Slashdot Mirror


Efforts To Turn Elephants Into Woolly Mammoths Are Already Underway

Jason Koebler writes: "Researchers are working to hybridize existing animals with extinct ones in order to create a '2.0' version of the animal. Using a genome editing technique known as CRISPR, Harvard synthetic biologist George Church has successfully migrated three genes, which gave the woolly mammoth its furry appearance, extra layer of fat, and cold-resistant blood, into the cells of Asian elephants, with the idea of eventually making a hybrid embryo. In theory, given what we know about both the woolly mammoth genome and the Asian elephant genome, the final product will be something that more closely resembles the former than the latter."

18 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Misguided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "furry appearance, extra layer of fat"

    Sounds like they are trying to make more Americans

  2. Bad timing? by daemonhunter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe we shouldn't be making woolly mammoths just now, with climate change and all that apocalyptic-ness right around the corner.

    Just sayin'.

    1. Re:Bad timing? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe we shouldn't be making woolly mammoths just now, with climate change and all that apocalyptic-ness right around the corner.

      There will be plenty of prime mammoth habitat. Although tundra is turning into taiga, plenty of formerly glaciated areas are turning into tundra. For instance, the mammoths could live in Greenland, which was completely covered with ice the last time mammoths were around, but already has some areas with commercial reindeer herds.

    2. Re:Bad timing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lets look back at the records. As the mammoth population declined, temperature increased. Obviously we need more mammoths.

  3. Re:so... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because some idiot paid for it. Unfortunately, that "idiot" is usually a taxpayer that sure as hell didn't get a vote.

    I heard it was paid for someone called John Hammond, a billionaire CEO.

  4. Re:GMO Mammoth Burgers! by wiggles · · Score: 3, Informative

    Probably similar to bison - the only real ice age megafauna left.

  5. Times sure are changing by tulcod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Intel buys or invents some kind of a new chip process, everyone applauds. When engineers use 3D printing to save a crippled boy's life, everyone celebrates technology. Stick an arduino in a tumor and people scream in ecstasy.

    But when the item of cloning comes in the news, suddenly people back away and ask what it's all good for. Because us humans are not allowed to mess with that.

    Come on people. We invested thousands of years trying to understand the tricks of physics and evolution. We have now got to a stage where we can apply these tricks ourselves and see what we can make of the world.

    Will it turn out for the better? Absolutely nobody knows. But telling scientists not to mess with this takes us back to the middle ages, where scientific incentives were influenced heavily by religious and cultural beliefs.

    Let us show ourselves that we no longer need that. This is the time to end that society of religion and culture. Messing with life, and bringing back the extinct, those are exactly the kind of things that go against all rules of religion that we have adhered to for the past x thousands years. Humans are the new god on planet earth (and beyond?).

    1. Re:Times sure are changing by radtea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Messing with life", as you call it, has an incredible potential for doing harm if approached carelessly. It doesn't take much imagination to realize this, either: synthetic infectious agents, engineered organisms that displace natural diversity, and so on.

      You've missed the GP's point, and created an instance of his observation.

      There is almost nothing we do that doesn't have "an incredible potential to do harm", and ubiquitous computational intelligence is one of the most obvious candidates for that fear going... yet hardly anyone is afraid of it.

      Ubiquitous computational intelligence (UCI) has the potential to put everyone under constant observation, including position tracking. It has the potential to serve ads to you in your sleep, monitor your caloric intake, keep track and report your alcohol consumption, your masturbation habits... everything. It's Orwell's telescreens on steroids.

      Yet the response to such things on /., while sometimes somewhat skeptical, is mostly positive. Relatively minor messing with the genome of some fairly rare creature, on the other hand, brings out the panic, with flat-out bizarre, anti-Darwinian statements like "these things died out for a reason" (posted by an AC above, who makes points similar to yours.)

      Sure messing with genomes carries risks, but they are comparable to the risks we take with all kinds of technological development, and yet for some reason people seem a lot more sensitive to them. It may not be explicitly religious, but it sure isn't rational.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:Times sure are changing by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or create species that we can't get rid of and end up replacing good species that we want.

      Not to worry, come winter.... OH SHIT THAT DOESN'T WORK WITH MAMMOTHS!

    3. Re:Times sure are changing by binarstu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And you've missed my point. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well.

      I absolutely do not disagree that plenty of people have an irrational fear of genetic technologies. Nor do I disagree that we have lots of other ways to screw the world up (you mention the example of massive automated surveillance). And I wasn't arguing that we shouldn't try to resurrect a mammoth.

      The GP seemed to me to be making the argument that 1) negative reaction to "messing with life" is because of antiquated religious sensibilities; and 2) we're gods now, so we should just do whatever the heck we want. I don't find either part of that argument compelling. As for part 1, casting any and all opposition to unbridled genetic experimentation as nothing but religious or cultural fanatacism is a straw man argument, pure and simple. There are lots of very rational reasons to proceed cautiously with certain kinds of genetic experimentation (and plenty of scientists agree with me). Why part 2 is wrong shouldn't require any further explanation, and other commenters have already addressed it.

  6. I for one... by Schaffner · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our new hybridized mammoth overlords!

    Come on, you know you wanted to post this first.

  7. Re:so... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Umm.. 'cause we can?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:so... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    why are they doing this?

    Why not? Where elephants live, they are a keystone species. They preserve the savanna by knocking down trees, and they dig waterholes that are used by many other animals. Once they are gone from a region, the entire ecosystem can drastically change. It is likely that mammoths had a similar effect in the arctic.

  9. Re:i want a carnivorous bunny by maliqua · · Score: 3, Informative

    Watching Monty python too many times is an asymptote i can only get infinitely close to watching it too many times

  10. Re: GMO Mammoth Burgers! by jd2112 · · Score: 3, Funny

    But they are all several thousand years past their "Best if used by" date.

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  11. Re:so... by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Informative

    The whole plan seems pretty sketchy. You can't just create a mashup of two distantly related animals and automatically expect to get something viable out of the mix. Mammoths and Asian elephants aren't actually that closely related- African elephant, Asian elephant, and mammoth are thought to have diverged around six million years ago, so mammoths are about as close to Asian elephants as chimps are to humans.

    Hybridization can result in improved fitness if the parents aren't too distantly related. However, the more distant the relationship between the parents, the less likely the offspring are to be viable. Humans and Neanderthals split around 600,000 years ago and were able to successfully interbreed. However, horses and asses split around four million years ago. The offspring- mules and hinnies- are healthy, but they are either sterile or have reduced fertility. Breeding more distantly related animals produces non-viable offspring.

    The article does mention that there have been hybrids between Asian and African elephants, which are slightly more distantly related than Asian elephant and mammoth. What the article neglects to mention is that the only known example of an African-Asian hybrid died several weeks after birth; there are other reports of hybrids being born but strikingly no reports of any surviving. This suggests that mixing mammoth and Asian elephant DNA is going to produce an unhealthy or non-viable offspring.

  12. Monsanto Mammoth by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Funny

    And they sue you when it tramples your house.

  13. Crossbreeding vs. Genetic Engineering by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 4, Informative

    What you're talking about is basically natural crossbreeding, not the type of genetic engineering that involves modifying the DNA itself of an organism. By "natural" I include such mechanical techniques as artificial insemination, extracting the sperm and eggs from mature adults and mixing them up. With natural crossbreeding you get the whole shebang, you let nature decide which genes become active and dominant. In theory, with DNA level genetic engineering you can specify which traits you want to get. I'm not saying this is a good thing, only that you can potentially get more control by "editing" (the word used in the article) the genes that simpy mixing the semen and egg of two different species.