Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Extinct animal resurrected by cloning!
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 1 of 19 (497262)
02-03-2009 7:14 AM


Announced a couple of days ago: Extinct ibex resurrected by cloning
The Pyrenean ibex, a form of wild mountain goat, was officially declared extinct in 2000 when the last-known animal of its kind was found dead in northern Spain.
Shortly before its death, scientists preserved skin samples of the goat, a subspecies of the Spanish ibex that live in mountain ranges across the country, in liquid nitrogen.
Using DNA taken from these skin samples, the scientists were able to replace the genetic material in eggs from domestic goats, to clone a female Pyrenean ibex, or bucardo as they are known. It is the first time an extinct animal has been cloned.
Discuss?
- does this approach have a real future?
- current state of the art of cloning?
- is it wise to make a lot of publicity around this (possibly diminishing attention for preservation of species)? Kinda like how the availability of AIDS medication made risk groups less vigilant.
- ...

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2009 9:21 AM Annafan has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 19 (497386)
02-04-2009 1:03 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 3 of 19 (497471)
02-04-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Annafan
02-03-2009 7:14 AM


god . . . schmod, I want my monkey-man.
Annafan,
I never fully considered the possible NEGATIVE ramifications of cloning. ". . . is it wise to make a lot of publicity around this (possibly diminishing attention for preservation of species)?". Hmmm. Interesting thought.
Personally, I have long dreamed for scientists recreating a wooly mammoth before I die.
Animal News - Science and Zoology Articles
I have trekked to see the mountain gorillas in Rwanda in 2002. Searched for the snow leopard in Nepal. Would love to see the tiger in nature someday (especially the siberian tiger).
However, I feel everyday a new starbucks is built, another animal is lost somewhere in the world.
IF it is inevitable that man will eventually crowd out his fellow neighbors, it might be best that scientists quickly learn the cloning skills.
my 2 cents.

Cogito, ergo Deus non est

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Annafan, posted 02-03-2009 7:14 AM Annafan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 9:42 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 4 of 19 (497475)
02-04-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by dronestar
02-04-2009 9:21 AM


Re: god . . . schmod, I want my monkey-man.
dronester writes:
I never fully considered the possible NEGATIVE ramifications of cloning.... Hmmm. Interesting thought.
The idea is that, with all the hyperbole and oversimplifications that are so typical for mass media, the general public could get the impression from these kind of headlines that the problem of the extinction of species "has been solved". This could significantly impact the acceptance of policies which aim for preservation, but against a certain cost (economical, liberties, convenience...).
This while of course successes like these are merely micro-steps. If you have one clone, you don't even have a pair to breed. You have zero genetic diversity. It's only possible when you have a closely related species available to carry the fertilized egg upto birth (and how "genuine" will the eventual animal be in that case?). There probably isn't a habitat available, etc. etc. etc. It's not even CLOSE to reanimate an extinct species, recent or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2009 9:21 AM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 02-04-2009 9:49 AM Annafan has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 5 of 19 (497477)
02-04-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Annafan
02-04-2009 9:42 AM


Re: god . . . schmod, I want my monkey-man.
It's not even CLOSE to reanimate an extinct species, recent or not.
To be pedantic, cloning an extinct species would be reanimating it. Simply because of what reanimate means.
However, cloning is not really a way to recreate a viable population of an extinct species. A one trick goat, as it were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Annafan, posted 02-04-2009 9:42 AM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2009 10:48 AM kuresu has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 6 of 19 (497488)
02-04-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by kuresu
02-04-2009 9:49 AM


Re: god . . . schmod, I want my monkey-man.
Just to clarify my original post, I think re-populating the world with a VIABLE population of extinct animals is a moot point. Animals are becoming extinct at an incredible rate right now. If there is no room for today's animals, why would we think there might be room for extinct animals tomorrow.
Edited by dronester, : link expired

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by kuresu, posted 02-04-2009 9:49 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 7 of 19 (497492)
02-04-2009 11:14 AM


Here's a general question for anybody:
If we can't save an animal species from extinction, do you think it would still be worthwhile to clone it for a captive population?
Would there be value in preserving or "resurrecting" a species that cannot be returned to its natural condition?

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by dronestar, posted 02-04-2009 11:27 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 9 by caffeine, posted 02-04-2009 1:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 10 by onifre, posted 02-05-2009 2:34 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 02-05-2009 2:59 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 8 of 19 (497495)
02-04-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
02-04-2009 11:14 AM


to beast or not to beast
Good questions Bluejay.
1. I think out of sight, out of mind might hold true. So, the best chance a young child/scientist can come up with a possible solution in the future is if there is a living/seeing problem to solve.
2. Also, I think it imperative we maintain diversity of all living things (even if caged) in the world.
3. Personally, if the only live gorilla I can see is at a progressive naturalistic zoo or none at all, I guess I'll grudgingly accept the zoo.
This is a depressing subject to me. My answers are self-admittedly somewhat emotional-biased and can be discounted. Do you have a more objective stance Bluejay? Annafan?
Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2009 11:14 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 9 of 19 (497514)
02-04-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
02-04-2009 11:14 AM


I'd say it certainly has aesthetic value. WHo amongst us wouldn't love to see a mammoth or a dodo in a zoo? For that matter, if the great apes go extinct over the course of the next century, I think it could only be a good thing that we could still see the populations living in zoos.
It must have academic value as well. Even if a cloned animal in an unnatural habitat couldn't tell us much about the behaviour of the extinct species, there must still be all manner of studies scientists could do of their morphology and biochemistry, which they wouldn't be able to do with fossils and a DnA sample or two.
And it definitely has economic value, too - provided the extinct animal is cute/impressive/popular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2009 11:14 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 10 of 19 (497681)
02-05-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
02-04-2009 11:14 AM


Hi Bluejay,
If we can't save an animal species from extinction, do you think it would still be worthwhile to clone it for a captive population?
It seems like a very ego-centric view point to have if one would be in anyway satisfied with looking at a captive animal while not taking an interest in stopping the the mechanisms that is reducing their natural habitate to begin with.
The money spent on research for cloning extinct animals can be put to better use in preserving their natural habitates.
It's the same approach that should be taken with cancer. Not that research for cancer isn't needed, but a portion of that money, IMHO, should be used to prevent the sale of products that have been known to increase the risk of cancer, or in making organic products more affordable and better advertised. (Off topic)
Would there be value in preserving or "resurrecting" a species that cannot be returned to its natural condition?
Only a financial value, like with Disneys Animal Kingdom. The Disney family would stand to gain an enormous amount of money if they can build a park exibiting extinct animals. Then the occational tourist can visit the park, see the extinct animal alive and walk away never take any interest in it again. What value can that have in a moral or ethical sense? If we don't care about the animal or its environment when it's alive, why try to pretend we care about them when they're extinct?
I don't blame scientist for wanting to clone an extinct animal since achieving that would be an amazing thing, but, other than it being a scientific achievement, I see no other value that isn't driven by financial greed. Im reminded of the atomic bomb in that sense.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2009 11:14 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 2:54 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2009 3:34 PM onifre has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 11 of 19 (497682)
02-05-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by onifre
02-05-2009 2:34 PM


Hi Onifire,
Only a financial value, like with Disneys Animal Kingdom. The Disney family would stand to gain an enormous amount of money if they can build a park exibiting extinct animals. Then the occational tourist can visit the park, see the extinct animal alive and walk away never take any interest in it again. What value can that have in a moral or ethical sense? If we don't care about the animal or its environment when it's alive, why try to pretend we care about them when they're extinct?
Jurassic Park the movie makes a good case study of the ethics or lack thereof of resurrecting exinct animals through cloning. This also is a good treatise on the unfortunate dilemna in which scientists and researchers are subject to the financial whims of for-profit finanicial institutions and corporations. Without money the world will not go round, even for science and medicine.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by onifre, posted 02-05-2009 2:34 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2009 3:37 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 12 of 19 (497683)
02-05-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Blue Jay
02-04-2009 11:14 AM


Bluejay writes:
If we can't save an animal species from extinction, do you think it would still be worthwhile to clone it for a captive population?
I don't think they all have to be kept in captivity forever. For example, we could repopulate certain islands with dodos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2009 11:14 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 13 of 19 (497689)
02-05-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by onifre
02-05-2009 2:34 PM


Hi, Onifre.
Thanks for the response.
onifre writes:
The money spent on research for cloning extinct animals can be put to better use in preserving their natural habitates.
Well, you certainly raise a good point: sooner or later, we're bound to have to face the dilemma of continuing to rape nature or initiating human population control. I'm afraid to think of the wars that might be waged over that issue, but this dilemma is surely coming.
But, trade-offs aside, if an animal is clearly doomed (or if we have already killed it off), and there is no way to feasibly return it to the wild, is it morally warranted for us to preserve a few specimens? The other responders have mentioned the value of conservation for human benefit, but, what about nature's benefit? Would preserving an otherwise-doomed animal in captivity (perhaps through cloning) be a way to sort of "make it up" to Mother Nature?
It seems that, whatever we do, it will have a major impact on the natural world and its future, which kind of makes it hard to decide what the "right" thing to do is. Enforced isolation of wildernesses would be a noble goal, but probably impossible to achieve. Killing some animals off causes ecological imbalances. Preserving all species may impact ecological succession and alter evolutionary patterns. If the "right" thing to do is to preserve nature's sovereignty over itself, it seems we've already failed.
I personally feel that preserving as much wilderness and as many species as we can, even if only by keeping small captive populations, is morally the safest stance we can take, given our options. But, on a purely practical basis, I'm not sure there is a solid justification for this, because it may effect the future just as much as killing things off, and, as Annafan said, there's a slippery slope there that would have to be guarded carefully.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by onifre, posted 02-05-2009 2:34 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2009 3:54 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 02-05-2009 7:18 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 14 of 19 (497691)
02-05-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DevilsAdvocate
02-05-2009 2:54 PM


Hi, DevilsAdvocate.
DA writes:
Jurassic Park the movie makes a good case study of the ethics or lack thereof of resurrecting exinct animals through cloning.
I personally think there is absolutely nothing of value in Jurassic Park beyond cool special effects (already starting to look a bit dated) and the imaginative and emotional appeal of people getting to come face-to-face with dinosaurs.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 2:54 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Huntard, posted 02-05-2009 3:58 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 17 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 3:59 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 19 (497696)
02-05-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Blue Jay
02-05-2009 3:34 PM


Would preserving an otherwise-doomed animal in captivity (perhaps through cloning) be a way to sort of "make it up" to Mother Nature?
Make it up to her? She's the one that doomed them in the first place.
The other responders have mentioned the value of conservation for human benefit, but, what about nature's benefit?
For all the damage we've done with invasive exotic species, I think it'd be best for us to let nature handle her own benefits rather than us trying to help and end up fucking it up anyways.
But, trade-offs aside, if an animal is clearly doomed (or if we have already killed it off), and there is no way to feasibly return it to the wild, is it morally warranted for us to preserve a few specimens?
Meh. Its amoral.
If the "right" thing to do is to preserve nature's sovereignty over itself, it seems we've already failed.
If you presume that we are a part of nature, then whatever failures we have are nature's too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2009 3:34 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024