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?
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.
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?
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
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.