"Bringing extinct species back from the dead could..." Topic

… hurt—not help—conservation efforts.

"Ten days ago, science news media outlets around the world reported that a Harvard University–led team was on the verge of resurrecting the wooly mammoth. Although many articles oversold the findings, the concept of de-extinction—bringing extinct animals back to life through genetic engineering—is beginning to move from the realm of science fiction to reality. Now, a new analysis of the economics suggests that our limited conservation funding would be better spent elsewhere.

"The conversation thus far has been focused on whether or not we can do this. Now, we are progressing toward the: ‘Holy crap, we can—so should we?' phase," says Douglas McCauley, an ecologist at University of California, Santa Barbara, who was not involved in the study. "It is like we've just about put the last stiches in [Frankenstein's monster], and there is this moment of pause as we consider whether it is actually a good idea to flip the switch and electrify the thing to life."…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Could be awesome for the restaurant industry. :)

Dan

If 'Jurrasic Park' is anything to go by, what's on the menu may not be the extinct species.

Why not have some ice age animals around. Dinosaurs I am told have no chance as there isn't a cell of DNA left.

Or, indeed, the recently exterminated such as the Tasmanian Tiger.

Bringing back species that operate on learned behavior rather than sheer instinct leads to the problem of no parents to teach them. Yes, we could clone a mammoth, but how would it learn to be a mammoth? The problem gets worse with humanoids (e.g., Neanderthals).

Rmaker

The same thing happens when you rescue a young orphaned animal. You research what their nearest relatives do in the wild, adjust where needed, and let their instincts fill in the rest.

Either that or light up the grill. :)

Dan

Hopefully, no one is thinking about bringing back the Neanderthal ( or eating them!) . Nature versus Nurture?. I tend to lean towards the first for all important things.

Aren't they working on back engineering the chicken into a dino ?

That may be some sort of myth but I await correction.

The same thing happens when you rescue a young orphaned animal. You research what their nearest relatives do in the wild, adjust where needed, and let their instincts fill in the rest.

That's fine when it's an extant animal. With extinct species, it gets a lot more difficult. In the mammoth case, there is just enough evidence to indicate that modern elephants would NOT be good models – on environmental grounds if nothing else.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

"That may be some sort of myth but I await correction."

Supposedly Jack Horner (sp?) is working on it ?

Jack Horner and others are quite happily reverse engineering chicken DNA to find out which genes can be turned either off or on in order to create "chickenosaurs" or "chookasaurs". Their list of achievements thus far in altering chicken embryos include changing beaks to look more like dinosaur snouts and the legs and feet to look more like those of a dinosaur. They have also managed to give chickens teeth, although the gene for tooth enamel has been lost in chickens. I believe they are still working on giving chickens "hands" and tails.

In my experience, if you want to bring the dinosaur out in a chicken all you need to do is show it some meat and 65 million years drops away in an instant.

TW

Tootin' and poopin' harms the air…or so I'm told