Using Stem Cells to Save Endangered Species

RogerRoast writes "Starting with normal skin cells, scientists from The Scripps Research Institute have produced the first stem cells from endangered species. Such cells could eventually make it possible to improve reproduction and genetic diversity for some species, possibly saving them from extinction, or to bolster the health of endangered animals in captivity. The study was published in the recent issue of Nature Methods."

Comments

Re:good idea and

[Fluffeh]

Actually no, it's easier to make stem cells. That's why they take the trouble...

The catch here is this: It is easier to SAY to stop killing them, but it's certainly not as easy to get them to stop being killed.

There is a vast number of reasons:

    * The animals could be being poached - African Elephants, Rhinos, Lions etc?
    * There may be an introduced predator doing the killing - Cane Toads in Australia for example.
    * There could be some disease running rampant through the natural animal population - Tasmanian Devils in Australia are being wiped out by a cancerous growth on their snouts.

For the folks doing this research and development, it is not only easier for them to make stem cells, but it is the thing that they can do personally. A scientist working in a lab may not be able to suddenly pick up a gun and go protecting wildlife in another country - but he might be able to help save some through his medical research.

End the Bailouts

[mentil]

I'm sick of us jumping in every time a species is about to die out. Too cute to fail? I say let them go extinct. The ones that survive who looked to the future instead of eating all the grass in the field this quarter are doing what's morally right, and will lead to a stronger society.
Before you know it, the lazy lower-class animals will be living in human-provided housing, with food handouts and arranged marriages, and the predation the superior specimens take part in will be outsourced to the hunters!

Re:Death With Dignity

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Isn't it the circle of life? Aren't species supposed to die off eventually?

Should we be interfering with the laws of nature?

There is no "supposed to" involved (unless you believe it's a divine plan, in which case He, or She, or It, or They should let us know in unequivocal terms.) Species don't die off for the hell of it, they die off when their environment changes too much for them to survive and/or reproduce; and every species on Earth "interferes with the laws of nature" from every other species' perspective, simply by existing. Humans are, as far as we know, the only species capable of seeing the consequence of this interference and deciding to do something about it. If we choose not to do something about it -- guess what, we're interfering no less.

Re:Death With Dignity

[silentcoder]

What a lovely post... too bad you're just plain wrong.

>Not since the beginnings of life on this planet has one species had the ability to affect so many others

This is an utterly unproven assertion, I nearly left it at [Citation needed] but the reality is that if a comet wiped us off the face of the earth tomorrow, chances are in 20 million years there would be NO surviving evidence of our ever having been here. There could have been many other intelligent species who reached our levels and we would not have any way of knowing. It's possible we're unique, but it's by no means certain.

>Species have started going extinct at a far greater rate since humans started mucking things up than before
Not even remotely true - the history of life on this planet is filled with mass extinctions that make our entire existence look like a blimp on a chart. The Cambrian extinction wiped out 96% of the species alive at that time - we still don't know what caused it (we have some theories but nothing confirmed). The K/T event wiped out just about every species on the planet bigger than a rat. Lucky for us... our ancestors then were about the size of shrews, the few surviving large animals were all aquatic (nile crocodile and the great white shark for example). The history of this planet is one of repeated mass-extinctions, over and over just when life reaches an apparent high-point the universe throws a rock at us or the planet freezes over and 95% or more of the life forms around get wiped out in an instant.
The average life expectancy of a species is 10-million years (we're already there in other words) and 97% of the life forms that have ever existed are extinct. 94% of them were extinct before mammals arrived - let alone humans.
The good news is, each time there's a mass extinction it's followed by the greatest booms of biodiversity that we find in history. Right after an extinction there are no predators, no specialists so all sorts of bodyplans and weird evolutionary ideas can survive - soon they start to get weeded out as specialists do better and biodiversity eventually stabilizes around systems that have only a few species in each niche. We're in the middle of such a stable intermediary period.

There is a much more pragmatic reason to do conservation - exactly because extinction is such a guarantee. Mass extinctions would take us with it - and not all mass extinctions happen because a rock fell from the sky. Some are caused by life forms. One of the largest mass extinctions was caused by the evolution of photosynthesis in plants. Suddenly the air was pumped full of a terribly toxic, highly corrosive gas - ultimately making up 21% of the atmosphere - practically every other lifeform on the planet died out. But new lifeforms evolved - which turned this poison into a crucial part of their very biochemistry - for us (as their descendents) oxygen is not a horribly corrosive poison - it's the gas we cannot live without !

The reason to try and keep the natural order we evolved in as stable as possible with as few disruptions as possible, to preserve as many species as we can is simple: life will go on, the planet will survive with or without us... but every disruption we make - every species WE drive extinct, every forrest we chop down is risking OUR OWN survival. We can do only limited actions to protect ourselves from rocks falling out of the sky, but we can try to keep from melting the polar ice-caps ourselves. We can try to keep species alive, to preserve a balance we are evolved to fit into - or we risk taking ourselves out with them.

As Michael Chrighton says in Ian Malcolm's speech near the end of Jurassic Park (the book, not the movie), we don't have to worry about saving the planet- but if we're lucky (and smart), we may be able to save ourselves.