Europe's 'racially degenerate' wildlife and plant life with pure, 'noble' and extinct species."
This is great and all, but it's also something that the Nazis were doing before WWII - there are quite a lot of these Heck cattle still around. There was even a radio programme on the BBC about it a week or so ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_cattle
Maybe the Italians and the Poles are using a technique closer to cloning, but why then talk about breeding back - the same methodology that the Hecks used?
Dunx
Converting caffeine into code since 1982
Clever girl, Bessie...
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
... does not mean you should.
Have these scientists contemplated what could happen if these created creatures escape into the wild breeding amongst themselves and/or other similar species.
Whole ecosystems can be destroyed by introducing one creature into them.
You know, this argument is getting old for me. Anything that could progress human knowledge is looked down on anymore with an excuse like this one. I for one want to see real scientific advancement. I want genetic research on ALL levels. Lets bring back species that was destroyed by man, lets cure cancer, lets do SOMETHING.
A day will come when advancements in medicine/science will be had and everyone will then wonder why we waited so long.
Shouldn't you really be going forward to Milliways?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Jurassic Park needn't be taken literally for it to be a good parable about why we should be concerned that toying with life and death can have unforeseen consequences.
I for one welcome our new bio-engineered bovine overlords.
Toying with life? Do you mean like what we do with vaccines that stop disease, medicines that cure, or plant breeding that feeds the world? Even brewing beer and baking bread could be considered 'toying with life.' No one's saying to be reckless, but you've got to admit toying with life has brought a hell of a lot more benefit than harm.
Jurassic Park was a good movie, but a parable? My arse! Why is it that so many movies have some mad scientists killing people with their crazed experiments, but you never see the movie about people starving to death or succumbing to preventable/curable diseases because the scientists didn't do the research?
What if people like Norman Borlaug or Edward Jenner didn't 'toy with nature?' It wouldn't be a very pretty sight, would it? I for one like it when we toy with life.
TFS says "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."
Some modern horses weigh over a ton (shire horse is up to 1½ ton, brabant horse average over 1 ton, clydesdale horses typically about 1 ton), bulls in some breeds of cattle can be up to 1½ tons, and the American Bison occasionally exceeds a ton also. These animals would hardly be described as just a little less than an elephant in size, so we're looking at a certain amount of exaggeration or hoopla in TFS and TFA.
BTW, the record weight for a bull is 1740 kg, so the Auroch hardly merits being referred to as a "giant"
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
A pig would better - they could market it as jew-rassic pork.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Jurassic Park? The aurochs went extinct in 1627, so it would be more like Medieval Park.
+1
Just to see the face on the toreador on seeing an elephant sized wild bull with 2m horns charging down on him.
I'd pay to see that.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
That depends on in which animal they find the missing 1% DNA
This is blinging
It is called aurochs, not "auroch", as one would realize by clicking the Wikipedia link provided. It is a German word and means "Ancient Ox".
There's more than one kind of elephant.
In fact in Caesar's time there was a third kind - the North African elephant. These were used in war, most famously by Hannibal and so that's probably the sort he was familiar with. They were pretty small, as elephants go.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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
As it turns out if you recall the very popular series "Sliders", that explores scenarios where the scientists didn't do that sort of research in alternate earths. Very interesting stuff, we need more of that sort of entertainment, espscially with its emphasis on non violence.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
... but you never see the movie about people starving to death or succumbing to preventable/curable diseases because the scientists didn't do the research? ...
There are.
But usually, people who die to preventable diseases are displayed as heroes for sticking with their belief system. Martyrdom meme is strong.
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
It's ironic that some of the people who rant the loudest against humans "playing God" by choosing to discontinue life-support or terminating a pregnancy have no problems with putting someone on life-support to begin with (defying what would seem a rather obvious decision by "God" that the person is ready to die) or engaging in the most "God-like" act of all: willfully creating a new life. It's not so much that they object to people playing God, rather they object to people making God-like decisions that disagree with their own.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Details matter.
You actually *can* learn something useful in a way from considering the Jurassic Park story. Consider this: the T. rex was awesome, *cool* even. The raptors were terrifying. The little venom spitting dinosaur was the worst.
If you think about it, that's actually a fairly reasonable reaction. Which of the animals would be a potential problem for people if they were reconstructed? The T. rex is huge, easy to spot, and probably needs an enormous geographic range to itself to survive. If a breeding pair escaped, they'd have almost no chance of establishing a stable population, even if people left them alone.
The raptors on the other hand might have a chance. The range for a single T. rex probably would support a good sized band of them. But they probably wouldn't be hard to hunt down. They're still pretty big and would be easy to track down. As formidable as they are, they wouldn't be a match for a squad of human commandos.
It's that little spitting dinosaur that you'd have to look out for. If a breeding pair escaped, they'd be all over the place and you'd never be able to eradicate them.
The smaller an individual organism is and the less resources it requires to maintain itself in breeding condition, the harder it is to eradicate. Insects the the fire ant, the japanese beetle, or the asian tiger mosquito pretty much can't be stopped once they start breeding in a hospitable environment. Microorganisms are the very hardest. Unless they have a very narrow habitat (e.g. pathogens that infect humans only), you can't even begin to contain their geographic spread; even then it's hard.
In any case, if you read the book, the real screwups werent't he scientists. They were the systems engineers who relied too much on the resumptions in the requirements spec.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In fact in Caesar's time there was a third kind - the North African elephant.
now they'll have to bring back the North African elephant to validate this claim. Then there's the whole "mice scare elephants" wisdom, which some researchers say was only true with North African elephants and Eastern Egyptian mice.
At which point, to get rid of the extinct Eastern Egyptian mice, they'll have to bring back the extinct European Lion, and slightly older Smilodon (saber-toothed cat).
And to get rid of them, they'll have to save from extinction the nearly-extinct Gorillas.
And to get rid of these, the scientist will have to bring back the Ice-Age winters, so the Gorilla freezes to death.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
"researchers in Poland are working on the same problem."
Problem?