Playing God, without mercy, without fear?

Perun

Perun

His name struck fear into hearts of men
Staff member
This might have gone in the Scientific Discoveries topic, but I think that opening a separate thread for it would spawn some more interesting discussion. This is not just about the discovery on the surface, but as we all know, there is a lot of ethical baggage involved.

Report Of Liquid Woolly Mammoth Blood Prompts Clone Talk

Scientists in Siberia say they've extracted blood samples from the carcass of a 10,000-year-old woolly mammoth, reviving speculation that a clone of the extinct animal might someday walk the earth, if scientists are able to find living cells. But researchers say the find, which also included well-preserved muscle tissue, must be studied further to know its potential.

More in the link.

Back when I started to study prehistory several years ago, I had a conversation with a few co-students on my first day, and I jokingly suggested that the mammoth must have been a delicious animal, else it would not have been hunted to extinction. In a scientific sense I could now call it a hypothesis, since it may be possible to test it. So, a mammoth burger may turn out to be a delicious meal, but would the ethics cause bellyaches?
 
I could imagine animal welfare causing as much outcry as the 'playing God' aspect, expecially if mammoth burgers were on the menu. There'd have to be a commercial benefit to cloning them, I think, in order to get funding.
 
But they did Dolly (the Sheep), without much complaint at the time. I think if they think it's possible/viable, someone will stump up the money for the research, etc. Merited, there might be a few questions asked if all they do is clone it, let it grow big... and then make burgers out of it! :D
(Dolly just got old, & not that old, a died if I recall.)
 
Seriously, Perun - you've got me craving a mammoth burger. I'm imagining a taste similar to bison, but tougher.

Though I don't foresee it happening anytime soon, I think the use of cloning to bring back extinct species is a mixed bag. On one hand, it could be helpful to reintroduce recently extinct species into the environment, but on the other, species go extinct because they cannot survive. I don't have any major ethical questions about resurrecting a mammoth, or dinosaurs, or what have you, but I do believe we should think realistically about it. Would a mammoth be suited for life in the current world? Could dinosaurs exist now considering the climate change? The mammoth had its day, does it need another?

As we ponder, we must never forget the words of our great teacher:

tumblr_lm2z2b58081qzrfxuo1_500.gif
 
If they're able to assemble a full genome and actually produce a living cloned animal (which is far from a guarantee even if you have DNA), it would most likely be a single animal for research purposes. Above all, I think the project would be a symbol for the possibility of bringing back extinct animals, which could have useful if less spectacular applications elsewhere.

I doubt there's enough economic incentive for repopulating the wild (are there any suitable habitats?), and evaluating the ecological impact of that is very difficult.
 
There is a hell of a lot of effort being put in around the globe to prevent animal extinction.
Could this not render animal extinction impossible?
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
Would a mammoth be suited for life in the current world?
Click to expand...

That's the part I think people would raise in objection. There was brief debate about messing about with nature when they created Dolly the Sheep, but we know more or less how to farm sheep. There's a chance we wouldn't actually know anything about providing the right food or conditions to keep a prehistoric animal healthy. Plus, if meat or ivory farming (as the article hints) was the intention, someone is bound to make the point it's a wild animal, not an animal domesticated over generations of breeding. I don't have particularly strong views on it either way, but I can see there being some hardcore opponents.

Incidentally, I also saw a good BBC documentary about dinosaurs a couple of weeks ago, in which a researcher was talking about isolating T Rex DNA. We just don't have the technology to extract or read it as yet.
 
Brigantium said:
Incidentally, I also saw a good BBC documentary about dinosaurs a couple of weeks ago, in which a researcher was talking about isolating T Rex DNA. We just don't have the technology to extract or read it as yet.
Click to expand...

All the DNA will be degraded by now. You won't get any dinosaur genomes.
 
Brigantium said:
That's the part I think people would raise in objection. There was brief debate about messing about with nature when they created Dolly the Sheep, but we know more or less how to farm sheep. There's a chance we wouldn't actually know anything about providing the right food or conditions to keep a prehistoric animal healthy. Plus, if meat or ivory farming (as the article hints) was the intention, someone is bound to make the point it's a wild animal, not an animal domesticated over generations of breeding. I don't have particularly strong views on it either way, but I can see there being some hardcore opponents.

Incidentally, I also saw a good BBC documentary about dinosaurs a couple of weeks ago, in which a researcher was talking about isolating T Rex DNA. We just don't have the technology to extract or read it as yet.
Click to expand...

Exactly my thought. I fully believe that we would be bringing a creature into a life that we are not equipped to sustain (be it due to a lack of knowledge or a change in environment). I'm not gonna get upset over it, but I think it's a very valid point for those opposed.

I'll have to check out that doc.
 
Does it have to sustain? I am not sure how to see that in the light of all these other species that are endangered (by humanity).
 
Why not? If it manages to live, this could mean that scientists could practically save any of the endangered species.
 
I took it to mean that it would be cruel to bring it to life if it was likely to wither and die because of changes in food sources, environment, disease etc.
I'd take that chance.
 
mckindog said:
I took it to mean that it would be cruel to bring it to life if it was likely to wither and die because of changes in food sources, environment, disease etc.
I'd take that chance.
Click to expand...

The scientific benefit might be enormous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top