COSMOS magazine

Get COSMOS Teacher's Notes
  • Add this story to stumbleupon
  • Add this story to Yahoo Buzz
  • Add this story to Digg
  • Add this story to reddit
  • Add this story to Slashdot
  • Add this story to newsvine
  • Add this story to facebook
  • Add this story to technorati
  • Add this story to del-icio-us
  • Add this story to furl

Feature - online

Back from the dead

6 December 2006

Single page print view

Back from the dead

Sequence and rewind: Scientists are racing to clone the extinct woolly mammoth and other prehistoric beasts, perhaps one day creating a real life 'prehistoric zoo'.

Credit: AFP

Freezing preserves biological molecules that would otherwise swiftly degrade after death. A dead cell doesn't possess any of the usual machinery required to repair DNA damage, and long chains of DNA disintegrate into smaller fragments while some bases (A, T, C, and G - the molecules that make up the genetic code) mutate into others.

Cells with DNA in fragments only 100 to 200 base pairs long cannot be used for cloning as they are not able to grow, divide and create proteins in the same way as cells with intact DNA. However, if an animal is frozen within days of dying - and remains frozen - the process of degradation is slowed or even halted.

Iritani hoped, at first, to find frozen sperm from a mammoth. The sperm would be used to impregnate a modern-day elephant, creating a hybrid species. As more mammoths are born the elephant genes could eventually be bred out. Frozen sperm, though, would be an incredibly lucky find. As an insurance policy, any tissue samples found are stored, as the team firmly believes that scientists will find a way to piece together the fragmented DNA.

Creating a real-life Pleistocene Park may sound like a rather far-fetched idea, but it is already under way. A Russian scientist has been cultivating a suitable location in Siberia for more than a decade. He hopes to recreate the entire landscape and ecosystem of 10,000 years ago - perfect for recently resurrected woolly mammoths. In total, the park would be about twice the twice of England.

While mammoth experts scoff at such an idea, Iritani has already proven he knows what he is doing. Six months before announcing plans for Pleistocene Park, Iritani's team successfully transplanted a spinach gene into a pig. The result was an animal that creates less fatty acid and produces a healthier pork product. Only time will tell if he can be successful in his new, and far more ambitious project.

The woolly mammoth is a popular target among many cloning experts. The disgraced South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk (see Cosmos, Issue 8, p64), who successfully cloned Snuppy the dog, had obtained woolly mammoth tissue for cloning purposes. In another admission of breached ethics, Hwang recently admitted in court that his team obtained the samples by paying the Russian Mafia.

Other extinct animals on cloning experts' to-do list include the Tasmanian tiger and the Spanish mountain goat, both of which were driven extinct by human forces. It is even conceivable that animals as long-gone as dinosaurs will one day make the list, despite not being preserved immediately after death.

Most twentieth century scientists insist that Jurassic Park is still science fiction, while others readily admit the methods described in the movie thriller could actually be one future possibility. In Jurassic Park, dinosaur DNA was obtained from the blood in the stomachs of insects entombed in amber. The sequences vital for making the right dinosaur were targeted and spliced into host DNA from modern amphibians, and the dinosaurs were grown in artificial eggs.

The struggle to recover ancient DNA has had a tumultuous history in life, as well as in the movies. Because DNA degrades over time, it was long considered impossible to retrieve anything useful. False reports in 1994 of a DNA find in an 80-million-year-old dinosaur bone was only the first in a series of high-profile failures as researches tried to obtain DNA of ancient animals.

Readers' comments

so..

they dont think dinosaurs can really be brought back?
is it to far of a stretch?

Stretched Dinos

Actually yes, it is a stretch. The Dinos that we have today are all fossils. Whereas the mammoths are frozen... like in deep freezer. And if such a freezing happened swiftly, there is a good chance that it would have caused minimal damage to the cells and undamaged DNA could be extracted out of it.

when you bring any life into

when you bring any life into the world, you are left with a responsibility to give it the best life that it can have. people should not have children if they cannot properly care for them and scientists should not bring animals into a world that they are no longer suited for. rather i think the efforts should be put towards making the world a better place for the wildlife that the human race has not yet destroyed. what is the point of resarecting a wolly mammoth if in the mean time tigers, rhinos, elephants, and orangutans all go exctinct. do we simply clone them back too to live out their lives in zoos for our entertainment? stop looking to the past for a cheap thrill and look to the present and the future to see what can be done to prevent unnecessary extinction of animals from this time period.

Bringing Back the Mammoths

I would hope you are right in that if mammoths are brought back through cloning that we responsibly give it the best life. If "best" means keeping one in a zoo, so it can be properly cared for, then I don't really see a problem with that.

In regards to preventing the extinction of animals...that is something that has always been a goal of the Human Race. But your reasoning creates a double standard. If you say scientists should not bring animals such as wooly mammoths back from extinction because they are no longer suited to live here in this time, then you should also allow animals that are on the brink of extinction to simply become extinct for the same reason?

My feeling is that if we have the knowledge and the ability to bring a species back, then why not try it? I don't think it's playing God to do so. I'm not saying we should bring back a species such as a dinosaur that could possibly be a threat to human life. But I don't see why an animal like the mammoth could threaten the human population. And if we did bring them back, it wouldn't be like Jurassic Park where we simply let them roam freely almost immediately after they are cloned until we have studied their characteristics thoroughly -- not for months, but for years or generations -- before doing so.

Humans are an amazing species whose quest for knowledge is unparalleled. What better way is there to learn about an extinct species and give them a second chance at life than to use the knowledge we have in cloning and bring them back.

i say

i would say bring one back in see if they attack the human race becouse they may be scared of neanderthals but they may not be scared of the humans.
my wife thinks they should not bring none back at all.
but give it a shot in see what will happen..
willie ray brown.

um...

I'm pretty sure we could contain it...

Maybe they even taste good !

Maybe they even taste good !

They had their time

Scientists should not be trying to bring back extinct species, they died out for a reason. with the earths surface heating up more and more the wooly mammoth wouldn't be able to tolerate the current climatic changes. scientists should be spending their time trying to solve more realistic problems.

How many people can truly

How many people can truly say "I CLONED A WOOLY MAMMOTH!!!!" If i was a scientist i would rather clone mammoths then work towards one of you "realistic" problems. Realistic is not a challenge. Realistically i will never have the opportunity to punch you in the face, however i like the challenge of trying to do so anyways :)

I honestly think it is well

I honestly think it is well within the nature of human beings to get so excited about a new process or technology or discovery as to temporarily suspend moral considerations on whether or not to actually follow through with a certain act, until such a time (years/centuries) that the novelty runs out and truly ethical conservation/research can begin.

An example that comes to mind is the giant squid, a species that is so rarely seen that only recently have there been photographs or video taken of a live specimen. What strikes me is that when the video was taken of the live squid the scientists in question, in their zeal to capture a living representative of the species, unfortunately killed the animal which doesn't survive well near surface waters. In this case, the (whole) carcass still provides scientific information, so even such a "loss" is a gain. The very fact that it is a "first-ever" situation causes otherwise conservative scientists to suspend consideration of a living creature's welfare for the sake of scientific knowledge. I would think that years from now, however, if more live animals could be collected, the need to endanger living squids through capture would vanish as the "novelty-factor" wears out.

In a similar fashion, this new cloning technology simply begs scientists to explore its possibilities, and only after a signficant period of "first species of xxx-type to be revived" type of sensationalism goes away, will proper consideration be given to how it should properly be utilised in the scope of modern global ecology.

That being said, I think the novelty of a "rabbit monkey" is just too amazing to pass up...for now. At least until either the world has far too many rabbit monkeys that they are no longer anything special (perhaps "two" is enough to fill that quota, really) or until some higher power descends upon us to tell us to please stop making rabbit monkeys because they are offensive to some cosmic balance.