Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Optimistic About Getting a Mammoth Genome Complete Enough To Clone

Posted by samzenpus on from the one-piece-at-a-time dept.

Clark Schultz writes The premise behind Jurassic Park just got a bit more real after scientists in South Korea said they are optimistic they can extract enough DNA from the blood of a preserved woolly mammoth to clone the long-extinct mammal. The ice-wrapped woolly mammoth was found last year on an island off of Siberia. The development is being closely watched by the scientific community with opinion sharply divided on the ethics of the project.

9 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. huh? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand... what would be unethical about this?

    1. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't understand... what would be unethical about this?

      Forcing an Asian elephant to be a "mother" to another species, one that might harm her.

      Forcing solitary existence on what appears to be a highly social species.

    2. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, yeah, but you wouldn't be using a human zygote for this. Seems like only the 3 craziest members of PETA in the world would have an ethical problem with this...

    3. Re:huh? by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's relevant to, but not the full story of, the ethical controversy over human cloning, but we're talking about mammoths. I don't think anyone's proposing that we insert mammoth DNA into human eggs.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    4. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Posting anonymously since I've voted on other posts: I don't think 99% of people would care that non-human cloning it erases a potential life. We end actual animal lives all the time for food, sport, or simply out of carelessness.

      Concerns about cross-species surrogacy (that could kill the mother, a species with problems of its own), creating social animals with no living members of the species to acculturate it, and of course, spending millions of dollars that could (arguably) be better spent preserving extant species all seem like more likely ethical concerns.

    5. Re:huh? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's done daily by farmers everywhere. Where do you think mules come from?

  2. Re:I can see the curiosity aspect.. by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can't you be spending your time doing something more productive?

    Consider that any successful experience in cloning anything adds to our knowledge base about cloning. By perfecting cloning, we can do a lot more than just bring back extinct species. We could, for example, grow entirely new organs cloned from your body to replace damaged or failing ones, organs that could be transplanted into you without fear of tissue rejection. Further, the practice of being able to reliably modify cells at the genetic level can lead to all sorts of other benefits in medicine, biology, and even far-flung fields as nanotechnology when you consider the scale you have to work in.

    The whole "can't you spend your time/money better" argument is pretty short-sighted when you consider the enormous ancillary benefits. It's like saying why bother going to the moon when you can spend money on Earth. But without that impetus, we might not have the very computers and Internet you're currently using to read this post, or lasers to correct your vision, or lightweight, strong materials used to make the planes you fly on, or the fuel cells used to power zero-emission vehicles, or...you get the idea.

    Stop thinking in checkers. Think chess. It's not the current move that matters; it's the move you make three moves from now that wins the game.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  3. Re:I can see the curiosity aspect.. by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, I get that. I guess I'm just wondering why a Mommoth, as opposed to, I dunno, a human, is so valuable in a cloning exercise.

    Part of the answer may be, you can make a lot of mistakes cloning a mammoth without people getting too upset.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  4. Elephants? by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems surreal that we are talking about resurrecting Mammoths while their close genetic kin are still in a pretty harsh decline. Perhaps we should be trying to store sequences of good cross section of the remaining elephants so that in some future century we can dust off the old thumb drives and bring them back with enough genetic diversity to properly re-introduce them somewhere.