Slashdot Mirror


43,000-Year-Old Woolly Mammoth Remains Offer Strong Chance of Cloning

EwanPalmer sends a followup to a story from last year about a team of Siberian scientists who recovered an ancient wooly mammoth carcass. It was originally believed to be about 10,000 years old, but subsequent tests showed the animal died over 43,000 years ago. The scientists have been surprised by how well preserved the soft tissues were. They say it's in better shape than a human body buried for six months. "The tissue cut clearly shows blood vessels with strong walls. Inside the vessels there is haemolysed blood, where for the first time we have found erythrocytes. Muscle and adipose tissues are well preserved." The mammoth's intestines contain vegetation from its last meal, and they have the liver as well. The scientists are optimistic that they'll be able to find high quality DNA from the mammoth, and perhaps even living cells. They now say there's a "high chance" that data would allow them to clone the mammoth.

187 comments

  1. Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    For mammoth burgers.

    1. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am more excited about the prospect of a new super villain for Spiderman. One unfortunate jab in the lab, and spidey gets to fight Mr. Mammoth.

    2. Re:Can't wait by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Screw that, I want some of those cool tusks for the front of my truck.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like mammoth size Cola with those?

    4. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean what movie theaters call "medium size"?

    5. Re:Can't wait by tom229 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The logical person in me says this probably isn't a good idea. But then the mad scientist in me completely takes over and can't wait to eat a mammoth burger.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    6. Re:Can't wait by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      Big ol' rack of Flinstone style Mammoth ribs and a Cactus Cola please!

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    7. Re:Can't wait by akgooseman · · Score: 1

      Pu-leeze ... this bad boy's gonna be on the endangered species list for the rest of our lives.

    8. Re:Can't wait by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      and only cost as much as finding, excavating, and cloning a mammoth!

    9. Re:Can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats what I clicked in to write.

  2. Get going already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll prepare the mountable lasers!

  3. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cloning a long extinct species. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

    I mean, just look at the devastation non-native species are causing in various nations. They certify they can contain these creatures forever and ever?

    1. Re:Hmm by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure. Woolly mammoths are pretty big. One might even call them mammoth. If one gets out, it won't be that hard to find.

      Besides, we shouldn't be talking about creating a population of these things yet. Lets create one and see how that goes. It's not like it's going to run off into the forest and sprout more.

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cloning a long extinct species. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

      I mean, just look at the devastation non-native species are causing in various nations. They certify they can contain these creatures forever and ever?

      "Non-native" to what?

      Species have been migrating from place to place from the day they existed.

    3. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not like it's going to run off into the forest and sprout more.

      I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.

    4. Re:Hmm by DrXym · · Score: 2

      My understanding is that mammoths are fairly conspicuous creatures, what with them being giant hairy elephants.

    5. Re:Hmm by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      We could save the elephants. Mamoth ivory will make regular one completelly lame and so 20th century.

    6. Re:Hmm by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      shh don't talk about the hairy elephant in the room

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:Hmm by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I mean, just look at the devastation non-native species are causing in various nations. They certify they can contain these creatures forever and ever?

      Notice that it's small animals being invasive while the megafauna are often endangered even on their home ground?

      Megafauna move slowly, breed very slowly and are easy to spot. So it's pretty easy to hunt and kill them at a rate much faster than they can breed.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    8. Re:Hmm by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Giant hairy elephants, or just hairy elephants?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:Hmm by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That's why we need to fit out lasers to them.

      Look, there is probably nothing that could help a small population of megafauna survive better than than equipping them with lasers.

      Just 'sayin.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:Hmm by fisted · · Score: 1

      lets hope it would be easier to find than a 777

    11. Re:Hmm by peragrin · · Score: 1

      We lost a 770 airplane loaded with passengers.

      i give the mammoth 50/50 odds of escaping and finding a new home in india with a couple of young lady elephants, who are looking for a big hairy man.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...unless you skip the step of splicing in the exotic frog DNA!

    13. Re:Hmm by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Mammoths don't travel at 500+ mph. Planes don't leave footprints or take great, big dumps on the ground to announce where they've been. Now, if they create a mammoth that can travel at 500 mph across water, I concede that yes, we may lose track of it.

    14. Re:Hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Best make them lysine dependent and all female, just in case.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    15. Re:Hmm by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Based on my extensive observation of mammoths, I'm pretty sure they do travel at 500+ mph...

    16. Re:Hmm by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've never seen one that couldn't break 525mph when it really got going.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    17. Re:Hmm by icebike · · Score: 1

      I mean, just look at the devastation non-native species are causing in various nations. They certify they can contain these creatures forever and ever?

      There's no shortage of big bore rifles on the market today. Containment isn't an issue.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  4. I think I've seen this movie before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, the movie I saw was full of ancient reptiles/amphibian hybrids that have since been redefined as birds,

    More importantly, I suddenly crave a mammoth steak (hold the fur).

    1. Re:I think I've seen this movie before by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Mammoth fur - ugh... Imagine saber tooth tiger hail balls...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  5. Shouldn't they start out small first? by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suppose the idea of cloning a 43,000-year-old mammoth would be the kind of thing that would attract funding, but from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn't you start out small and try to clone, say, a dead chicken first, just to see if the process actually worked?

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Its not as if they cloning lab gets charged by the pound. If they've got better preserved mammoth DNA then clone that - the final size of the animal is sort of irrelevant.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I suppose the idea of cloning a 43,000-year-old mammoth would be the kind of thing that would attract funding, but from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn't you start out small and try to clone, say, a dead chicken first, just to see if the process actually worked?

      We already know cloning works. Welcome to the 1990s. Sorry about your internet connection.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      They've been able to achieve cloning for over a decade now.

    4. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Noooooo, that would give a completely different meaning to http://www.catb.org/jargon/htm..., poor ESR would have to rewrite the jargon file!

    5. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I know they have cloned live sheep. Has anyone cloned a frozen, dead animal yet? That I haven't heard about.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    6. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Korea or something successfully cloned a drug sniffing dog multiple times. Oh, then there's Dolly of course.

    7. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is no point in cloning a chicken. We already _know_ what chicken tastes like.

    8. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they've been trying this on Diane Feinstein, with no success

    9. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose the idea of cloning a 43,000-year-old mammoth would be the kind of thing that would attract funding, but from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn't you start out small and try to clone, say, a dead chicken first, just to see if the process actually worked?

      They're not exactly able to pick and choose amongst extinct animals with enough well-preserved DNA to clone.

      I'd suspect that because a mammoth is, well, mammoth it's more likely to have well-preserved DNA somewhere in the carcass.

    10. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by wiredog · · Score: 1

      People have been cloning mammals for 20 years now.

    11. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by qazsedcft · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We have been able to clone several species already. That's not the problem. The problem is that you need a surrogate mother for the embryo and the closest we have is the African elephant, which separated from the mammoth a long time ago. From TFA it seems they are already working on cross-species clones but they are still a long way off.

    12. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...

      Are you seriously reading Slashdot and unaware that they already know they can clone animals?

      Really?

      Dolly.

      Look it up.

    13. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean literally the size of the animal. What I meant is that there is only going to be so much 43,000-year-old DNA to go around. You wouldn't want to waste it on a process that didn't work. You'd want to start out small, with a dead, frozen chicken that had been on ice for a year or so. Extract its DNA, and then see if you could get a live chicken out of it.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    14. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming that they never cloned anything dead before. A lot happens in labs... before they come to the outside showing a cloned sheep

    15. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      With a dead extinct animal? No. The closest thing is an extinct ibex cloned in 2009 (hardly "a decade"), and it only lived for a few minutes --- not exactly a success in my book.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    16. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by qazsedcft · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't matter that the donor is dead. The process of cloning involves taking out DNA and inserting it into another cell. All that matters is that enough DNA can be collected for a complete organism. Freezing is completely irrelevant as even human embryos used for in-vitro fertilization are routinely frozen.

    17. Re: Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To clone Diane Feinstein they need a corpse - not a skeleton.

    18. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've already cloned a cat and a few other small animals. Don't care to look up what the largest animal cloned to date is...

      I think it will be interesting to see this proceed, especially given when this mammoth lived when compared to human position at this time of its death. 40000+ years ago we were what, just crossing the land bridge into what is North America? Compare this mammoth to those of Wrangel Island, believed to be the last mammoths to have existed on the planet some 4-5000 years ago. There would be a fairly distinct genetic difference between these two mammoths and timeframes, if we were to clone one from each. Though, afaik, cloning from the more recent mammoths on Wrangel Island isn't possible.

      It'll will be interesting to see this going forward, and what exactly we learn from it.

    19. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I suppose the idea of cloning a 43,000-year-old mammoth would be the kind of thing that would attract funding, but from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn't you start out small and try to clone, say, a dead chicken first, just to see if the process actually worked?

      Well, considering we can already clone dead chickens, wouldn't it be more prudent to deep-freeze one for 43,000 years and THEN see if we can create a clone of a chicken, using an embryo from something chicken-like, but not chicken-actual?

    20. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by nucrash · · Score: 1

      I have to admire the technology behind cloning, but to clone a dead chicken is one thing, but cloning some dead mammal would be a better example. Whether this be a rat or something of that nature, we need to consider what we are doing. How do we gestate that clone? Japan is working on technology to carry a human fetus to term, this should be adapted to larger creatures.

      Yes, I know a seeded comment says that size is irrelevant, but I have to counter that point and say, "Size is very important."

      If we spend millions on a clone and have no way to carry the thing to term or care for it when it's out of the womb, we just blew more money than the idiots who programmed the Mars Climate Orbiter.

      --
      Place something witty here
    21. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't they already do this... with a sheep?

      Also that mentions pigs, bulls, deer, horses... so.. there you go.. there's your dead chicken.

    22. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I don't think they freeze the embryos, do they?

      Just the separate zygotes.

      Not sure it really matters either way, but some people get squeamish about such things.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    23. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Why do so many people keep missing the point that Dolly wasn't dead when cloned? Or frozen?

      Also, I didn't realize Dolly was named after Dolly Parton because the cloned cells came from the mammary gland of the donor.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    24. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you need a surrogate mother for the embryo and the closest we have is the African elephant, which separated from the mammoth a long time ago.

      Seems there are enough examples of using surrogate mothers of a similar/related species to think that if you can create a viable embryo then the surrogacy might be successful.

    25. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Also, directly to wcrowe's point, from that article:

      Making cloned mammals was highly inefficient (Dolly was the only lamb that survived to adulthood from 277 attempts - although by 2014 Chinese scientists were reported to have 70-80% success rates cloning pigs[21])

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    26. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering we can already clone dead chickens

      Source?

    27. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      We have been able to clone several species already. That's not the problem. The problem is that you need a surrogate mother for the embryo and the closest we have is the African elephant, which separated from the mammoth a long time ago. From TFA it seems they are already working on cross-species clones but they are still a long way off.

      That may seem like a victory but it's really just scratching the surface. Once you have cloned a mammoth what then? To establish a viable population you need genetic diversity, a minimum founder population of 50-100 individuals that should preferably be as distantly related as possible. The up side of a project like this is that if we can solve the problem do cloning a mammoth it we can start harvesting the DNA of many individuals of species like tigers and rhinos that are about to be become extinct thanks hedonistic nouveau rich assholes with more money than sense who keep poachers and exotic pet traders in business. Then, at a later date when Gene Roddenberry's vision has come true and mankind has grown up (not holding my breath) we will be able to recreate viable populations.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    28. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
      They use additives to prevent formation of ice crystals, but the temperatures are certainly what you would call freezing, and the preserved objects (embryos, here) are solidified.

    29. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Good to know.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    30. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      People have been cloning live, unfrozen mammals for 20 years now.

      FTFY.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    31. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, at a later date when Gene Roddenberry's vision has come true and mankind has grown up (not holding my breath)

      I wish you would

    32. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Don't be so hard on him. He's been hanging around Slashdot so long that he's forgotten that 'sheep' is actually an animal, not a term of derision used to identify life forms only slightly smarter than a paramecium.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    33. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      considering we can already clone dead chickens

      Source?

      It does explain a few things.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    34. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Its not as if they cloning lab gets charged by the pound.

      The heck they don't; any idea how much a mammoth eats?!

    35. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      ...the final size of the animal is sort of irelephant.

      FTFY.

    36. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That may seem like a victory but it's really just scratching the surface. Once you have cloned a mammoth what then? To establish a viable population you need genetic diversity, a minimum founder population of 50-100 individuals that should preferably be as distantly related as possible.

      Keep cloning them from the same DNA sequence for zoos and such? Wildlife that's threatened by extinction because of us is fine, reintroducing wildlife that died out many thousands of years ago due to natural selection seems like an overall bad idea. Despite there being cave paintings of them, there's no place on current day earth where they belong in the natural environment. And even if we could set up such a preserve it'd have to be huge to function.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    37. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      It is small...compared to a brontosaurus. Everything's relative.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    38. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose the idea of cloning a 43,000-year-old mammoth would be the kind of thing that would attract funding, but from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn't you start out small and try to clone, say, a dead chicken first, just to see if the process actually worked?

      Duh, haven't you seen that dinosaur cloning documentary from back in the 1990's?
      If we can clone a velociraptor we should be able to clone this thing no problem.

    39. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns out cows have been cloned from cells from a dead animal:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10951108

    40. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by almechist · · Score: 1

      With a dead extinct animal? No. The closest thing is an extinct ibex cloned in 2009 (hardly "a decade"), and it only lived for a few minutes --- not exactly a success in my book.

      Furthermore, the Ibex only became extinct in 2000, so they had material taken from a living Ibex to work with, a considerably easier proposition. And as you say, even that didn't work.

      This is clearly a technology not quite ready for prime time, and certainly not suitable for such a mammoth undertaking as the resurrection of an entire species.

    41. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      We have a six cell embryo on ice from last year's IVF cycles. It divided a bit slowly and just missed the cutoff to be included in the fresh transfer, but beat the cutoff to be non-viable and discarded so was eligible to freeze for later.

      Given how expensive IVF is and that my company dropped insurance coverage for IVF this year, that embryo is probably my only chance to have a second kid (with the first one on the way). The odds aren't good though, especially for a single-embryo transfer.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    42. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Will the African elephant be a large enough surrogate mother, or will this baby mammoth have to be delivered premature due to its size. If it's the latter, I'm guessing a pre-planned stay in some animal ICU box?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    43. Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? by qazsedcft · · Score: 1

      The size of newborn calves is about the same (~90 kg). The gestation period, which has been deduced from isotopic analysis of newborn teeth is also very similar (21-22 months).

  6. The Crichton Diet by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Free-range grass fed mammoth might still taste like elephant, so don't get your hopes up.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:The Crichton Diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad, and here I got my hopes up for a nice Mammoth steak

    2. Re:The Crichton Diet by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I don't know. These things were basically hunted to extinction. So they may be pretty delicious or it might just be that a Mammoth hunt was a comparatively easy way to get the whole tribe fed all at once, with left overs to store.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:The Crichton Diet by magarity · · Score: 1

      I don't know. These things were basically hunted to extinction. So they may be pretty delicious or it might just be that a Mammoth hunt was a comparatively easy way to get the whole tribe fed all at once, with left overs to store.

      For people who lived on the prehistoric tundra, anything they could get was pretty delicious.

    4. Re:The Crichton Diet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I've thought too. Scientists have even tasted long-frozen mammoth meat and IIRC said it tasted good.

    5. Re:The Crichton Diet by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's what breeding is for.

    6. Re:The Crichton Diet by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      That's what breeding is for.

      AKA: Artificial selection?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re:The Crichton Diet by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yep.

  7. Just do it already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone keeps talking about cloning a mammoth. Can we have a kickstarter to just buy a scientist some elephants and have them get started already? Enough with the careful measured approaches. We need some ballsy elephant killing science.

    1. Re:Just do it already by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      Haven't you ever heard the song by "Loverboy?" Mammoth and Elephant DNA just won't splice.

  8. Did they do Mammoth Carpaccio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Preservation state like something dead for six months....
    Less than a good cured ham.

    So we can assume its edible?

    1. Re:Did they do Mammoth Carpaccio? by deadweight · · Score: 1

      AFAIK frozen mammoth meat HAS been eaten before by sled dogs, if not people. One thing going for this is the close relatives still living for the surrogate mother. I guess the down side is daddy elephant is going to take one look at the baby and bith-slap mommy until she runs away to join the circus.

  9. "LONG extinct"? Hah. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A few thousand years isn't "long".

    Compared to the other changes humans wreak over decades, bringing back mammoths would barely cause a ripple.

    "Contain these creatures forever and ever"? We already extinguished them once, without even the help of gunpowder. If you're looking for things to worry about, you can do much better than this.

    1. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Tx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, considering how many species humans have (directly or indirectly) wiped out, developing the skills to bring some of them back might be prudent.

      " We already extinguished them once, without even the help of gunpowder."

      However I believe the current thinking is that mammoths are not amongst our victims, and were wiped out by natural climate change instead.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    2. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A few thousand years isn't "long".

      Compared to the other changes humans wreak over decades, bringing back mammoths would barely cause a ripple.

      "Contain these creatures forever and ever"? We already extinguished them once, without even the help of gunpowder. If you're looking for things to worry about, you can do much better than this.

      Compared to the changes the Chicxulub meteor wrought in just seconds, humans are small-scale pikers.

      I'd bet quite a few orders of magnitude more species went extinct long before humans existed.

      Does that mean we shouldn't be careful about how we impact the environment? Of course not.

      But damn, can we drop the reflexive, unthinking, childish HUMANS IZZ TEH ALL-POWERFUL EVUL!!!

      Humanity is nowhere near all-powerful. In fact, we're really, really wimpy compared to what the universe can do on it's own.

      And to say humanity is evil is just nihilistic brain-dead misanthropy. Are cats evil when they play with mice? Would a nearby supernova that happened to sterilize Earth be evil?

    3. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wool finds a way!

    4. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If mammoths were wiped out by climate change, then resurrecting the species in a modern climate would be bringing it into an environment that it was not evolved to handle.

      Not only does that seem rather pointless, but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.

      This matter really feels one of those times when scientists should be reminding themselves that just because we *CAN* do something does not necessarily mean that we *SHOULD*.

    5. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

      Could we bring enough back with a diverse enough gene pool to actually repopulate a reserve?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    6. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute - who's the "we" that extinguish them?

    7. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Would a nearby supernova that happened to sterilize Earth be evil?

      From our point of view, yes.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Informative

      If mammoths were wiped out by climate change, then resurrecting the species in a modern climate would be bringing it into an environment that it was not evolved to handle.

      Not only does that seem rather pointless, but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.

      This matter really feels one of those times when scientists should be reminding themselves that just because we *CAN* do something does not necessarily mean that we *SHOULD*.

      Mammoths survived until at least 2500 years ago on Wrangel island where that particular population was probably wiped out by modern humans so at least the habitat question is a non issue.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    9. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by BergZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was going to make a very similar comment to yours, but the more I thought about it the more the mammoth seems like a good test case.

      It seems to me that we're just starting the testing & experimentation phase of resurrection technology. To be cautious I think we should start testing this new technology on extinct species that meet both of the following conditions:
      (1) Are unlikely to escape captivity (ideally test species should be unable to survive outside specially designed enclosures).
      (2) Are big, lumbering, and slow breeding. Even if such a species somehow escapes captivity (and manages to survive in the wild) we can still hunt them down and eliminate them.

      So far as I know mammoths meet both of these conditions making them good test subjects for resurrection technology.
      "... bringing [the mammoth] into an environment that it was not evolved to handle" - That's a feature, not a bug!

      --
      Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
    10. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Me and a couple of grad students at the applied time-travel facility.

    11. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      And, of course,

      (3) are potentially edible.

      Yabba Dabba Do!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a purely Darwinian standpoint we should let them stay dead. Natural selection has already determined that they are unfit to live so why should we waste resources reviving them?

    13. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by magarity · · Score: 1

      Would a nearby supernova that happened to sterilize Earth be evil?

      Depends on whether your definition of "evil" requires malicious intent or is just anything that turns out really badly for you. A natural supernova would be extremely unfortunate. Aliens causing the supernova to wipe out competition would be evil.

    14. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Because they're cool (literally ;).

      Who says natural selection should have the final word? Or perhaps the concept of "fitness for survival" should be expanded to include "cool enough that some other advanced species will want to resurrect it." Mammoths, saber-tooth cats, & T-Rex all fit this bill; the Prehistoric Instant Death Mosquito doesn't.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    15. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      From a scientific perspective, yes.... but what about from an ethical one?

      Is it ethically justifiable to permanently subject wild animals to such conditions?

    16. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.

      Your logic seems to be that it's unethical to bring them into a world that they can't survive in. But they all endured the waxing and waning of ice ages before that. The current thinking is that either humans or some sudden climate catastrophe caused the Holocene megafaunal extinctions, and not an inability to adapt to post ice age climate conditions. The only thing that seems to be preventing most of these species from thriving today is humans themselves.

    17. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by BergZ · · Score: 1

      To be quite blunt: I'm just a layman and I'm really not interested in ever seeing revived mammoths released in to the wild.
      I'm more interested in seeing mammoths used as safe scientific test subjects for experimenting with the technology to revive extinct species.

      Once the process of reviving extinct species is understood well enough that it can be done safely: Species that I would like to see revived (and released into the wild) are ones that were recently driven to extinction by human activity (by over hunting & habitat destruction)... but I think that is a long way off.

      --
      Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
    18. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Is it ethically justifiable to permanently subject wild animals to such conditions?

      Yes. As restored species they would be protected by man and then have a shot at continued existence in the event humans die off or evolve passed the necessity for a biosphere.

    19. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      More like "Long overdue" at this point. The experiment failed, time to wipe the slate and start fresh.

    20. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want this, start with artificial womb research. Many a woman would love the idea of not having to be pregnant for 9 months. Many a man would love the idea of not having to take care of a pregnant woman for 9 months. Eventually, you could adapt the technology for other species. It would help with extinct species in which there is no good surrogate.

    21. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      If mammoths were wiped out by climate change, then resurrecting the species in a modern climate would be bringing it into an environment that it was not evolved to handle.

      I suspect that there is a significant difference between sustaining themselves in the wild in a climate they have trouble handling and being raised in essentially what will be a zoo which is where they are going.

    22. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      While there appears to be broad agreement that Mammoths did exist on Wrangel as recently as 2000 BCE (4000 years ago), I cannot find any scholarly research to suggest that they co-existed with humans; or if they did, that they were hunted by those humans.

      Can you offer more recent research?

      --
      -
    23. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep wondering what they will taste like. Is mammoth something that is hard wired into every living human's brain to crave?

    24. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    25. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      But the problem is there is no uterus on earth big enough to gestate a mammoth.

      It will have to wait until an artificial uterus can be developed. I'm led to believe it's not that far off, but that's the sticking point right now.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    26. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If mammoths were wiped out by climate change, then resurrecting the species in a modern climate would be bringing it into an environment that it was not evolved to handle.

      The modern climate has changed many times since they went extinct, and we don't even know that there weren't any places where they couldn't have survived back then - it could simply be that their populations got stuck too far away to migrate in time.

    27. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Save the planet - kill yourself.

    28. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But your scientists were so focused on whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

    29. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there appears to be broad agreement that Mammoths did exist on Wrangel as recently as 2000 BCE (4000 years ago), I cannot find any scholarly research to suggest that they co-existed with humans; or if they did, that they were hunted by those humans.

      Can you offer more recent research?

      There is archaeological evidence of prehistoric human occupation of Wrangel Island dating to around the time the Mammoths there went extinct:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chertov_Ovrag
      With hairy meat mountains roaming the Island, and having had the technology needed to kill them for tens of thousands of years, why on earth would humans not hunt Mammoths?

      More recent research than what? There is a bunch of links to scientific articles dealing with radiocarbon dating of Mammoth remains at the bottom of the Wikipedia page about Wrangel Island:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangel_Island

    30. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Here's an interesting issue though: We already know that most species cannot survive without the ecosystem that lives inside of them (the so called "good bacteria.") Do the bacterial strains that they needed to survive still live? If not, do we need to clone those as well or will something else suffice? If we need to clone those, then you might run into problems.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    31. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the problem is there is no uterus on earth big enough to... YOUR MOM!

    32. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have enjoyed a long peace. It wasn't always like this. There is strong evidence the Bronze Age catastrophe was caused by meteors. Over 40 cities were destroyed. The number of Early Bronze Age sites destroyed in this interconnected catastrophe is thought to be more than 500. Some put forward the idea a volcano did the destruction but it was pointed out that the area is too large for that, French archeologist Dr Marie-Agnes Courty took samples and found they contain tiny spheres of a calcite material associated with meteorites. Carbon14 dating on the other side of the world coincides. The Maori tell of fiery stones falling from the sky and burning the land. Carbon dating of archeological residue of the forest fires placed it at that concurrent time. Evidence shows Earth is bombarded by a particularly dense storm of meteorites over a couple of centuries. This visitation occurs roughly every 2,500 years. 2200-2000 BC and 400-600 AD was the last occurrence.

    33. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Really? How many are they planning on cloning?

    34. Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Still off by a factor of almost 400 years. If you read the referenced paper, there is no mention of hunting large land animals or of mammoths at all. Sounds like original research (unsupported by facts, no less) on the part of the Wikipedia author.

      Furthermore of all the radiocarbon dating, the most ambitious date is 1750 BCE. Still 400 years too early for J. Random Eskimo to stick a harpoon in his side. Do you have anything that suggests earlier humans or later Mammoths?

      --
      -
  10. Evil spirits by jgotts · · Score: 1

    I predict that the cloned animal will be possessed by either the Devil or some other evil spirit.

    1. Re:Evil spirits by VIPERsssss · · Score: 1

      Calm down, Stephen King.

      --
      We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
  11. Cue Jeff Goldblum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just can't wait to hear some of the dim witted rants that will arise from this article.

  12. But what does it taste like by u38cg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hot pan, salt, pepper, enquiring minds want to know.

    --
    [FUCK BETA]
    1. Re:But what does it taste like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hot pan, salt, pepper, enquiring minds want to know.

      they must have tasted really good, since our ancestors ate them all..

    2. Re:But what does it taste like by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Tasted like chicken obviously, which would explain why they all got eaten.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:But what does it taste like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More properly, to use one of Captain Jack Aubrey's signature comments about a new creature that Stephen Maturin has found, "Can it be et?"

    4. Re:But what does it taste like by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      In other news, scientists have determined that the smaller-sized and shorter-lived (faster generations) organism known as the "chicken" has successfully adapted and thereby avoided excinction, by changing its flavor to something resembling elephants.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    5. Re:But what does it taste like by dbraden · · Score: 1

      I don't care who ya are, that's funny. If only I had mod points...

  13. Mammoth Burgers! Mmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beef is good bison is ok, but Mammoth, that's a meal...

  14. Off topic by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Off topic, but if you're into making stuff like I am... the only legal way to get ivory anymore (besides an insane permitting process) is tusks dug up from mammoths in the arctic. I suspect that if they start re-introducing them to the wild, that will become illegal to... which would be super lame. Also, the ivory found in bogs and such usually absorb minerals and stuff making it very unique looking.

    1. Re:Off topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you just 3D print stuff?

    2. Re:Off topic by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Well once we get good at this we COULD just grow the tusk part, in 3' by 3' cubes. Then you could glue a bunch of them together to make a minecraft-style ivory castle.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  15. They didn't stop to think if they should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Jeff Goldblum available for comment?

  16. Seems logical by Kokuyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We can't keep elephants and rhinos alive, so let's clone us some mammoths...

    1. Re:Seems logical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, they do a pretty good job keeping the elephants and rhinos alive at my local zoo, not sure about yours.

  17. Global Warming! by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

    Well, obviously the melt of the ice age and all the the global warming problems since then were started off by Woolly Mammoth farts and now they want to bring them back?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  18. The end game by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They need to clone dwarf mammoths and sell them as house pets.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:The end game by fishybell · · Score: 1

      Mimmiths indeed.

      --
      ><));>
  19. Dr. Ian Malcolm by CheeseyDJ · · Score: 1

    "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
    -- Dr. Ian Malcolm

    1. Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. The one question not asked about cloning extinct animals - WHY?????

    2. Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Life... finds a way"
      -- Dr. Ian Malcolm

      Therefore, it's going to happen anyway. Might as well speed up the process.

    3. Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life finds a way except for the 9,999 out of every 10,000 species that are extinct.
       
      Just another "science" movie used to vilify science.

    4. Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Because it's not there.

      Seriously, it could be a form a preservation for species that are currently endangered, plus for something that was alive as recently as mammoths (2500 years ago), the Earth's climate in total hasn't changed that much (current warming trend notwithstanding) since when they roamed freely. So why not?

      When you see those skeletons of extinct animals in the museums, does no part of you yearn to see a living, breathing, specimen, just to see it and how it behaves? Don't you want to know?? I hope they do it. It would be so awesome.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    5. Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm by almitydave · · Score: 1

      Well, do be fair to Dr. Malcolm, I think he was referring to the phenomenon of life in general, not particular lives. Thus the extinctions that wiped out 99% (or whatever) of all life forms still resulted in the flourishing of the other 1% (or whatever), resulting in the planet teeming with life. No matter the circumstances, something finds a way to thrive.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    6. Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, do be fair to Dr. Malcolm, I think he was referring to the phenomenon of life in general, not particular lives.
       
      You obviously seen a different film then I had. He made it very clear that he felt that breeding only females was short sighted because "life finds a way."
       
        Henry Wu: We control their chromosomes. It's really not that difficult. All vertebrate embryos are inherently female anyway, they just require an extra hormone given at the right developmental stage to make them male. We simply deny them that.

      Dr. Ian Malcolm: John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is.

  20. kidney stones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would it have kidney stones in it's liver?

  21. Sexist much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not Madam Mammoth?

    1. Re:Sexist much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What does your mom have to do with this?

    2. Re:Sexist much? by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      No supervillain named 'Madam' would be pretty enough for today's comic readers. A 'Madam' doesn't have huge yet perky breasts or a tight bottom that she can bend to point at the reader while also looking the same way.

      At most, we'd get something like 'Mammatha', or maybe a 'Mammoth Girl'.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  22. But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's the "Because we can" mentality that they do this. Where will the woolly mammoth go? Are they going to use these clones to upgrade the running of the bulls?

    On second thought, lets do this and televise it.

  23. Or maybe not? by timmerman · · Score: 1

    30 year ago, you never know :) http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/...

  24. Apparently not that good: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mammoth meat was "tested" on several occasions in history, and apparently it's not that good:
    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/2555/prehistoric-meat-up

    1. Re:Apparently not that good: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been a while though that someone tried eating one that hasn't been dead for millenias.

    2. Re:Apparently not that good: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >1,000 year cured meat of any kind probably isn't that great.

  25. JasonAW3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's clone dwarf humans and put them in a new Hobbitat.

  26. Treasure trove of information by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

    Will we be able to ask it questions about life 40,000 years ago? This is very exciting.

  27. Wecome to Jurassic Park by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1
  28. Mod parent stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know how this got modded insightful. Are you implying that we shouldn't be doing the latter because of the former? Because, pardon my French, but that's fucking retarded. These two things are so unrelated that it's hard to even come up with a decent car analogy, but I'll try. What you're suggesting is something along the lines of "we can't keep people from crashing their cars, do we really think it's a good idea to build space ships?" It's just absurd.

    1. Re:Mod parent stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP probably thinks the plan is:

      1. Clone a single mammoth
      2. ???
      3. Profit from repopulated mammoth herds.

      When really it's more:
      1. Clone a mammoth to see if it can be done
      2. Publish a fuckload of papers regardless of the outcome.

  29. Why? by plazman30 · · Score: 1

    Other than the coolness factor, what is the point to cloning an animal that nature made extinct? Is Siberia really incomplete without pachyderms?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point in doing anything?

  30. Clone the Mammoth? Half the deal by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    I'm equally interested in cloning its last meal.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  31. Living Cells? by hllclmbr · · Score: 1

    "The scientists are optimistic that they'll be able to find high quality DNA from the mammoth, and perhaps even living cells." Is this a real possibility; 43,000 living eukaryote cells? It seems like cellular respiration would have ceased long ago, or is the claim that they were somehow preserved in some kind of stasis?

  32. I'm no scientist by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    but I would imagine you try an elephant first, and then a more recently frozen elephant, and go from there...

  33. Living Cells... I call BS. by sackbut · · Score: 1

    Living cells - no way. Even if frozen for a few seconds cell die. That's what 'frostbite' is, then your fingers/toes/nose turn black and falloff... And saying it's better preserved than something buried for 6 months! Wow - things rot in my fridge in days.

    1. Re:Living Cells... I call BS. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      I have personally frozen cells in a step-down freezer, then submerged them in liquid nitrogen for years, taken them back out, thawed them, implanted them, and had them grow. So...way.

    2. Re:Living Cells... I call BS. by RealRav · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid I caught some perch and put them in a 5 gallon bucket of water in the back yard. The night came a hard freeze. The water froze completely. A few days later it thawed and 2 of the perch were swimming around.

    3. Re:Living Cells... I call BS. by almitydave · · Score: 1

      See cryopreservation and suspended animation. Not only is it possible - it's been done. It's not the temperature itself that kills cells, it's the effects of lowering the temperature that causes damage. If you can mitigate these effects (such as the formation of ice crystals), you can prevent cell death.

      And you might want to turn the temp down in your fridge.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    4. Re:Living Cells... I call BS. by sackbut · · Score: 1

      Let me correlate your experience with this story: Likely dead before freezing, nope. Cells in culture - nope. Step down freezer - nope. Liquid nitrogen storage: nope. And unless you are a vampire or alien, your have not stored them for 43,000 years...

    5. Re:Living Cells... I call BS. by sackbut · · Score: 1

      It is possible, and it has been done. But it takes a specialized organism (bacteria, maybe frogs, some insects) or some way to prevent ice crystal formation... And a mammoth dis not have this advantage. Your references require some quite advanced technology that was not around (that I know of) 43000 years ago. A nicely frozen steak is not viable tissue.

    6. Re:Living Cells... I call BS. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Let me redirect you to your claim:

      Even if frozen for a few seconds cell die.

      Nope. At least not always. They also weren't cells in culture, they were ~1mm tissue blocks that had been removed from a live animal an hour or two before freezing.

      I find the living cells in a 43,000 year old mammoth carcass pretty hard verging on impossible to believe, too. I'm just making the point that cells are more hardy than you might think.

  34. I read that as "Offer Strong Chance of Clothing" by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for Mammoth wool for next winter, or the spring's fresh and cool nights.

  35. Mine! by whitroth · · Score: 1

    That was the one that got away from me as a kid, herding them, and I was punished for loosing her. They belonged to us, and so any offspring are *mine*.

    And you kids these days, think spring is bad when the dogs and cats start shedding, we needed *rakes* when out mammoths started shedding....

                        mark "and my folks still had the bones of the dinosaurs they helped get rid of...."

  36. Last meal by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    The fact that they have the liver and last meal are very promising. It seems likely that the flora of a mammoth's gut were different from those in a modern-day African elephant's. We are all super-organisms, you know, and an inoculation with a little of its own poop in infancy could set up the appropriate flora. The researchers can also figure out what exactly the mammoth liked to eat.

    More problematic, I imagine, is mitochondria, etc. Cross-species cloning puts DNA from one beast into the cells (factories) of another beast. Such a transfer might yield incompatible sub-cellular systems. Mitochondria are RNA-based, and pass from the mother's oocyte. I have no idea whether any mammoth-mitochondria or other non-DNA-based organelles from the sample might still be viable.

    Very interesting project in any case.

  37. "High Chance" more like 'Fat Chance' by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    First off, no one has ever cloned an actual living elephant. Horses have been cloned by implanting a cell nucleus from a living cell in a host egg cell and then implanting that in a surrogate mother. That process results in about 1 viable embryo for every 1,000 attempts so it is hardly a sure thing. In TFA however, they are talking about taking a nucleus from a 43,000-year-old frozen cell and implanting that in an egg cell of another species and then implanting the hoped for embryo into a living elephant. There are not that many elephants to try this on worldwide, most of those are in zoos, and even normal reproduction of these elephants is problematic with the population plummeting due to a lack of fertility. The bottom line is, don't expect to see the wooly mammoth at your local petting zoo anytime soon.

  38. This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think mammoths are gone because we ate the heck out of them. They therefore must have tasted awesome. Just like Dodos. Which were allegedly delicious. I want me a Dodo burger.

  39. I'm thinking it should be crowdsourced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kickstarter project.

  40. why not in greenland, North America? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that they should be finding plenty of mamoth in greenland and north america. Perhaps we are not looking as much as we should.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  41. cross breed with elephants and get a freak mammoth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a win win, Elephants are already endangered, and the best way to keep a species living is for humans to need them.

  42. Hard to find? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    A mammoth is much smaller than the missing Boeing 777.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  43. The plight of the frozen embryos by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    There are lots of "snowflake babies" in need of adoption: http://www.washingtontimes.com...

    If you have fertility issues, consider adopting one, so he or she can get out of the freezer and start living, like Hannah Strege did!

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  44. What about microflora? by alleycat0 · · Score: 1

    Could such animals possible be healthy in the absence of the gut flora & other micro-species that evolved along with it?

    --
    I am not a number - I am a free man!
  45. 2500–2000 BC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very interesting. Note that at least according to Wikipedia it's 2500–2000 BC rather than 2500 years ago.

  46. Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will find a way...

    No good can come from this.