Playing God?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ratius**

What are your views on this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110114/cm_ac/7610342_woolly_mammoth_to_be_cloned_by_japanese_scientist_1

It's not exactly something out of Jurassic Park -- more like Pleistocene Park -- as a Japanese scientist revives his idea to clone a Woolly Mammoth, based on a new technique that was used to produce a mouse from frozen cells about three years ago.

According to the UK Telegraph:

"--a technique pioneered in 2008 by Dr. Teruhiko Wakayama, of the Riken Centre for Developmental Biology, was successful in cloning a mouse from the cells of another mouse that had been frozen for 16 years.

"Now that hurdle has been overcome, Akira Iritani, a professor at Kyoto University, is reactivating his campaign to resurrect the species that died out 5,000 years ago.

"'Now the technical problems have been overcome, all we need is a good sample of soft tissue from a frozen mammoth,' he told The Daily Telegraph.

"He intends to use Dr Wakayama's technique to identify the nuclei of viable mammoth cells before extracting the healthy ones.

"The nuclei will then be inserted into the egg cells of an African elephant, which will act as the surrogate mother for the mammoth.

"Professor Iritani said he estimates that another two years will be needed before the elephant can be impregnated, followed by the approximately 600-day gestation period."

Woolly Mammoths were known to have existed as early as 150,000 years ago. The last known Woolly Mammoths died out around the year 8000 BC, though a dwarf variety seems to have lasted until the year 1700 BC on Wrangle Island in the Arctic Ocean.

They seem to have come in two district species, one living in Europe and Siberia, the other on the other side of the Bering Land Bridge in North America. While impressive creatures, they were not much larger than modern elephants. They were between nine and 13 feet in height, but could weigh close to nine tons. They had a distinctive layer of shaggy hair to adapt against the cold of the last ice age and huge, 16 foot tusks that some suspect would be used to shovel snow so that they could get at frozen vegetation below.

The Mammoths began to die off as the last ice age ended and their relatively cooler habitats began to shrink. They were also heavily hunted by early man, not only for their meat, but their hides and bone, used to create clothing and tools, respectively.

Unlike many prehistoric creatures, Woolly Mammoth carcasses have been found frozen in arctic regions, some almost intact, rather than just fossilized (i.e. bones turned to stone.) However, hitherto Woolly Mammoth cells have been too badly damaged from being frozen for so many millennia to be cloned. However, with Teruhiko Wakayama's technique, it now may be possible to recreate a species of animal that has been extinct for thousands of years.

The idea that an extinct creature, one so impressive to look at as a Woolly Mammoth, could once again walk the Earth is a mind blowing idea. Scientists could learn much from what could be considered a living fossil. Others will look upon such a creation with awe, just as our early ancestors did, before the beginning of history.

What if this was a type of proto human?

**Albatross**

It isn't.

**Howard A Treesong**

There's a difference between recovering DNA frozen for 16 years in a lab and thousands of years in an ice sheet somewhere. And what exactly is going to host this mammoth embryo? An elephant? Good luck with that, they aren't that closely related and elephants aren't just lying around in abundance for this kind of research.

It sounds like the absurd pipe dream of someone who has seen Jurassic Park too many times. It would be extraordinary indeed if a viable embryo was created that survived the gestation period. And then what use is it? It's only any good for a zoo because it's worthless to study for any insight to the species behaviour. It's also seems like a good media piece, who is paying for this research?

As for "playing god". Well that's a phrase I find fairly ridiculous. Anyone like to define what 'playing god' actually is? It's just something people come out with when they are irrationally scared of something but are unable to articulate it into a coherent argument. Thus they wag their finger and talk about doing the "work of god" which frankly not everyone believes in anyway.

**Ratius**

As for "playing god". Well that's a phrase I find fairly ridiculous. Anyone like to define what 'playing god' actually is? It's just something people come out with when they are irrationally scared of something but are unable to articulate it into a coherent argument. Thus they wag their finger and talk about doing the "work of god" which frankly not everyone believes in anyway.

It was just a title to catch ones attention. It can be amended to something more mundane if you so desire

**Avatar 720**

Anyone like to define what 'playing god' actually is?

Black and White/Black and White 2

**Misguidance**

Avatar 720 wrote:
Anyone like to define what 'playing god' actually is?

Black and White/Black and White 2

The Sims.

As for the article.... so long as they give us adequate warning of when they start cloning velociraptors, I am happy for them to do what they want with a mammoth. I'd be fairly interested to see the results. Same with human clones, actually, so long as they don't end up as a second-class slave race, or something like that.

**whatwhat**

failed edit. disregard.

**Ketara**

Howard A Treesong wrote:. And then what use is it? It's only any good for a zoo because it's worthless to study for any insight to the species behaviour.

They could be farmed in the Russian countryside to provide meat and fur? I read an interesting piece to that effect a few years back. Considering their size, they could be viable for domestication and production.

**whatwhat**

I don't understand how this story keeps getting reported as a new idea (same story published five years ago http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0408_050408_woollymammoth.html) when scientists have been playing around with this idea for years now.

As for the question. It's all fine unless they plan to reintroduce them to the wild and ef up the respective ecosystem. But then to be fair, we humans do enough of that already.

Howard A Treesong wrote:And what exactly is going to host this mammoth embryo? An elephant? Good luck with that, they aren't that closely related and elephants aren't just lying around in abundance for this kind of research.

It's not so wild an idea. The elephant would only need to carry and give birth to the mammoth. The fertilisation could be done in a lab. It's done with humans all the time, it's called IVF. There has also been limited success with extinct species such as the Ibex goat.

**Howard A Treesong**

whatwhat wrote:It's not so wild an idea. The elephant would only need to carry and give birth to the mammoth. The fertilisation could be done in a lab. It's done with humans all the time, it's called IVF. There has also been limited success with extinct species such as the Ibex goat.

That's hardly the same thing. No one would deny you can put human embryos in a human. And the Ibex goat example didn't survive. Growing embryos in different species is much more difficult to achieve. Sure if you have hundreds of elephants to trial on a whim then you might get a living mammoth but that's not going to happen.

Anyway they wouldn't be fertilising anything unless they wanted a hybrid. They would take an elephant egg, flush out the DNA in it and introduce the complete mammoth genome and then try to implant it back into a female elephant. And that has it's own problems because the DNA going into the newborn isn't freshly generated through sex cells, it's effectively 30 years old or however old the animal was, which is why it's suspected that Dolly the Sheep may have suffered from premature aging.

**whatwhat**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
whatwhat wrote:It's not so wild an idea. The elephant would only need to carry and give birth to the mammoth. The fertilisation could be done in a lab. It's done with humans all the time, it's called IVF. There has also been limited success with extinct species such as the Ibex goat.

That's hardly the same thing. No one would deny you can put human embryos in a human. And the Ibex goat example didn't survive. Growing embryos in different species is much more difficult to achieve. Sure if you have hundreds of elephants to trial on a whim then you might get a living mammoth but that's not going to happen.

Anyway they wouldn't be fertilising anything unless they wanted a hybrid. They would take an elephant egg, flush out the DNA in it and introduce the complete mammoth genome and then try to implant it back into a female elephant. And that has it's own problems because the DNA going into the newborn isn't freshly generated through sex cells, it's effectively 30 years old or however old the animal was, which is why it's suspected that Dolly the Sheep may have suffered from premature aging.

No they would create a ooocyte, a female egg cell with the nucleus removed. Which is how Dolly the sheep was created also. And yes there are of course problems with this, the point is it's not as far out as you made it seem in your first post.

**Ultrasmurf_no_REALY**

coooooooool id like to have a mamoth as a pet

could you imagine it "my dog can catch a ball" "so what mine can crush your dads car!"

**Wyrmalla**

What's so wrong with cloning extinct species? Who cares about supposed ethics, this is the scientific world, if it can be done, why not do it and see how it'll turn out-things that won't explicitly damage humanity mind. Oddly I was thinking today about why we don't just clone animals of dying species to builed up there numbers, a wide variety of donor DNA mind, alongside other incentives? If things like this didn't recieve all the bull they do from ignorant people then they would progress at a much faster rate, but whatever.¬¬

**Howard A Treesong**

Wyrmalla wrote:What's so wrong with cloning extinct species? Who cares about supposed ethics, this is the scientific world, if it can be done, why not do it and see how it'll turn out-things that won't explicitly damage humanity mind.

Nothing wrong in itself but there are other ethical concerns regarding damage to the environment or animal welfare. Science and ethics are not divorced.

Oddly I was thinking today about why we don't just clone animals of dying species to builed up there numbers, a wide variety of donor DNA mind, alongside other incentives? If things like this didn't recieve all the bull they do from ignorant people then they would progress at a much faster rate, but whatever.

Well the issue is genetic diversity as well as total numbers. There's little to be gained from cloning up a load of animals if a lot of them are the same, the population still won't be sustainable. Also you can only clone them as quick as you have animals to give birth to them so it might not be much better than standard breeding. Then there's wider issues, many endangered animals are at risk because their habitat has been destroyed, creating a large population isn't the way to address the problem. And finally, there's the cost of all this. Even normal breeding and captivity programmes cost a lot of money... so what's more efficient? The argument is often between spending money to prop up a species on the brink of extinction, or whether to pour money into protecting habitats and securing populations of animals that are are only mildly endangered at present. Of course a lot of funds merely go to a minority of aesthetically pleasing animals like big cats and other pretty stuff and little goes to plants and small animals when they are often fundamental in ecosystems.

**Soladrin**

Who cares?

**Wyrmalla**

Yup, I agree with you Howard. With the way the world works cloning isn't a plausable way of saving endagered species, and likely never will be, though as previously mentioned, it may be an idea to at least store a good variety of different DNA perhaps so as we may be able to bring the species back in future, as with the mammoth (though something like this is already going on in Sweden to my recollection, in case of and only for a global dissaster). Off-topicness aside.=P

**dogma**

Conceivably one could experimentally introduce genetic diversity into a population, its simply that we aren't able to do so as of yet. Both because we lack the procedural knowledge, and because we aren't necessarily solid on what causes the variance between particularly tall, and particularly short (among other, similar, things) variations of a given species.

**KingCracker**

"life always finds a way"

Just remember that quote, first its mammoths that are cloned, and then they give birth to Godzilla.

**J-Roc77**

KingCracker wrote:"life always finds a way"

Just remember that quote, first its mammoths that are cloned, and then they give birth to Godzilla.

Yeah I am keeping my fingers crossed too! C'mon giant dino's!!!

**Cheesecat**

Personally I'm waiting for science to find a way to stop or even reverse the effects of aging. Anything else science related can take a back seat IHMO.

**micahaphone**

This is why we should care about science in general, especially things like this.

**Lord-Loss**

micahaphone wrote:This is why we should care about science in general, especially things like this.

I actually felt kind of inspired to learn after reading that.

**Cheesecat**

micahaphone wrote:This is why we should care about science in general, especially things like this.

I don't know I still think think eternal youth would be better than cloning dinosaurs.

**micahaphone**

Eternal youth just leads to more overpopulation problems. Dinosaurs leads to levels of badassery that are beneficial to your health.

**Cheesecat**

micahaphone wrote:Eternal youth just leads to more overpopulation problems. Dinosaurs leads to levels of badassery that are beneficial to your health.

I was thinking countries would become better at managing population problems in that future and there would pregnancy prevention measures as well.

**micahaphone**

Cheesecat wrote:
micahaphone wrote:Eternal youth just leads to more overpopulation problems. Dinosaurs leads to levels of badassery that are beneficial to your health.

I was thinking countries would become better at managing population problems in that future and there would pregnancy prevention measures as well.

Yes, tha-*giggle*-that would hopefully happen. In fact, with proper scientific support, we cou-BAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.

Really doubt that'd happen, buddy.

**Tim the Biovore**

Cheesecat wrote:
micahaphone wrote:Eternal youth just leads to more overpopulation problems. Dinosaurs leads to levels of badassery that are beneficial to your health.

I was thinking countries would become better at managing population problems in that future and there would pregnancy prevention measures as well.

It's a great dream to have, but honestly, would you want to live forever?

**micahaphone**

And will there really be a time when everyone agrees to governments managing populations, and pregnancy prevention, and the entire world would be at the same Standard of Living?

**Cryonicleech**

Playing God is a term used by people afraid/against any sort of advancement whatsoever. And really, it's really only an excuse, and a poor one at that.

Let the man clone a mammoth... However I'm a tad skeptical of his ability to just clone a mammoth, but I'm no scientist. Hell, it'd be cool to have them back... if they could survive...

**Cheesecat**

Tim the Biovore wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
micahaphone wrote:Eternal youth just leads to more overpopulation problems. Dinosaurs leads to levels of badassery that are beneficial to your health.

I was thinking countries would become better at managing population problems in that future and there would pregnancy prevention measures as well.

It's a great dream to have, but honestly, would you want to live forever?

Feth yeah!!! Who doesn't want have the energy, health and sexual vigor from there youth.