Bringing back the Wooly Mammoth

[FaxModem1]

Yahoo News

Reviving the Woolly Mammoth: Will De-Extinction Become Reality?
By Megan Gannon, News Editor | LiveScience.com – Fri, Mar 15, 2013

Email
Share758
2
Print

Related Content

This photo shows a museum worker inspecting a replica of a woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), a relative of modern elephants that went extinct 3,000 to 10,000 years ago.View Photo

This photo shows a museum worker …
Gastric brooding frogs come in two species: Rheobatrachus vitellinus and R. silus (pictured above and last seen in 1985). These frogs had a unique mode of reproduction: The female swallowed fertilized eggs, turned its stomach into a uterus andView Photo

Gastric brooding frogs come in …

Biologists briefly brought the extinct Pyrenean ibex back to life in 2003 by creating a clone from a frozen tissue sample harvested before the goat's entire population vanished in 2000. The clone survived just seven minutes after birth, but it gave scientists hope that "de-extinction," once a pipedream, could become a reality.

Ten years later, a group of researchers and conservationists gathered in Washington, D.C., today (March 15) for a forum called TEDxDeExtinction, hosted by the National Geographic Society, to talk about how to revive extinct animals, from the Tasmanian tiger and the saber-toothed tiger to the woolly mammoth and the North American passenger pigeon.

Though scientists don't expect a real-life "Jurassic Park" will ever be on the horizon, a species that died a few tens of thousands of years ago could be resurrected as long as it has enough intact ancient DNA.

Some have their hopes set on the woolly mammoth, a relative of modern elephants that went extinct 3,000 to 10,000 years ago and left behind some extraordinarily well preserved carcasses in Siberian permafrost. Scientists in Russia and South Korea have embarked on an ambitious project to try to create a living specimen using the DNA-storing nucleus of a mammoth cell and an Asian elephant egg — a challenging prospect, as no one has ever been able to harvest eggs from an elephant. [Image Gallery: Bringing Extinct Animals Back to Life]

But DNA from extinct species doesn't need to be preserved in Arctic conditions to be useful to scientists — researchers have been able to start putting together the genomes of extinct species from museum specimens that have been sitting on shelves for a century. If de-extinction research has done anything for science, it's forced researchers to look at the quality of the DNA in dead animals, said science journalist Carl Zimmer, whose article on de-extinction featured on the cover of the April issue of National Geographic magazine.

"It's not that good but you can come up with techniques to retrieve it," Zimmer told LiveScience.

For instance, a team that includes Harvard genetics expert George Church is trying to bring back the passenger pigeon — a bird that once filled eastern North America's skies. They have been able to piece together roughly 1 billion letters (Each of four amino acids make up DNA has a letter designation) in the bird's genome based on DNA from a 100-year-old taxidermied museum specimen. They hope to incorporate those genes responsible for certain traits into the genome of a common rock pigeon to bring back the passenger pigeon, or at least create something that looks like it.

A few years ago, another group of researchers isolated DNA from a 100-year-old specimen of a young thylacine, also known as Tasmanian tiger. The pup had been preserved in alcohol at Museum Victoria in Melbourne. Its genetic material was inserted into mouse embryos, which proved functional in live mice. [Photos: The Creatures of Cryptozoology]

Should we?

Now that de-extinction looms as a possibility, it presents some thorny questions: Should we bring back these species? And what would we do them?

Stuart Pimm of Duke University argued in an opinion piece in National Geographic that these efforts would be a "colossal waste" if scientists don't know where to put revived species that had been driven off the planet because their habitats became unsafe.

"A resurrected Pyrenean ibex will need a safe home," Pimm wrote. "Those of us who attempt to reintroduce zoo-bred species that have gone extinct in the wild have one question at the top of our list: Where do we put them? Hunters ate this wild goat to extinction. Reintroduce a resurrected ibex to the area where it belongs and it will become the most expensive cabrito ever eaten."

Pimm also worries that de-extinction could create a false impression that science can save endangered species, turning the focus away from conservation. But others argue that bringing back iconic, charismatic creatures could stir support for species preservation.

"Some people feel that watching scientists bring back the great auk and putting it back on a breeding colony would be very inspiring," Zimmer told LiveScience. The great auk was the Northern Hemisphere's version of the penguin. The large flightless birds went extinct in the mid-19th century.

Other species disappeared before scientists had a chance to study their remarkable biological abilities — like the gastric brooding frog, which vanished from Australia in the mid-1980s, likely due to timber harvesting and the chytrid fungus.

"This was not just any frog," Mike Archer, a paleontologist at the University of New South Wales, said during his talk at TEDxDeExtinction, which was broadcast via livestream. These frogs had a unique mode of reproduction: The female swallowed fertilized eggs, turned its stomach into a uterus and gave birth to froglets through the mouth.

"No animal, let alone a frog, has been known to do this – change one organ in the body into another," Archer said. He's using cloning methods to put gastric brooding frog nuclei into eggs of living Australian marsh frogs. Archer announced today that his team has already created early-stage embryos of the extinct species forming hundreds of cells.

"I think we're gonna have this frog hopping glad to be back in the world again," he said.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to correct the year the Pyrenean ibex clone was created.

Thoughts?

[Borgholio]

Well, we clocked the T-Rex at 32 mph...

[Guardsman Bass]

Probably not possible in the case of the mammoths. You'd need to get a bunch of intact DNA from 10,000+ year-old mammoth remains, or somehow "fill in" the bits you find (and hope that your mammoth doesn't have a ton of bacteria specialized just for its body, without which it will drop dead). Then you'd presumably have to impregnate a female elephant with your new embryo (not that easy), and hope that the differences between the two doesn't lead to the fetus being miscarried by her body. And if you don't want to have to do that over and over again, you need to do the above enough time so that you have a breeding population of them.

And honestly . . . why would you want to? The environment that the mammoth evolved to dwell in (very cold steppe and tundra) is drastically smaller than what it was during the last glacial epoch, and shrinking with climate change. What remains of its environment is filled by other large herbivores, such as reindeer and musk oxen. You'd be just bringing them back more or less as a curiosity.

[Napoleon the Clown]

This has been in talks for years, possibly decades. Last I heard about it, they have enough different samples of DNA to build a mammoth, it's just a question of if they can get the technique for creating the "clone" down well enough to be reliable. It's still in the realm of "We think this is possible with technology we've got in the works."

[Broomstick]

I'd like to see the passenger pigeon and Carolina parakeet brought back - the pigeon is a pigeon and it was solely unrestrained killing by humans that did it in, it should find plenty of living space even in modern America. The downside would be that the PP apparently relied on living in massive flocks for survival which might cause issues, but the wholesale industrial slaughter than original doomed them is unlikely to be tolerated again, and pigeon meat is no longer a common part of the US diet. Likewise, the Carolina parakeet which, as a parrot, should be both adaptable and intelligent enough to survive in the modern world.

Mammoths and saber tooth tigers are more problematic. As noted, mammoth habitat is shrinking rapidly in today's world. Saber tooth tigers would be yet another big cat that would view humans as lunch and inevitably come into conflict with humans. Habitat for them, too is small and shrinking.

If we bring species back it would be best to bring back species that won't be on life support indefinitely.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Part of the problem with those two Broomstick is that they did a number on orchards, particularly cherry IIRC, which was in part why they were exterminated with such gusto. Pigeon meat and feathers for fancy ladies wear probably wouldn't be issues today, but the agricultural problems are likely to be extant. Actually, it might be even worse today given the large agricorps now in existence. I can already here the GOP and conservatives in general whining about the big bad EPA running roughshod over poor helpless farmers to save a bunch of dumb birds. I don't see that attitude of treating either as pest species not being around today. Look at how people tend to view simple things like barring economic development to prevent the habitat destruction for critically endangered species. Perhaps even better, as an example of direct negative economic impact, look at how wolves tend to be viewed by ranchers in areas where they've been reintroduced.

There are also other psychological issues as well. The Carolina Parakeet, will probably be viewed favorably by the general public by nature of it being related to parrots and other parakeets, which people tend to view favorably. The passenger pigeon despite being a beautiful animal with dazzling iridescent plumage (especially in the males), is likely to suffer the exact opposite reaction due to association with the common pigeon, aka the flying rat.

Edit: I should also add that there are issues of habitat. The U.S. is nowhere near forested like it was even 100 years ago.

[Broomstick]

Part of the problem with those two Broomstick is that they did a number on orchards, particularly cherry IIRC, which was in part why they were exterminated with such gusto. Pigeon meat and feathers for fancy ladies wear probably wouldn't be issues today, but the agricultural problems are likely to be extant.

I don't recall the pigeon feathers being particularly in demand for fancy hats. The feathers might have been pretty enough (unfortunately, the mounted specimens I've seen are probably somewhat faded, in addition to being behind protective glass that somewhat mutes iridescence) but they weren't particularly large. They were more seed and nut eaters than necessarily cherry munchers. Birds raiding cherry orchards are still a problem even today yet growers manage to survive.

The main reason for their extinction is currently believed not to be their status as pests but rather then wholesale slaughter of entire flocks expressly to provide food for people. There were people who made their livelihood killing them by the tens of thousands then shipping them in boxcars to cities to be sold as food. I don't think that particular pressure will be on them should they be resurrected.

The passenger pigeon despite being a beautiful animal with dazzling iridescent plumage (especially in the males), is likely to suffer the exact opposite reaction due to association with the common pigeon, aka the flying rat.

I question that assumption. They don't look like city pigeons (the rock pigeon). Mourning doves are also pigeons yet do not attract the same animosity as rock pigeons. Doves are pigeons and aren't despised as "flying rats", either.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I believe the desire of feathers for fancy hat's affected the parakeet more than the pigeon, though I'm almost certain I've seen accounts of it's feathers being used as such and there being a high demand for them.

Yes, farmers still have to deal with birds raiding their orchards, but would they be prepared to deal with the scale or rather how would they take being forced by the EPA to accept the losses and damage on the necessary scale for the species' survival in the case of the passenger pigeon? Remember the passenger pigeon traveled, and most importantly bred in flocks, that numbered in hundreds of thousands to millions*. Even if they didn't eat your crop, I imagine quite a bit of damage might be done to the trees themselves simply from nesting. I don't even want to think about what flocks that large would do to aviation, though I'd love to see what it'd look like on a radar terminal compared to actual flight traffic.

I question that assumption. They don't look like city pigeons (the rock pigeon). Mourning doves are also pigeons yet do not attract the same animosity as rock pigeons. Doves are pigeons and aren't despised as "flying rats", either.

They also don't have the name pigeon in their common name. Remember, the people likely to be swayed by some form of the pigeon argument are also those that aren't likely to give a damn about ever having seen said animal in the first place before condemning it, let alone knowing that doves are pigeons too. I don't know, maybe I'm just more cynical about mankind when it comes to my viewing of man's interactions with nature than you are. For example, I fully expect to have the dubious honor of being witness to the extinction of most if not all megafauna (in the colloquial sense) in my lifetime. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see such species, along with a host of others, brought back if possible. Hell, you're talking to the guy that if given a time machine, the first thing he'd do with it is go on photographic prehistoric safari, in spite of having severe germaphobic OCD and generally disliking the outdoors. I just don't see the public warming up to species that we brought back from extinction, especially ones that are liable to have economic impact (real or perceived), when they can't be bothered to give a damn about currently extant species unless they're cute and/or cuddly.

Note*: Billions even, if Wikipedia is to be believed. I find that hard to believe personally, though the footnote for that claim linked to a sadly now nonexistent page at Cornell's Lab of Ornithology website, so I'm somewhat inclined to disregard my disbelief.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Remember the passenger pigeon traveled, and most importantly bred in flocks, that numbered in hundreds of thousands to millions*.

Unfortunately I cannot find the correct citation, but a while ago I read a book about ecological change in the Americas post-Columbus that talked a lot about the passenger pigeons. The popular image of the million-large flocks is largely due to descriptions made my Audubon during his travels. However, there is a lot of (admittedly disputed) evidence that flocks of those sizes never exited before around the late 1700s, and were only made possible due to other changes wrought by European colonization on the environment.

Specifically, deforestation and wide-scale agriculture. It is important to remember that passenger pigeons, unlike many other bird species, only produce a single egg during a given mating season (typically not a recipe for large population size). When the young is born, they are only nurtured for a couple of weeks before being pushed out of the nest. As happens with many animal species, "only the strong survive" (to be incredibly cliche and oversimplistic). That is, many of the squabs would be eaten by various predators: wolves, foxes, weasels, hawks/crows/other birds, snakes, even bullfrogs, etc. Note that many of these predators are the same animals that farmers would view as pests, and kill as a matter of course. Thus, the natural check on the pigeon population was essentially exterminated, which allowed for unsustainable flock sizes.

Furthermore, most people don't realize that America was not "wild" before Europeans came. Many of the forests of New England and the mid-Atlantic weren't natural old growth. They were orchards or parks created by the Amerindians. When disease ravaged their populations, and before colonists became heavily settled beyond the coastal regions, you suddenly had unattended orchards, which is gifting a huge abundance of food to the local animal species.

Basically, the idea is that those large flock sizes were only possible due to the specific impacts of European encroachment on the North American ecology. There are no Amerindian accounts (IIRC, I could be wrong on this) of such large flock sizes, and passenger pigeons were not a significant part of their culture, diet, or anything (as you would expect if it were as prominent as Audubon described). So reintroducing the passenger pigeon will not automatically lead to million-strong locust-like plagues of pigeon o'er the land; we can argue whether the current ecological conditions are closer to those that the pigeon "originally" lived in, sustainably, or to those that allowed it to become overpopulated and then overhunted, however.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Yes, I've encountered some mentions of the dispute on whether numbers were historically as high as during colonial and post colonial periods doing a quick bit of looking online today. Whether or not the populations were even sustainable is a good point as well. Unfortunately, our only reliable information comes from European colonists, and what can be gleaned from the fossil/geologic record, which is unfortunately limited. Personally, I'd be wary of interpreting the lack of Amerindian accounts one way or the other, simply because so many died before we even made contact with them/recorded their accounts and any records they made likely being lost for one reason or another. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if lots of what we thought we knew regarding the passenger pigeon, or any other species for that matter, turned out to be false. I've enough knowledge of the history of biology/zoology to appreciate that much at least. Mind you I still have little doubt that people would find something to bitch about, making the task of successfully bringing a species back from extinction far harder than it would be from a technical standpoint, if it's even possible.

If you ever remember the source by all means share. I don't know if I'd be able to access it if I wanted to, or even necessarily understand it, but it could prove interesting to someone else at the very least.

Edit: Typos.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, it can be hard to piece together information about animal species rendered extinct during the past two or three hundred years. There is essentially no fossil record of them, and you have to rely on the often wildly unscientific accounts of European observers. There are a lot of unknowns. And, of course, even if we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that those population numbers were an aberration and not replicable, that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other good ecological reasons to not reintroduce the species into the wild. (The environment now is just so much different than it was then. The wide scale introduction of European style agriculture, and the subsequent abandonment of a lot of farmland in certain parts of the country during the past century, have resulted in a rather eclectic mix of introduced and indigent species. And this can be very subtle too: for example, in the Great Plains, the biggest impact has been with the species of grass that make up the plains, due to varieties introduced as grazing feed for horses and cattle, which outcompeted many native varieties).

It is really bothering me that I cannot remember the source. I remember the book was more of a popular history than a detailed scientific examination (though it cited several of the latter), so I wouldn't worry about not understanding it. Hopefully if I leaf through my books I can find it pretty quickly ...

[Simon_Jester]

Bringing back the mammoth is most interesting as a tour de force and testbed.

For one, it's a sort of memorial to how much we've accomplished in genetic engineering, and a gesture in the direction of what might be called a... high-tech approach to restoring ecosystems. Something we may need in the 21st and 22nd centuries.

Second, if we can do it right, we'll refine further techniques for preserving very endangered species (you don't get much more endangered than 'dead'), and reintroducing other animal species back into the wild if we ever manage to restore their habitat.

[Guardsman Bass]

Yeah, it can be hard to piece together information about animal species rendered extinct during the past two or three hundred years. There is essentially no fossil record of them, and you have to rely on the often wildly unscientific accounts of European observers. There are a lot of unknowns. And, of course, even if we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that those population numbers were an aberration and not replicable, that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other good ecological reasons to not reintroduce the species into the wild. (The environment now is just so much different than it was then. The wide scale introduction of European style agriculture, and the subsequent abandonment of a lot of farmland in certain parts of the country during the past century, have resulted in a rather eclectic mix of introduced and indigent species. And this can be very subtle too: for example, in the Great Plains, the biggest impact has been with the species of grass that make up the plains, due to varieties introduced as grazing feed for horses and cattle, which outcompeted many native varieties).

It is really bothering me that I cannot remember the source. I remember the book was more of a popular history than a detailed scientific examination (though it cited several of the latter), so I wouldn't worry about not understanding it. Hopefully if I leaf through my books I can find it pretty quickly ...

You're thinking of Charles Mann's 1491. He talks about that.

[Covenant]

I'd want them to bring back the Mammoth if they could, if only on the justification of study and possibly a zoo species with limited natural spread. There's a bison population out near Fermilab if I recall, I bet there would be other interesting places to have small populations of Mammoths where they would be comfortable and have plenty of space.

It would make for a very interesting case study, if nothing else. I would hesitate against introducing megafauna predators, but things like a Mammoth would probably just compete with big things like a Moose for habitat space. Not sure what they eat though. In any case, it would be really interesting to see, and it would be one of those things, like going to the moon, where we learn more during the process than at the result.

[LadyTevar]

Outside of a Zoo/Biological Park, where could you put a mammoth? Or an Auroch?

Carolina Parakeets would immediately become the new "must have" pet, with attempts at smuggling

[Wing Commander MAD]

IIRC habitat and diet for the wooly mammoth, and possibly the wooly rhinoceros, would be similar to their still surviving contemporary the musk oxen.

Edit: Ah what the hell diet and habitat.

[Broomstick]

Outside of a Zoo/Biological Park, where could you put a mammoth? Or an Auroch?

Carolina Parakeets would immediately become the new "must have" pet, with attempts at smuggling

We could just raise them domestically as pets. Presumably they'd be as able to adapt to that as most parrots.

Of course, inevitably, some would escape but if the supply of potential pets is ample that should eliminate smuggling concerns. I actually worry more about the Carolina parakeets becoming agricultural pests than passenger pigeons because, as a general rule, parrots are pretty smart birds able to adapt to human environments on their own. Australia has issues with their abundant parrots, it's not beyond possibility Carolinas could become a problem.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Near my home town in Rhode Island, there has been a stable population of Monk parakeets since the early 1970s. They original hail from the lowlands and foothills of central South America (Bolivia and neighbors), but were imported heavily as pets. If I recall correctly, there are other such wild parakeet populations that have survived in other parts of the Eastern Seaboard. These are birds from primarily tropical or sub-tropical conditions that have been able to survive through New England winters for a sustained period of time, with a stable and growing population.

In fact, back in the 70s and 80s, many populations of wild Monk parakeets in the US were exterminated out of fears they would become agricultural pests, which never materialized (while no longer legal as pets, no efforts are made, to my knowledge, to control these populations anymore). The biggest problem posed by them, actually, is that they like to nest on power poles and telephone wires.

Obviously a different circumstance than a theoretical reintroduction of the Carolina parakeet, but it is interesting to think about. Both in terms of there being a track record of parakeets introducing themselves to a human environment without becoming serious pests, but also in terms of parakeets being unusually intelligent and adapting to an environment that we wouldn't otherwise expect them to even survive in.

[Broomstick]

Chicago likewise has a colony of those parrots living in Hyde Park. Or were those Quaker parakeets? I forget... but again, sub-tropical parrots living in the upper Midwest, not an environment you'd expect them to survive. They figured out how to stay warm in the winter (mostly electrical transformers) and they've been there for generations now.

[Irbis]

I can already here the GOP and conservatives in general whining about the big bad EPA running roughshod over poor helpless farmers to save a bunch of dumb birds. I don't see that attitude of treating either as pest species not being around today. Look at how people tend to view simple things like barring economic development to prevent the habitat destruction for critically endangered species. Perhaps even better, as an example of direct negative economic impact, look at how wolves tend to be viewed by ranchers in areas where they've been reintroduced.

You know, this is probably cultural difference (NRA propaganda and prevalence of guns in USA resulted in need to justify reason for gun owning, leading to hunting/poaching being seen as okay and 'shoot them pesky varmint' as being reasonable solution, even when done by ignorant people attributing damage to wrong animal) but in Poland, wolves and lynxes, while sometimes seen by farmers as destructive are subject to complete and total hunting ban, shooting them being possible only after agreement of local environment conservation officer and general environment directorate in capital. Farmers are only allowed to use passive defences (fences, dogs, etc) with state paying compensation for eaten animals if wolves do attack cattle - and the attitudes are shifting as people are realizing that wild animals generally don't like to come into conflict with human interests unless forced to and wildlife can in fact generate more money for farmers if not ruthlessly and mindlessly exterminated.

Personally, I started to see shooting (and especially poaching) local animals for food and/or economic reasons only as a bit barbaric - humanity won't lose anything if for once we'd dial down habitat devastation a bit.

[Broomstick]

In the US farmers are also paid compensation for animals killed by reintroduced predators, and there are many creatures with a complete and total hunting ban (such as the bald eagle). However, the US is much larger in extent than Poland, and in rural/wilderness areas more sparsely populated, both of which make enforcement more difficult.

[Panzersharkcat]

We could just raise them domestically as pets. Presumably they'd be as able to adapt to that as most parrots.

Out of curiosity, what about dodos and the viability of cloning them? I'm rather fond of the birds.

[madd0ct0r]

another Jasper Fforde fan ?

[Panzersharkcat]

No, sorry. I just find them to be funny birds. Plus a bit of pity as it was a nearly helpless animal that got hunted into extinction. If I may quote from Our Dumb World, "Although the Dodo was commonly depicted as a sluggish, overweight, and unintelligent animal, historians now believe these traits actually belonged to the people who hunted the helpless bird to extinction."

[Broomstick]

The dodo, another relative of the common pigeon rendered extinct...

Finding viable DNA for a dodo would be a bit more of a challenge as existing specimens are more skeletons than not, but if we could... sure, why not? It's conceivable they could be re-introduced to Mauritius, an island that might need some invasive predators eliminated to ensure their survival but certainly if we could convince people not to eat them that would help greatly. It might also help out the tambalacoque tree's survival as well. Or perhaps they could be set loose on another island less troubled by people and pests... if we can find one. There's also the problem that we don't know their behavior, what they would eat, and so forth even if we can make some educated guesses.