Scientists Hope to Clone Woolly Mammoth

&y writes "Yes, and they appear to be serious. Here's a quote from the Seattle Times article: "When asked why scientists are trying to bring back a mammal that lived so long ago, Agenbroad said: 'Why not? I'd rather have a cloned mammoth than another sheep.'" A very convincing argument indeed."

Comments

Agenbroad is not a geneticist

[craw]

While the quotes may not be totally appropriate for a geneticist, please note that Agenbroad is identified as a geologist in the article. This is not to disparage geologists. However, it was clear to me that one should not necessarily believe nor take seriously the words of a non-expert when it comes to cloning. Agenbroad probably knows mammoths out his wazoo (he is a paleontologist) but he is not a geneticist.
If one wants more info about Agenbroad, go to the NAU web site and do a search.

Cool!

[Anonymous Shepherd]

Yeah! Who wants a stupid sheep when we could get a Wooly Mammoth?

But if that's the case, we could also clone rhinos and elephants and other rare/endangered species, right?

However, the shortened teleomeres thing might put a damper on things. Also the fact that we need to take into account the 1 successful birth out of like 11 successful implantations out of 200 eggs created out of like 1000 attempts, or whatever the astronomical odds are.

Plus, are we just going to use elephants as hosts?

What about genetic incompatibility or contamination? Elephant antibodies and such?

-AS

Re:lets clone jesus

[Imperator]

I'd like to suggest cloning a Dust Puppy. This would have many practical advanatages:
- code AIs for you
- fun at lan parties (plays a mean game of Quake)
- gets along well with sentient computers and RPN calculators
- doesn't like sushi

What's The Effect?

[Coda]

If we start bringing back extinct species, what will happen to our outlook on extinction. We're pretty damn conscienceless when it comes to wiping species off the face of the earth. If we can bring them back at will, will we kill off even more species?

"Oh, go ahead and chop down the forest. We've got DNA samples of just about everything here..."

And then of course, who's going to bring back the ugly stuff? It's find and dandy to bring back the dodo, the spotted-buffeted snow pika, etc. Are we going to bring back the blunt-nosed, slime-covered ass worm once we kill it off? Or are we going to stick solely with creatures that look cute?

While this is an interesting science experiment, I think the resources could be better applied: Oct. 12th is Six Billion People Day. In 1960 we had 3 billion. We've doubled in 40 years. Better, cheaper, safer contraceptives would make the world a better place. Wooly mammoths would make one zoo a lot of money.

Let's try to keep things in perspective here.

Re:Interesting, but it won't work

[Breace]

Of course, they could just fill in those gaps with DNA from frogs...

Well, a Mammoth that can leap two and a half miles? Sounds like the people in Siberia better get their roofs strengthend.

Breace.

Position vacant...

[Hobbex]

So, fellow /.-ers, do we hear any takers for the position of computer nerd who builds system only he can manage and then sells everyone out only to be killed by a rather small acid spitting woolly mamoth?

On the bright side you get to work in a cool 3D GUI and you can write code so sloppy that an eight year old kid can crack it!

-
/. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.

Re:A romantic notion, but it'll never happen

[quadong]

So once all diseases are cured, we can feel free to pursue non-vital research. Face it, there will never be a time when we all live forever. There will always be things to kill us. Remember, just 100 years ago, it was much worse. Then, infectious diseases were the big killer. Now that we have brought those mostly under control, other problems have become relevant. Just supposing we bring AIDS, cancer and parkinsons under control, there will still be a #1 killer, and when we beat that, there will still be a #1 killer. We can never beat all diseases. I want to prolong my life as much as the next guy, and I support research for these causes, but they should not be an all-encompasing obsession. We are mortal, people die, why not explore the life we have while we have it?

Re:A la 'Jurrassic Park'?

[Cuthalion]

The only ethical problem I see with this (assuming it works) is that they'll have created an animal that they don't really know how to care for very well.

Does this really affect anything? Maybe we'll learn more about mammoths. What harm could it do? Well, the worst thing that seems likely to happen is that we make a unhealthy and unhappy mammoth, which would be unfortunate, but doesn't seem inherently evil to RISK that fate.

For whatever reason mammoths died out, I don't think it makes a big difference. We're not restoring their species or anything - one specimen would hardly be adequate to repopulate anything, you need at least two (for mammals). I don't really think that matters though. If they died out because they're ill-adapted, it's going to be expensive to keep them alive. If they think it's worth it, I don't object to them expending their resources on this project.

Interesting, but it won't work

[MaximumBob]

It's an interesting idea, and there's no good reason not to do it, but it won't work. cloned animals tend to show a lot of genetic defects in the first place. An animal that has been dead this long, even frozen, has almost certainly taken some genetic damage. That could only magnify the problems that exist with cloning live animals.

Of course, they could just fill in those gaps with DNA from frogs...