Woolly Mammoth On Verge of Resurrection, Scientists Reveal (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The woolly mammoth vanished from the Earth 4,000 years ago, but now scientists say they are on the brink of resurrecting the ancient beast in a revised form, through an ambitious feat of genetic engineering. Speaking ahead of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston this week, the scientist leading the "de-extinction" effort said the Harvard team is just two years away from creating a hybrid embryo, in which mammoth traits would be programmed into an Asian elephant. "Our aim is to produce a hybrid elephant-mammoth embryo," said Prof George Church. "Actually, it would be more like an elephant with a number of mammoth traits. We're not there yet, but it could happen in a couple of years." The creature, sometimes referred to as a "mammophant," would be partly elephant, but with features such as small ears, subcutaneous fat, long shaggy hair and cold-adapted blood. The mammoth genes for these traits are spliced into the elephant DNA using the powerful gene-editing tool, Crispr. Until now, the team have stopped at the cell stage, but are now moving towards creating embryos -- although, they said that it would be many years before any serious attempt at producing a living creature.

Comments

Why not go the whole nine yards?

[muecksteiner]

The only bit I don't quite understand is why they don't piece together some completely mammoth DNA, and try to grow that in an artificial uterus? What would the additional complications be, beyond hacking together an elephant-mammoth hybrid like they propose?

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible that they don't have the complete, undamaged mammoth DNA. Also, the cellular organs and other parts do have to come somewhere, or recreated. That is the amazing part of the cellular theory: all current life is a continuum from the first cell. It would be interesting to have an artificial uterus with all the roles of viruses, hormones and others factors replicated, but as of now it probably doesn't exist.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[WindBourne]

mammoth DNA is pretty badly broken up. Chances are they are going to use these hybrids as models to figure out which genes of the mammoth cell lineage is viable.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[umafuckit]

The only bit I don't quite understand is why they don't piece together some completely mammoth DNA, and try to grow that in an artificial uterus? What would the additional complications be, beyond hacking together an elephant-mammoth hybrid like they propose?

I think because there is no confidence that we have an error-free mammoth genome. So it seems much more likely that modifying the elephant genome will yield success.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[thinkwaitfast]

Maybe because artificial uteruses don't exist yet?

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you can't turn a Lada into a Lamborgini, no matter how much you pound the sheetmetal.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[dbIII]

and try to grow that in an artificial uterus

First you need to invent an artificial uterus, then you you need some complete mammoth DNA, then you can grow your mammoth.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you can't turn a Lada into a Lamborgini, no matter how much you pound the sheetmetal.

Then you are not pounding the sheetmetal right. -BTW Lamborghini's are fiberglass.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[jandersen]

As others have already said, we don't really have a whole, undamaged genome for a mammoth, but an artificial uterus is technologically still very far beyond our capabilities. The only option is to implant the fetus in an existing animal, in which case there may be compatibility issues - the fetus has to be a reasonably close match to the mother, immunologically speaking. A hybrid may be close enough for it to be feasible, and perhaps it is possible to get closer and closer to 100% mammoth by adding more and more for each generation, who knows.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Quakeulf]

You mean why not make a wholly wooly mammoth?

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Mike Frett]

But we are at the point now that if we throw enough money at something we can make virtually anything we want. That's what I think. =)

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[staalmannen]

There is no good enough DNA to do a cloning of an original mammoth - and also if we did, it would not have any mates. The best chance is to identify the critical genetic variants that made the mammoth adapted to its niche, insert those in elephant. This mutated / genetically engineered elephant would fill the same function and "walk and talk" like the original mammoth - but with the advantage that one can breed with elephants to make more of them. People may think that this is a bit of a strange effort - to de-extinct mammoths, but in fact it might actually make a huge ecological service since a lot of species originally evolved under the pressure of mammoth and other megafauna herbivory. Re-wilding (like how re-introduction of wolves could stop erosion in an American national park) is actually a pretty cool trend.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[CrimsonAvenger]

And think of the possibilities: mammoth steaks in every restaurant! My mouth waters at the thought....

Note, for the humour-impaired, that the above was a joke. Now if we were to re-engineer the Dodo (tastes like chicken!), then we'd be cooking....

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[dreamchaser]

It still begs the question. Why? It's a waste of money and resources that could be focused on actually contributing to society. "Because we can" is not a good justification.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[religionofpeas]

mammoth DNA is pretty badly broken up

Just use some frog DNA to fix the bad parts.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Merk42]

This sounds like when a new version of {software} comes out.
"They didn't do what I think is important, therefore all their effort is wasted."

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[dbIII]

Oh yes, the end of Science. Thank you Lord Kelvin.
For one thing we still don't have a clue how owls fly so silently but there are some people working on it with very simplified wing models, so relatively simple stuff from the world around us is still outside our grasp without a lot of time, effort and dead ends. The idea of "that if we throw enough money at something we can make virtually anything we want" is an incredibly toxic cargo cult piece of shit that you should cure yourself of if before it backfires on you (that's if it wasn't an attempt at a joke). I've met people that disconnected from reality and they kept lurching from one fuckup to the next.
Dreaming is great, taking fantasy from granted not so much.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[gnick]

It still begs the question. Why? It's a waste of money and resources that could be focused on actually contributing to society.

Just think of the money we'll make selling hunts!

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Deadstick]

Ooo, yeah, let's see them do that right. Here's your spear, here's your rock...now you stand over here with the long spear. Plant the end right there...

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Kierthos]

Didn't you ever listen to that song by Loverboy?

Frog and mammoth DNA just won't splice.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Enigma2175]

Really? There have been instances of almost intact mammoths being found in receding glaciers, how bad does DNA get degraded from freezing? Heck, in this find blood was actually flowing out of the carcass as it thawed. If we can sequence the neanderthal genome using much older samples I don't see a reason we couldn't sequence the much more recent mammoth genome.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[interkin3tic]

George Church has a tendency to make slightly wild claims that sound reasonable in an effort to get media attention. He's likely saying "It'll be half elephant though" so he doesn't get written off as completely nuts. Prior to this, he held a secret science conference basically to say "We're going to be making whole genomes from scratch."

Seems like the Elon Musk approach: he dangles something in front of the media that is both incredible sounding yet realistic at the same time. And he's done a lot of impressive stuff sure. And there's good reason to get people excited about science for a minute rather than just focusing on the daily political fight. But it's furstrating too, sometimes I wish they'd shut up and just do it.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[ChrisMaple]

Because sled dogs aren't good for heavy loads. Because environmentalists don't want you hunting polar bears.

More seriously, a wide ranging ability to edit genes is one of the most powerful advances for humanity, ever. Although it ranks below the level of language, it is on the level of fuel-powered engines.

This sort of experimentation on humans would be widely decried. To safely make major genetic changes to a human, first requires the sort of experiments that make a wooly mammoth.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Muros]

And think of the possibilities: mammoth steaks in every restaurant! My mouth waters at the thought....

Note, for the humour-impaired, that the above was a joke. Now if we were to re-engineer the Dodo (tastes like chicken!), then we'd be cooking....

You jest, but according to this, mammoth was indeed the meat of choice for our neolithic ancestors.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Because mammoth steaks probably taste delicious. Why do you think they were hunted before.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[The Grim Reefer]

Ted Nugent just go a "full predator spiritual erection"

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[WindBourne]

I think that most of those were over 10,000 years old. As such, you have pressure, and radiation that will switch bonds. Hopefully, by building a hybrid they can figure out which genes are viable and which are not.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[BarbaraHudson]

There's no such thing as a "perfect genome." We're all mutants. Some estimates are that the individual human has 60 mutations, other estimates put it as high as 200.

Re: Why not go the whole nine yards?

[wasteoid]

The only useful application of Agile so far.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[tnordloh]

I actually attended a talk about this, and here's what I got out of it. So, even if you had perfect Mammoth DNA, you don't have a Mammoth uterus. And the mammoth DNA isn't that different from an elephant's DNA. And whether genes are expressed has a lot to do with epigenetics, which in turn relies on the environment, which would be, for lack of anything else being available, an elephant's uterus. So, what you end up getting, after all this time and treasure, is probably going to pretty much be an elephant, with a couple of unexpressed Mammoth genes mixed in there.

Also, the talk went into the ethics of creating a mammoth. They were social creatures. Is there really any ethical justification, to bring one mammoth into the world, who will then be forever alone, and probably a little fucked up, from the weird circumstances of birth, and huge amount of guesswork involved in getting the genetics right? Do we actually gain knowledge from doing this, or do we just get bragging rights, from creating potentially the loneliest, most isolated, and genetically unreliable, animal on the planet?

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Mainly that we don't have any artificial uteruses (uterii?). Even if they had completely intact mammoth DNA - or could create it - it'd be a lot easier to try to put it in an elephant uterus.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[greythax]

First of all, bullshit: https://asknature.org/strategy... And secondly, it is really odd that you choose something like an owl wing to base your scientific musings off of, rather than the fantastic examples of us throwing enough money at something and figuring it out, such as nuclear weaponry or traveling to the moon. Money = resources. If you throw enough resources at science, you will indeed see results. The vast majority of scientific achievements have been from people who knew what they wanted to do and kept plugging away at it until they made it happen. Eureka moments are very rare in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[AK Marc]

Are you one of those people who insists we don't investigate rape because there are murderers who haven't been caught?

You are assuming a zero sum game when none exists. Embryo creation has no overlap with cancer research, yet re-sequencing of large complex mammals could end up curing cancer. Why do you not want cancer cured?

Would you feel better if they called it "Animal trials to cure human cancer!"? Because that's one of the (near-infinite) uses. But they have to get it working well first. And "animal trials" gets things firebombed by PETA, so "resurrecting extinct species" is the PR name.

Re: Why not go the whole nine yards?

[BarbaraHudson]

And like many mutations, it has both advantages and disadvantages, which is why it has existed all these thousands of years. Think of it - how many guys would give their proverbial left nut to have multiple orgasms?

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[Scarletdown]

They should put that research into something much more profound... Like making an elephant or mammoth with 5 asses.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[cthulhu11]

"Intact" can mean a variety of very different things. In the linked article, was it really blood, or a mix of fluids including who knows what? Consider how animal tissues can freezer-burn at home in just a couple of months, then extrapolate that to thousands of years. Think of DNA as floppy from decades ago -- bits can degrade at random and it *looks* intact but when you try to use it there may be enough degradation that you just read out gibberish.

Re:Why not go the whole nine yards?

[RockDoctor]

how bad does DNA get degraded from freezing?

Not as badly as it gets degraded by being not frozen. Or, for the worst of all worlds, try having your sample cycle between below freezing and above freezing on a daily basis for a week or so as the winter starts to bite and the sun gets weaker. (Yes, creationist bullshitters do claim evidence for a mammoth which was frozen to death with fresh pasture in it's mouth ; even granting that for one example, the thousands of other examples cover a wide range of taphonomy. Which is a word with too many syllables for creationists.)

blood was actually flowing out of the carcass as it thawed.

Blood, or blood-stained water?

(A few weeks ago, I got a new, and painlessly sharp, bread knife. After I'd learned the hard way to always keep it in it's sheath, I went to visit the parents, including cooking their wedding anniversary dinner for them and carving the joints. The viscosity of blood is very different to that of blood-stained water, as the blood splatter in my bathroom testifies (better clean that up before someone asks awkward questions). In fact, IIRC there was a path lab test that relied o nthe viscosity of the blood - forget what it was for ; or which century it was used.)

Re:Mammoth steak, vat-grown

[fustakrakich]

When do we get our brontosaurus burgers?

Another crispr story

[93 Escort Wagon]

Seems like we've seen a lot of these over the last few days.

Re:Another crispr story

[Black Parrot]

Seems like we've seen a lot of these over the last few days.

Yes, they've invented a machine that cranks them out.

1 step closer......

[rosshalz]

..... to a real life skyrim experience

wonder why asian elephant?

[WindBourne]

Seriously, the Mammoth is larger than a n African Elephant. So, it actually makes sense to use that for the base.
Still, this is going to be interesting. Hopefully, this will pick up Asian's nice demeanor. THough thinking about it, maybe the reason why the mammoths were hunted to extinction is their demeanor was even easier going than an Asian Elephant's.

Re:wonder why asian elephant?

[geantvert]

The answer is likely in there: http://news.nationalgeographic...

The relevant bit is "At that time African elephants branched off first. Then just 440,000 years later, a blink of an eye in evolutionary time, Asian elephants and mammoths diverged into their own separate species."

Re:wonder why asian elephant?

[WindBourne]

That makes sense. thanx.

Re:wonder why asian elephant?

[T.E.D.]

That's very interesting. Among other things, it implies that Mammoths and Asian elephants are closer related to each other than either is to African elephants (but not by much).

Another way of putting this is that its probably more accurate to consider Mammoths as just another species of Elephant.

There used to (in historic times) be another relatively small North African Elephant species (Hannibal used them in his war with Rome), that is also now extinct. There were quite recently lots of island-based pygmy elephants and pygmy mammoths too. If you could bring back a Mammoth, those might be equally recoverable.

Re:wonder why asian elephant?

[syntotic]

Harvard? Hoax. But it is unsettling that live Mammoths and Dinosaurs CAN be one of those State Secrets you do not want the learned masses to know about then they would indeed go extinct and secrecy protects them, but now we can credibly claim we resurrected prehistoric DNA and show a specimen around. If you do not have world navigation capabilities it is very difficult next to impossible to just disregard this plot. Worse, if in the future we start getting Mammoth TV dinners because nobody is telling us Pork could finally be chased nearly into extinction...

Hardly

[nospam007]

As I read ion all the other articles, the result will be a hairy elephant with a beard, that's all.

Re: Hardly

[cyber-vandal]

So the pachyderm version of a Unix sysadmin

Re:Hardly

[Oswald McWeany]

As I read ion all the other articles, the result will be a hairy elephant with a beard, that's all.

Keep it in it's mother's basement and it might start posting on Slashdot.

Re:Hardly

[93 Escort Wagon]

So this is actually whipslash's secret plan for increasing Slashdot readership?

Re:All fun and games

[Black Parrot]

until they break out of their cages and go berserk.

But if you survive you can write your memoirs and they'll make it into a major motion picture.

Re:how selfish, how unethical

[Black Parrot]

Zoo? The scientists are going to *eat* it!

Re: Mammoth steak, vats grown. Mmmmmm

[mnemotronic]

A faux bacon double pseudo mammoth burger with special sauce and a super size diet Croak. Hold the Velveeta. I'm not into fake foods.

First to go extinct twice?

[Anonymous Coward]

National Geographic reported that extinction rates are 1,000 times faster due to human activity[1]. So I predict that the woolly mammoth will be the first species to go extinct twice. #f1RST

[1]: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140529-conservation-science-animals-species-endangered-extinction/

Re:First to go extinct twice?

[Quakeulf]

The only way forward is to curb human activity by introducing breeding caps on growing populations to prevent them from overreaching into animal territory. This is in the interest of the entire rest of the world if we want a sustainable future.

Re:First to go extinct twice?

[animaal]

The problem there is that the populations in most western countries are already stagnant or even falling, so "breeding caps" would mostly apply to developing countries. There wouldn't be any political will to impose something like this.

Re:First to go extinct twice?

[Quakeulf]

There is no political will because those in control only seek destruction because they live day to day with no consideration for long-term effects.

Re: pet tyrannosaurus - obligatory Calvin & Ho

[mnemotronic]

love this one :: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

vanity project

[Chrisq]

Why this vanity project, whereas the same effort could probably save dozens of species from becoming extinct? If anything it will be used to argue against conservation; people with economic interests will say "we can always bring them back" just the same as they say "we can use technology to cool the climate" now.

Re:vanity project

[religionofpeas]

Different people, different interests. If you would rather help existing species, go right ahead.

Re:vanity project

[interkin3tic]

people with economic interests will say "we can always bring them back" just the same as they say "we can use technology to cool the climate" now.

From where I'm sitting, I hear them saying "NO. NO. NOOOO. CLIMATE CHANGE NOT HAPPENING. NO! AND GAS PRICES AND JOBS! TAXES TAXES TAXES! EVIL!" and voters saying "Hmm... that sounds more reasonable than the scientists." Geoengineering and de-extinction are unnecessary arguments given that people already are being convinced by simple denials and short-sighted economic scare arguments.

So I think you have it backwards. We need both technologies as backups because the dumb masses are too stupid to make the right choice. And for the record, I held that opinion long before the most recent presidential election.

Re:Not to be egotistic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's news for NERDS dude. If you don't think this is at least interesting you can hand in your nerd card.

Your scientists were...

[queBurro]

...so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

Someone call Diana Ben-Aaron

[Anonymous Coward]

Diana was the MIT student who wrote the April 1st article, "http://hoaxes.org/af_database/permalink/retrobreeding_the_woolly_mammoth". I remember laughing with it, and I've been laughing ever since because Diana gets more citations and calls about that joke article than about anything she's ever written professionally. And yes, *people keep citing it in scientific papers* as an example of successful breeding of an extinct species.

I love Diana as a person, and this is what people will remember her for, no matter how much she accomplishes in her very successful life.

Re:All fun and games

[Applehu Akbar]

until they break out of their cages and go berserk.

A good place for Pleistocene Park would be one of those large uninhabited islands off the Siberian coast. It would promote tourism in a region that badly neeeds it.

Missing the bigger picture here...

[Nidi62]

Remember, John Hammond started with a genetically engineered elephant too

Great idea

[kbg]

Hey I have an idea. Why don't we create a park on an island...we could call it Jurassic Mammoth Park or something...where mammoths roam free and you could go on safari tours to see them. What could possibly go wrong with that.

Re:Great idea

[religionofpeas]

Will it have Unix system? I ask because I know those.

Re:Great idea

[nickersonm]

If anything goes wrong, we can just hunt them to extinction with atlatls or buffalo jumps like the first time.

Re: how selfish, how unethical

[Frankzy]

... With the trunk one would imagine

life...ah...

[better_resurrection]

finds a way

Re:pet tyrannosaurus

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, they'll just take a Gecko and gene edit to be a bit bigger and walk on 2 legs. Same difference.

No, that's how you get politicians.

Re:how selfish, how unethical

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this, a PETA meeting?

Modern zoos try very hard to reproduce the animal's native habitat. Pits and cages are archaic monstrosities on the order of Victorian dental chairs. And you can't get the full mammoth experience unless you can ultimately produce a herd.

In short, any re-created mammoths would probably have more enjoyable lives than the average office worker.

Re:how selfish, how unethical

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that unethical - just a necessary step towards merging electric eels with sharks. How else are they going to power the lasers?

Re:Mammoth steak, vat-grown

[Rei]

Are you suggesting blending together pig genes with mammoth genes to make giant porkchops?

Because if so - neat idea, but it won't work. Mammoths are a species of elephant, and pig and elephant DNA just don't splice.

Why not save Elephants first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they aren't in danger then can we play mad science and bring back the Mammoth, after making sure the Eurasian Tundra isn't gone and can support them.
Next step, Dino chickens as pets please.

Re:Not to be egotistic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another idiot thinking this is solely a "tech geek site." Ignoring, of course, the fact that a) genetics is high tech, and b)many bio stories have been featured here since day 1.

Stupid naming

[famebait]

The creature, sometimes referred to as a "mammophant,"

Way to waste an opportunity.
"Heffalump" FTW!

I thought that was the easy part?

[Gilgaron]

I'd read about these ideas a while back it and from what I read making the embryo would be far easier than implanting it, there were some issues with elephant wombs and narrow implantation window, as I recall. Reminds me of a Stephen Baxter book where some aliens recreated historically extinct Earth fauna by messing around with the genomes of their descendants, amongst other things.

Re:Mammoth steak, vat-grown

[tepples]

Not on Sundays.

as long as it's not in america

[originalmouse]

we're getting ready to roll back endangered species regulations because we have a senile fascist at the helm. these guys should get the process nailed down exactly. i have a feeling there'll be a lot more species to resurrect really soon.

Re:Mammoth steak, vat-grown

[Lord Kano]

I wish I had mod points, this was funny.

LK

Re:Not to be egotistic, but...

[robinsonne]

I'd rather read about genetic modifications of mammoth DNA and elephants to try to reintroduce a species than see yet another phone/tablet/phablet story personally.

There's more to be geeky about than just programming languages. Biology is cool. CRISPR is cool (and slightly scary).

But ok, lets talk about how awesome vi is. Emacs is for losers. Am I doing it right?

CRISPR for the masses

[mi]

Why? It's a waste of money and resources that could be focused on actually contributing to society.

The technique they are using — CRISPR — is what we just discussed as applicable to humans. If splicing mammoth into elephant yields a viable organism, some day it may be possible to splice useful features of Neanderthals and other extinct human species, or even apes into humans — yielding strength, resistance to diseases, or adaptability to uncomfortable conditions (think Antarctica or even Mars).

Eugenics became a dirty word because of Nazis, who would improve humanity by killing off the "degenerates". But there is nothing wrong with improving the human stock per se... For example, Heinlein in "Beyond This Horizon" describes a society, where this was done successfully — while also explaining, how it can be done (very) wrong as well.

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[Oswald McWeany]

That's an interesting thought- I hadn't thought of giving humans genes for cold-hardiness, but certainly, even beyond increased Mars/Antarctica survivability, cold-resistant humans would require less energy costs in deep space exploration. If we ever got advanced enough to send a ship off to another star system, having humans that have lower energy requirements could allow us to send more humans further.

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[The Grim Reefer]

For example, Heinlein in "Beyond This Horizon" describes a society, where this was done successfully

With all due respect to Heinlein, he's a fantastic writer in my opinion, it's just a story. There are a hell of a lot of variables in the real world. In a story, you only need to focus on what you want to. Life is much messier. You may be able to reproduce the result you are looking for the first time. But it's more likely to be a disaster the first dozen or couple hundred times. Heinlein was much smarter, and more pragmatic, than most of our decision makers are.

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[mi]

it's just a story

It still provides a lot more details — and answers a lot more questions — than a Slashdot post can be expected to. If it is Ok to outline one's vision of solution in the latter, it is certainly Ok to refer people to the former. As I did...

Sure, it is "just a story", but until such things are implemented for real, all discussions will have to deal with the hypotheticals.

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[mark-t]

Eugenics became a dirty word because of Nazis, who would improve humanity by killing off the "degenerates". But there is nothing wrong with improving the human stock per se..

Perhaps not, except for the fact that if you *don't* "kill off the degenerates", then they will continually breed with your so-called "improved stock", defeating any attempts to improve them over the course of generations, unless you legislate mandatory sterilization for absolutely everyone that does not fit certain criteria, which itself poses no small ethical problem for those that might consider it... Perhaps almost ironically, it has much in common with the ethical problems created by outlawing abortion.

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[AK Marc]

Gattaca had the degenerates and improved stock living in (relative) harmony, and no genocide needed. That Eugenicists can't consider any option other than genocide is what gave eugenics a bad name, not the Nazis, just one in a long line of unethical eugenicists.

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[mi]

if you *don't* "kill off the degenerates", then they will continually breed with your so-called "improved stock"

Not if the genomes of the new embryos are edited with the same vigor and propaganda cover as vaccinations are done today...

Even more conservatively, instead of editing, Heinlein's book describes the method, whereby the child conceived by two parents will not be a hitherto impossible "superhuman" — he'll just be the best possible child these two parents can conceive. Human stock then improves from the most optimal variant always winning what was until then a chance-game...

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[RockDoctor]

or adaptability to uncomfortable conditions (think Antarctica or even Mars).

Oh, sigh. So which organism are you going to lift genes from which is comfortable (i.e. can breed) at Martian temperatures and pressures?

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[mi]

So which organism are you going to lift genes from which is comfortable (i.e. can breed) at Martian temperatures and pressures?

It does not have to be comfortable enough to breed — or even survive — unaided by other technology. But if it can be made more comfortable than an unmodified human — requiring a lesser oxygen tank and/or a lighter suit and/or an easier-to-build shelter — that'd be a win already.

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[RockDoctor]

It does not have to be comfortable enough to breed â" or even survive â" unaided by other technology.

Then what is the advantage over living in an artificial environment in space? Apart from that of living at the bottom of a deep gravitational well? Of being, as the saying goes, a hole man?

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[mi]

Then what is the advantage over living in an artificial environment in space?

Creating such an artificial environment in space "from scratch" may be much harder, than using the readily-made planet. The colonists may need to adapt it, but they may also find it easier to make some adaptations to themselves — meeting the planet half-way, as it were.

If Escimo and Inuit and related peoples adapted to the environment unlivable for their African predecessors naturally — even if they still can not live there naked, we may be able to make similar adaptations faster (in fewer generations) to make Martian environment suck less. But, as often point out, Antarctica ought to be first — much closer and much cosier for humans than Mars.

But, hey, adapting to life in space (low-to-no gravity, low air pressure) may take place in parallel. Stephenson — in SevenEves — explores this subject in some detail.

Re:CRISPR for the masses

[RockDoctor]

Creating such an artificial environment in space "from scratch" may be much harder, than using the readily-made planet.

Do you have any idea of the gigatonnages of material needed to terraform a planet like Mars to Everest-summit-at-the south-pole levels?

For Mars, to bring it up to an average atmosphere that is merely lethal (0.1 bar - your tears would boil - followed by your blood) you'd need to deliver around 800kg of suitable gasses per square metre. That's around 2*10^19 kg for the whole planet. Something like 1% of mass of the asteroid belt, if it's as volatile-rich as the gassiest areas seen by Dawn on Vesta.

Essentially, you're going to need to mine most of the asteroid belt for gases to terraform Mars. And you're seriously going to propose that level of exploitation without - as a pure side line - learning how to live in space? Not going to happen.

(Another tiny factor for terraformers to contemplate : Earth surface = 511 million sq.km ; adding Mars would get you another 144 million sq.km (neglecting any Martian oceans - which I can't envisage you having a vaguely stable environment without), less than 30% of our current land area, or around 2 gigapeople worth.

What benefit are you expecting from terraforming Mars again? Or is it total wish-fulfilment fantasy?

Re:how selfish, how unethical

[Oswald McWeany]

I'd like to think that one day they might be able to release some onto the Steppe.

if God wanted mammophants ...

[swell]

... she would have blessed us with them. This is surely the work of the Devil.

Why?

[Dripdry]

Why do this, so we can make it extinct again?
In our current climate, especially one of a warming earth, I feel that humans ought to consider whether they're bringing an animal into the world to suffer a great deal... where will these live? Will they only live in enclosures and zoos?
Mankind plays God a lot, and this feels like a strange next step.

Re:Why?

[religionofpeas]

This time we'll promise to shear them.

Re:Why?

[Baron_Yam]

>Why do this, so we can make it extinct again?

To practice resurrecting extinct species so we can rebuild biodiversity. To do so with an animal that catches the public's imagination so there is general enthusiasm for it.

And finally, so we can all have mammoth burgers.

We've been hearing this for years

[Zerbey]

This is just vapourware, we've been hearing that the Mammoth can be resurrect using Elephant surrogates for years. I would love to see Mammoths roaming around, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Elephant wolf man syndrome?

[TheOuterLinux]

Is forcing an elephant to have hypertrichosis really necessary?

Asian elephants are endangered

[Nkwe]

While the science around this is indeed interesting, there are ethical questions beyond just those involved with gene editing. Specifically around if it is appropriate to risk reduction of one endangered population of animals to attempt to revive an extinct one.

Re:Mammoth steak, vat-grown

[desdinova 216]

just as long as we don't go full manbearpig. I'm super cereal

Habitat destruction == zoos only.

[BarbaraHudson]

What I don't understand is where they think a woolly mammoth is going to live. It's not like the arctic and sub-arctic habitats are going to be around long enough to repopulate them. Shaving them to keep them cool is going to expose them to increased rates of skin cancers. Maybe air-conditioned zoos, paying the bills by harvesting those huge tusks.

Perfect Timing!

[irrational_design]

The ice is melting, global temperatures are going up... It seems like the perfect time to create a creature with "subcutaneous fat, long shaggy hair and cold-adapted blood".

Been there, seen that

[whitlocktj]

Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

Observation is not complete understanding

[dbIII]

And secondly, it is really odd that you choose something like an owl wing to base your scientific musings

Not really - it was reported recently and also outlines that we do not have a universal equation for airflow (no matter how much money has been thrown at it for over a century).

As for your link, it's the starting point of the people who are trying to understand owl's silent flight so that they can make aircraft quieter. It's a very very long way from where we are now to being able to WORK OUT WHY and make something that can use it.

Are you one of the people who thinks "dust" is the final answer as to why the sky is blue?