Woolly mammoth back from extinction

[Devi]

For something like this they would certainly only use female elephants that are in the optimum reproductive age as carriers. These would have to be taken out of any normal elephant breeding programmes during the attempts. That means they would need 10s of females and these would have to be kept under highly controlled conditions. Where are they going to get that many female elephants that are in the optimum reproductive age?

That post was very interesting. I do have a solution for this one though, although a bit controversial. Kruger National Park have been permitted to cull their elephants, maybe animals could be taken from the wild for this? I know we generally don't take animals from the wild, but if they're being culled anyway maybe it's a better solution?

 

[Shorts]

That post was very interesting. I do have a solution for this one though, although a bit controversial. Kruger National Park have been permitted to cull their elephants, maybe animals could be taken from the wild for this? I know we generally don't take animals from the wild, but if they're being culled anyway maybe it's a better solution?

OK, so we're going to snatch a load of undomesticated elephants from the wild and carry out some very low odds of success experimental procedures on them?

Apart from the (arguably valid in this case) animal rights objections what about the financials of the matter? Location, buildings, highly-controlled environments, elephants, keepers, food, vets, scientists, etc. etc. -we'd have to be talking Bill Gates bottomless pits of cash here and, given the world recession and other timeless problems facing humanity (disease, starvation) and nature (environmental & conservation causes) I'd argue any such expenditure would be pretty pointless and obscene. It'd be like fiddling while Rome burned.

If this were a Monty Python sketch it would have been stopped for being "too silly" a few posts back.

 

[Devi]

OK, so we're going to snatch a load of undomesticated elephants from the wild and carry out some very low odds of success experimental procedures on them?

I know of no truly domesticated elephants, they're a wild animal. You can teach them tricks for food but they'd still happily trample you if you get in their way.

Apart from the (arguably valid in this case) animal rights objections what about the financials of the matter? Location, buildings, highly-controlled environments, elephants, keepers, food, vets, scientists, etc. etc. -we'd have to be talking Bill Gates bottomless pits of cash here and, given the world recession and other timeless problems facing humanity (disease, starvation) and nature (environmental & conservation causes) I'd argue any such expenditure would be pretty pointless and obscene.

The amount currently spent on pointless science is pretty high, I really doubt another project would make a dent. The LHC has literally no function which would help us, it's just an interesting project, that has cost billions, the money is there and will be spent on something, why not this?

 

[Shorts]

I know of no truly domesticated elephants, they're a wild animal. You can teach them tricks for food but they'd still happily trample you if you get in their way.

Agreed, but there's a gulf of difference between an Elephant born, raised and trained in captivity and one grabbed from the wild.

The amount currently spent on pointless science is pretty high, I really doubt another project would make a dent. The LHC has literally no function which would help us, it's just an interesting project, that has cost billions, the money is there and will be spent on something, why not this?

Agreed, and on a bad day I might condemn that too. Basically I don't think trying to recreate the mammoth is the best (or likely to be effective) use of the "conservation/science dollar".

Like I said, as well as the economic issue, there's the ethical issue of taking Elephants from the wild for, what could be easily spun (by animal rights persons) as, "crazy experiments". The LHC doesn't use animals -I think using money and resources for pure research is one thing, putting animals in the mix makes it a very (red) hot potato.

 

[SuperPeacockman]

How about using the money on saving species that haven't gone extinct yet but are well on the way before spending money on the ones that are already gone? Cloning is immensely expensive. You could make 10s of conservation projects (100s if focusing on small non-migratory species, like frogs) for animals that are on the way to become extinct for the price it would cost to clone and revive a single extinct species. Or should we wait until the species that are heading for extinction have become extinct and then start a revival program with cloning for them? About the least cost-effective way to preserve nature and in an economic where it is likely there will be fewer money for conservation.

What you are not realizing is that the money to clone them is not coming from environmental groups it would come from private investors (who want to make money) who normally would not be spending their money on environmental initiatives. As long as people are willing to pay for it, and believe me there are, I think we should bring back the mammoth, and any other species we brought to extinction. We did cause the extinction of mammoths, there are plenty of places still cold enough for them to live but they were hunted to extinction by us.

 

[BeardsleyZooFan]

Another reason cloning the mammoths isn't such a good idea is because the climate has changed since the wooly mammoth has gone extinct. The climate would probably be way too warm to get a mammoth to successfully survive.

 

[nanoboy]

Another reason cloning the mammoths isn't such a good idea is because the climate has changed since the wooly mammoth has gone extinct. The climate would probably be way too warm to get a mammoth to successfully survive.

It's still pretty cold in northern Canada and Siberia, so they should be fine.

 

[condor]

We did cause the extinction of mammoths

That is a matter of discussion and no consensus or even close has been reached by scientists. Here is some of the most recent science that deals with the extinction of the mammoth in North America http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22352.full

The traditional rapid overkill theory (extinction caused by humans in <1000 years after reaching mammoth range) is out, but other than that it is difficult to say anything for certain and humans may or may not have been the big factor.

What you are not realizing is that the money to clone them is not coming from environmental groups it would come from private investors (who want to make money) who normally would not be spending their money on environmental initiatives.

I never said environmental groups were the ones that are likely to pay the big money. Since I work in science, a percentage of my paycheck is from private investors that support my work. I know perfectly well how it works. I am however puzzled by your claim that investors who want to earn money should be interested in this. Unless they are being grossly mislead and don't have scientific advisors (unlikely, most large investors that support scientific work have their own), they know perfectly well that this is support by interest. They're not going to earn money from it. Even if everything goes according to plan, the investment for the first 'semi' mammoth will be many million US$. It generally gets cheaper after the first success, but we are still talking about huge sums to get a handful of mammoths and unless they manage to clone many different mammoths (even harder and more expensive) they can't shift to cheaper natural breeding because of inbreeding. This is IF everything goes according to plan. Anyone with knowledge of cloning knows perfectly well that success is far from guaranteed and even 'successes' are usually partial: Dolly only survived 6 years and the cloned Pyrenean ibex a few minutes. Where is the 100s of millions earning potential in mammoths? I suspect few, if any western zoos would consider getting one because of the amount of heat (think elephant X10!) they would get from PETA and similar anti-zoo groups. The private investors that are likely to support mammoth cloning are non-return investors and they are essentially in the same boat as environmental groups (often largely dependant on private investors). Getting the money from non-return investors is about getting their interest and in that conservation is not an isolated field. Return-driven investors that support cloning support fields where there is a potential for earning lots of money afterwards: Humans (major ethical issues but still a field with big earning potential, e.g. via 'organ cloning'), livestock, animals used in big-earning competitions (e.g., race horses) and animals frequently used in animal tests. Unsurprisingly almost all work in cloning deals with animals that belong in one of these groups.

 

[Zooplantman]

If Pere David deer have been preserved in zoos and private collections for centuries yet their reintroduction into the marshes of China is still experimental....if Siberian tigers are being hunted to extinction today.... then what is this but a very expensive bit of self-gratification?

It would be cool to see huge dinosaurs again (!) but is that reason to re-create them?

These sorts of efforts are a distraction

 

[condor]

related BBC article Cloning: Can it resurrect extinct species?