Moooove-Over, Spielberg — Cloning Endangered Cows To Save A Species
	found on Popular Science written by joshv, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Thu 29 May 9:04am
		"Popular Science is featuring a short debate on the application of cloning technologies in the preservation of endangered species," joshv alerts us. "Robert Lanza, vice president of medical and scientific development for Advanced Cell Technology, argues that this technology may be the only way to save some species and is important in preserving genetic diversity in endangered populations. ACT was the first to clone an endangered species, the Southeast Asian Banteng cow, by transferring the DNA from frozen samples of dead animals to the eggs of a related species — in this case, Angus cows.

	"Kent Redford, director of the Wildlife Conservation Society, argues that focusing on technological solutions to the problem steals attention and dollars from habitat preservation programs. Given all of the problems facing the conservation world, the focus on this one tool of limited proven ability and limited potential utility seems odd. Perhaps it is the powerful memory of the Frankenstein movies, the ongoing human love affair for things technological, the hope that somewhere, somehow, technology will be able to produce a deus ex machina solution to the seemingly hopeless crisis in which we find ourselves. "Far from being a refuge for genetic luddites, the WCS sees genetic research as a powerful tool for preserving endangered species, but mostly as a method of studying existing populations and directing captive breeding programs to better preserve genetic diversity. "Ultimately, I distrust the motives of ACT -- they've simply got too much to gain from their related research in therapeutic cloning for their efforts in 'eco-cloning' to be entirely altruistic. This technology may allow us to better preserve a few healthy zoo-based populations, and perhaps bring some species back from the dead, but it may never be a viable solution to a problem that stems from a planet vastly overpopulated with humans. "On the other hand, attempts at habitat preservation, while well-meaning, are probably impractical. As a result of our numbers, we have wrought immense changes in the habitats that we share with the millions of other species on this planet. Unless we ourselves become extinct (and soon), these changes will be persistent, and opportunities for restoring habitats, and viable, healthy populations of endangered species will be few. "Either approach may be a day late and a dollar short. We are in the midst of a mass extinction event, and there is very little we can do to stop it. The human species kicked it off by hunting the megafauna into extinction, and still seems, despite its advanced technology, to have little if any ability to exert conscious control over the development and consumption patterns that are continuing this extinction event. "The future will see species either adapting to the new environments humans create or dying out. I am not advocating that we do nothing -- we will do what we can to help species adapt, but wholesale habitat preservation will almost certainly yield to the population growth momentum of 6 billion hungry humans, and a Jurassic Park for endangered species will remain impractical. Look on the bright side -- the last mass extinction produced us."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 17 commentsbest: 0 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  How soon before   by Gyan       at Thu 29 May 9:51am score of 1     the Attack of the Clones start. But seriously, if these species can't survive on their own, then they shouldn't. Just compounding the problem. Let human populations abound everywhere. Wait for a few centuries/millenia for the human exterminating armageddon and let the whole cycle begin again(perhaps).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Putting Extinction in Perspective   by TheDystopian       at Thu 29 May 9:58am score of 1     A biology teacher once told me "nature abhors a vacuum." I have always felt the statement was true. Ultimately, the destruction of our own species will lead the way to the some other organism becoming a dominant part of the landscape. Habitats, despite all of our efforts to destroy them, will eventually return in one form or another. The Earth will return to homeostasis as soon as it brushes away humanity. It has happened for countless eons before us and will continue after us. Any sentiment about humanity lasting forever is simply naive. Finally, to put extinction in perspective, a few billion years from now, the Sun's vast resources will be depleted, and it will become a Red Giant, which will destroy all of the inner planets of the solar system including Earth. Morale of the story: Life is fleeting for all organisms, use your life wisely. Uncle Toby? Yes......   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: Putting Extinction in Perspective   by gubernaut       at Thu 29 May 10:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     i agree with your point, to an extent. i don't think that we should absolve ourselves, as a species, of all responsibility for what occurs on this planet because eventually it will be destroyed (muhahahaha). i also think that the rate at which we are destorying or helping to make extinct countless species far outruns that at which they developed in the first place. we, therefore, must take responsiblity for — and respect — what we have done to aid in the speed of extinction, not just let it blow by us as we throw our plastic bottles out the window of our suvs. glaring omission is our middle name... the pretentious partizan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  Re: Putting Extinction in Perspective   by TheDystopian       at Thu 29 May 10:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     i don't think that we should absolve ourselves, as a species, of all responsibility for what occurs on this planet because eventually it will be destroyed (muhahahaha) Your point is well taken. My post was not meant to absolve humanity from its guilt. Yes, we have done ourselves a disservice by destroying habitats and creatures, but in the end, the planet knows how to take care of itself. When humanity is a long forgotten relic, the Earth will be as vibrant and full of life as ever before. It will simply be new species filling old niches. Uncle Toby? Yes......   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Putting Extinction in Perspective   by Gyan       at Thu 29 May 11:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Wait a minute... Q: Are we partly responsible for altering the evolutionary deviations due to our dominance and self-centeredness? A: Absolutely Q: Does that make it incumbent upon humans to "correct" the course? A: Hell, No. I just see an attempt here to transpose elements of human morality onto the whole global ecosystem. We're creatures of nature. The cycles of Nature will eventually deal with us. We don't control nature, just manipulate it like any other species. Our evolutionary growth simply allows us to do so, a couple of notches greater than other species can. But nature will eventually devour us. We should attempt to live and modify nature so long as it bodes well for us humans in the Really Big Picture©, and when we can't, we should gracefully exit(although we won't).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Morale v. Moral   by TheDystopian       at Thu 29 May 10:02am score of 1     I will be the first to go, considering I cannot spell "moral". D'oh! Uncle Toby? Yes......   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Public relations   by thomp       at Thu 29 May 10:12am score of 1     "Ultimately, I distrust the motives of ACT — they've simply got too much to gain from their related research in therapeutic cloning for their efforts in 'eco-cloning' to be entirely altruistic. This technology may allow us to better preserve a few healthy zoo-based populations, and perhaps bring some species back from the dead, but it may never be a viable solution to a problem that stems from a planet vastly overpopulated with humans." Very insightful statement. Eco-cloning (excellent word) occupies a very small niche in the business of cloning. In fact, I would bet that it's a huge money drain. However, ACT fully realizes the value of these types of projects in terms of public relations. ACT has continually pushed the boundaries of what the public and scientific communities find acceptable regarding cloning technology and their methods for publicizing those technologies. They need projects like this to give the impression that they only have the best intentions. Don't underestimate the power of good PR.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  I invite everyone to Kelmscott Farm   by nickdrake       at Thu 29 May 10:19am score of 1     They're doing it here in Lincolnville, Maine, USA in the open. I leaned over the pen wall and scratched the side of a cloned pig and had that feeling of, "I don't know what to think" that happened last when Steven Tyler held on to my (straight male) hand when he autographed my record.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Preserving habitats   by flightrisk       at Thu 29 May 10:23am score of 1     I'm a bit perplexed at what the writeup is trying to argue. Obviously, preserving habitats by lessening the environmental impact of humans is the top priority in preserving biodiversity. Even Lanza, the VP of ACT, concedes that point. But this is not an either/or situation. Where exactly does a problem exist if there is an additional technological solution that can help preserve a species in case our natural efforts fail? Ultimately, I distrust the motives of ACT — they've simply got too much to gain from their related research in therapeutic cloning for their efforts in 'eco-cloning' to be entirely altruistic. I don't see how that's a problem at all. Sure, ACT may be exploring cloning in an effort to cure human diseases, but if the side-effect is that their research could be applied to restore extinct species, then that's even better. Just because they're not exploring eco-cloning for the sake of eco-cloning doesn't diminish the usefulness of their technique. This technology may allow us to better preserve a few healthy zoo-based populations... [A] Jurassic Park for endangered species will remain impractical. This seems contradictory. Most zoos aren't about putting animals in cages anymore, but putting them in a tiny replica of their natural habitat. I don't see any technological reason why a Jurassic Park would be impractical, if by Jurassic Park you mean an artificial habitat where cloned extinct species are introduced. It seems just a difference in the scale of a zoo, and the source of its population.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Preserving habitats   by joshv       at Thu 29 May 10:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     I'm a bit perplexed at what the writeup is trying to argue. I argue that neither approach is likely to yield any measurable effect on species loss — I think that is clear. To answer a point further on in your response — I think ACT's eco-cloning is little more than a publicity stunt, meant to drive investor interest into their human therapeutic cloning efforts. On the opposite extreme, habitat preservation on the scale most environmentalists promote is pissing into the wind. The tone of the original Popular Science debate was to pit these two stances against each other — though they are certainly not mutually exclusive. This technology may allow us to better preserve a few healthy zoo-based populations... [A] Jurassic Park for endangered species will remain impractical. I intended a delineation of scale that is perhaps not entirely clear. A few healthy cow populations scattered around the globe does not a Jurassic park make. -josh   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Preserving habitats   by coprolalia       at Sat 31 May 7:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     as mcluhan noted, all technology exists as an amputation — we give up some facet of ourselves in order to gain greater control over something via technology. if we pursue the eco-cloning path, it becomes very easy to just say "spotted owl? look, we'll pay to store samples in a gene bank in perpetuity if you let us clearcut those winderness areas. no damage, right?" instead of pursuing a path of conservation. it's like doing heroin as a substitute for the endorphin runner's high. My whole life is an empty exercise in mean spirited sarcasm. --gordon shumway   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  A gimmick, and nothing more   by tylerh       at Thu 29 May 10:35am score of 1     A functioning adult animal is much, much more than it's expressed DNA. Anything "reared" by a parent, and that includes most birds and mammals, must be taught what to eat, how to eat, and how evade predators, at a minimum. One need look no further than the massive problems Condor re-introduction is facing in Califonia. This effort is having more failures than successed, even though condors (1) have no natural predators as adults and (2) seek food that doesn't move (they're scavengers). A prey species like cow will have to be cloned/reintroduced in sufficient numbers that survivors can learn from the experience of herd-mates getting munched by the local predators (eg. cars). "Resurrecting" species ala "Jurassic Park" might make for a nifty zoo curiousity, but is a non-starter from a conservation standpoint. Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: A gimmick, and nothing more   by b10hazrd       at Thu 29 May 10:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     That may be true for some larger mammals and birds, but I'm sure the technique may be of better use for lower vertebrates, and invertebrates — remember not ALL endangered animals are cute & fluffy with puppy-dog eyes, some are slimy, scaly nasties too :) Plus, the behavior of the "lower" species is more relient on the hard-wiring of the nervous system and less subject to the problem of learning & need for social experience you describe. In any case, I think that even if cloning only creates "zoo curiosity" it could be a valuable tool for those interested in comparative animal anatomy and physiology (such as myself). A small population of human-dependant extinct animals isn't nearly as good as a totally extinct species, but it is better than nothing. Sincerely, Kevin Christie crispiewm@hotmail.com "The crowning intellectual accomplishment of the brain is the real world..."--George Miller - Psychologist   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  playing god   by mokomuku       at Fri 30 May 11:23am score of 1     I wholeheartedly endorse genetic studies used to benefit humanity but I don't agree with cloning extinct species. Humans have had a profound effect on basically every biosphere on earth, and certainly we've caused more then a few species to become extinct. However, these species couldn't survive in the environment that we've modified, and unless we become a lot smarter about affecting eco-systems, it's silly to think that genetically reviving an extinct species is an act of biological goodwill. This is just putting the cart in front of the horse, so to speak.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  pleased to moo me   by jefito       at Fri 30 May 11:36am score of 1     It seems like cloning would be an effective way to preserve a species. But I don't see how it will save an endangered one...unless they can get really fancy and fashion variability within a population (this would require a type of "germ plasm" in ancient/preserved DNA, which I can't imagine is available). In order to have healthy populations there must be sufficient outbreeding. Such outbreeding is impossible with cloning. I can imagine one could maintain a species, just for the sake of having it around. But I don't see how it can be saved from being endangered. Clearly if habitat encroachment continues, then there will be no place (except zoos) for the endangered species to survive, cloned or not. Back on Earth, there was cheering. --Kerry Fray, "Gaia & Chronos"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  duh   by montana rain       at Fri 30 May 12:27pm score of 1     I have a brilliant idea. Instead of wasting all that time and money trying to clone animals that are endangered or extinct, why don't we as humans start doing our part to stop this from happening in the first place? For the most part, animals are pushed to extinction because selfish human beings need to clean cut every available free space of land to make room for their fat asses. Maybe if humans could learn to stop building houses over wetlands and former wildlife areas, or maybe if we didn't need to chop down ever tree in order to make room for more 15 lane highways, we wouldn't have to worry about the ethics of cloning extinct animals, because the extinct animals would still be HERE!!!! someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  A load of Bull!   by dfool       at Fri 30 May 10:46pm score of 1.5 informative     This is kinda "no-news". In 1998 the Ruakura agricultural research centre in New Zealand successfully cloned the last surviving "Enderby Cow"; a bovine rare breed (some have argued for sub-species status because of a unique adaptation described below) which evolved from 19th century seed stock let loose on Enderby, one of New Zealand's sub-antarctic possessions. Enderbys are unique because they can live on seaweed instead of grass or other feed (they are also particulary hardy). This has some useful economic implications if a viable herd can be raised, as there is a near endless supply of seaweed just sitting in the ocean waiting to be hauled out today and feed to tomorrows sirloin or hamburger. Of course, one could argue that doing the cloning from frozen stock is a new twist, but succeeding in the earliest days of cloning using the only surviving specimen is nothing to sniff at (Ruakura were just weeks behind the people that successfully cloned Dolly).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]