Slashdot Mirror
Cloning of extinct Huia bird approved
kade writes to us with the news that New Zealand scientists and ethicists have decided that attempts to clone the extinct Huia bird should begin immediatly. The birds were declared extinct in the 1920s, their fault being they had white tipped black feathers that were "used" in a European fashion craze in the 1920s. IMHO, more stuff like this should happen-and for the organisms in danger of extinction, we should procure cell samples in hope of cloning later. Of course, first priority should be saving them then, but what do you all think?
some people are going to say thus and reason that this is why they should not be brought back to life. But with that reasoning then I tend to say hey then there must be a reason we have the ability to bring them back...
I'm waiting for a saber tooth tiger to gaurd my lawn
-eric
It really isn't practical to save them all. There are so many species in danger of extinction that it would be impossible. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try, but rather that we should start with the ones that taste best.
We are a part of nature too! So if we interfere, this interference is part of natural evolution. Many people seem to believe that man made stuff is unnatural, as if we were something special next to nature.
Consider this: :)
This bird has of course an evolutionary advantage, as it is able to be cute enough in our view to motivate some effort to genetically restaurate it (as much as this is possible). You can bet that some ancient 10ft tall slimy hairy monster creature that went extinct won't get this privilege.
(I assume that billg or some other weirdo with bucks is not a big fan of ancient 10ft tall slimy hairy creatures
Has anyone looked at the impact that this will have on the ecosystem? What are the natural predators of this bird? What is their food source? Will they slide right back into the food chain? You can't just reintroduce a species unless you have looked at its impact. Sure, it's nice to bring a species back to life, but will that upset the already fragile balance of our ecosystems?
(dark, eerie voice:) All they wanted to do was bring an extinct species back to life.. All they wanted to do was to give nature a second chance.. .. and now they're back .. The flesh-eating Huia birds from hell! Buahhahahahahahaahahha..
But something went wrong. Something went very wrong in the laboratory, which had fatal precussions.
From director John Woo. Starring Bruce Willis as a farmer from New Zealand, and Gary Oldman as the master of the Huia-birds.
Coming soon to a park or forest near you.
Yea, agriculture seemed like such a good idea until we found out how yucky soggy bread is.
:)
Nuts and berries forever!
First, the article says that this is a result of a bunch of high school kids who decided to have a 'conference' on the subject. Great for them, and it looks like they even have a few financial backers, but I would be pretty surprised if this project still exists in a few years time.
Second, if this thing does work, it will be very interesting to see how they plan on reestablishing an entire species population from one (or a few) cloned birds. There is a common problem in genetics called a bottleneck. Every animal of a species contains specific genes for certain traits. When the population is reduced so greatly, the genes for some traits are lost forever. (Someone with some experience in genetics can correct if i'm (likely) wrong here). Some genes are lost forever. So the species that will result from this cloning project won't be a nearly as diverse as the original.
Anyway, I know this has been a problem for species like the California Condor, when its population dropped so low.
Third, Dolly the clone is having some serious genetic problems right now. She is not a normal sheep. She is aging quicker, because her very first embryonic cell was not a fresh cell like a normal embryo, but an already aged cell from her
"mother." I wonder what effect this will have on the birds if their entire species is founded this way...? Will they only live half the normal life-span of their original counterparts?
Anyway, I like the idea. I don't have any ethical problems with it, but I think there a lot of practical problems that need to be addressed, and I wouldn't expect this species to miraculously reappear in New Zealand, healthy and unchanged from its original.
LL
"If you are falling, dive." -Joseph Campbell
By saying that it's okay to clone previously-extinct creatures, we would be condoning even more widespread unnecessary slaughter of creatures. Poachers would feel even more justified in their actions because the scientists could just clone up some more. Farms of once-vanished creatures would spring up to stock hunting preserves.
We should let them lie in peace, and learn our lesson from their absence. Destroying creatures for any reason besides preservation of our own lives (either to serve as a source of nutrition or in self-defense) is an abhorrent practice. If learning that means we have a few guilt trips from time to time, then so be it.
I've noticed that whenever a contraversial scientific discovery or application of a technique is brought up in the press the same thing happens. Everybody points to Hollywood science fiction movies as some sort of proof that the scheme will be the doom of mankind. These are just stories, they're meant to entertain and occasionaly enlighten. The emphasis is entertainment though.
The public loves to see science gone awry and so science fiction authors and script writers use scientific cause and effect hyperbole to make money. This is a shame because in reality science and the scientific method has helped mankind more than its harmed it. Plagues were dampened in the bad old days by the scientific method: A statician noticed a correlation between disease outbreaks and proximities to contaminated water. The scientific method kept our ancestors alive: Eating berries from this bush makes us ill. Science brought us vaccines, analgesics, anti-inflamattories etc.
This doesn't mean blindly accept all scientific concepts or endeavours, but don't point at by-and-large poorly written science fiction as evidence.
Granted, this case of cloning birds is silly. This is being done as a PR stunt for the cloning industry to show the positive uses of cloning. Since it's politically correct to help animals, people will have a hard time arguing with this.
But as a general principle, "leave nature alone" is simply not an option. Unless you decide to execute 80% of the population, we have to tamper with nature, or nature will execute those people the slow way. Our only option is to try and understand the complex system we are living in a minimize unwanted side-effects.
Tampering with nature does produce unexpected consequences, but if we do our job right, the benefits outweigh the consequences. Penecillin saved millions of lives (perhaps even a billion), but it generated some drug resistant diseases. Do we regret penecillin? No. Someday we might, but as long as we can stay ahead of the bacteria, we'll be okay.
Or how about the plow? That gave us agriculture, (which gave us cities, etc.) but also indirectly helped cause the overpopulation problem we have today. Do I regret being well-fed? No! I have faith that we will figure out a way to deal with overpopulation.
So, you're right that "every time we tamper with nature, it has led to unexpected consequences." It has also led to some expected consequences which are often beneficial to us. The only decision we have to make is which is more significant.
Spielberg and Hitchcock, together at last!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Would having your telomeres longer make you start growing again and sprouting fresh new organs? Look, I'm 9'11" and have four arms. Let's play some basketball! Sounds like it could possibly trigger cancerous cells.