First ever cloning of an extinct animal is a success!

[Regulus Tera]

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/10253_Spanish_Ibex.jpg

At least until it died (http://www.dailytech.com/First+Ever+Extinct+Animal+Cloned/article14123.htm). :(

In the realm of commercial cloning, trickled-down technology from this cutting edge field of research has allowed firms to offer pet cloning services. And in the realm of research, tremendous advances continue as scientists are hatching plans to resurrect extinct beasts. Scientists have almost finished mapping the Woolly Mammoth genome, and have already injected DNA from an extinct species into a mouse.

Now arguably the greatest landmark event for the field of cloning has occurred. Scientists have for the first time cloned an extinct animal, the Pyrenean ibex, a form of wild mountain goat. The really spectacular thing about this cloning effort is that it was done using only DNA from skin samples.

Technically classed as a genetically distinct subspecies of the Spanish ibex, the Pyrenean ibex, or bucardo as it is called by the locals, used to roam the mountainous hillside of northern Spain. Known for its distinct horns, the animal was a popular target for hunters, and by the 19th century only 100 were left. The species was not declared protected until 1973, at which time there were around 30 animals. In 2000, the last known member of this critically endangered species was found dead on a hillside. Researchers at the time decided to wisely preserve skin samples in liquid nitrogen.

The well-preserved skin samples proved a fruitful source for DNA. Replicating this DNA using common genomic techniques, the researchers injected it into goat eggs, replacing the goat DNA.

While a great success, the effort also showcased the difficult road ahead for producing viable clones. While born alive, the newborn ibex kid had defects in its lungs, similar to those found in many cloned sheep, and they proved fatal. However, as some sheep clones have lived relatively normal lifespans, the success raises the hope of a more permanent resurrection.

Dr Jose Folch, from the Centre of Food Technology and Research of Aragon helped lead the research. He states, "The delivered kid was genetically identical to the bucardo. In species such as bucardo, cloning is the only possibility to avoid its complete disappearance."

Professor Robert Miller, director the Medical Research Council's Reproductive Sciences Unit at Edinburgh University who heads a northern white rhino cloning effort funded by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland cheered the news. He states, "I think this is an exciting advance as it does show the potential of being able to regenerate extinct species. Clearly there is some way to go before it can be used effectively, but the advances in this field are such that we will see more and more solutions to the problems faced."

The race is now on to make sure that critically endangered species' tissues are preserved for future cloning efforts. Britain's Zoological Society of London and America's Natural History Museum have teamed up in a project called Frozen Ark. They are in the process of storing samples from thousands of species.

While cloning a dinosaur is highly improbable due to DNA's chemical tendency to rapidly break apart to the point where it cannot be sequenced, this new breakthrough paves the way for cloning of both endangered species, and extinct species with fully sequenced genomes, such as Neanderthals or, likely soon, the Woolly Mammoth. However, this new work also highlights the extreme challenge ahead in trying to establish a sustainable population of a cloned animal, or even clones that live to reach adulthood.

Can we clone Freddie Mercury next? He's extinct.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Thing is though, didn't these animals become extinct for a reason? Darwin would be so pissed right now!

[Mr.Bookworm]

Wait, we're getting close to being able to clone Neandrathals?! Ho boy, I can't wait to see what comes out of that.

Though still, cool. Very, very cool. I wonder what the going rate for a wooly mammoth will be.

Also, on a slightly-related-note, I've always wondered why they don't try cloning giant pandas. It would solve the problem of giant pandas being incapable of actually getting together and fucking.

[Osterbaum]

Hold your horses there guys.

The bucardo that they cloned is a very close relative (they are, arguably, of the same species) of the animal in which the cloned zygote was planted in. Inside which animal do you suggest that a cloned mammoth zygote will develop? Or which animal will lay a cloned dinosaur egg? It's just not possible. Clones are not grown in big tanks in labs like it usually is in sci-fi.

Never the less, it is quite an tremendous scientific achievemen. Although it also raises some concerns such as; With some species, will people start going "Oh don't worry. It's ok to hunt the last of these animals. We'll just clone them afterwards."

I mean, cloning endangered species in order to HELP (that is to say that it wouldn't be the only way of preserving a species) preserve the species is possibly ok. But to bring back extinct species seems escaping responsability. "Hey we hunted these animals to extinction a hundred years ago. Let's relieve us of some moral baggage by bringing the species back. That will make it all ok."

Thing is though, didn't these animals become extinct for a reason? Darwin would be so pissed right now!
Well, that depends on the animal an the manner of it's extinction.

[Regulus Tera]

Thing is though, didn't these animals become extinct for a reason? Darwin would be so pissed right now!

Animals like the Tasmanian Wolf totally deserve another chance to exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine).

The bucardo that they cloned is a very close relative (they are, arguably, of the same species) of the animal in which the cloned zygote was planted in. Inside which animal do you suggest that a cloned mammoth zygote will develop?

An elephant, maybe?

[Osterbaum]

An elephant is not that closely related to the mammoth. Not to my knowledge.

The two species used in the cloning described in the article are very close relatives. Sub-species, for crying out loud. That often means that they're considered to be of the same species but somewhere along the road it was demanded they be made in to two sub-species because the other one has different shaped horns. It varies a lot, systematics isn't an easy field or one where people tend to agree about anything.

Anyway, my point was that these two animals are obviosly very closely related.

[Mr.Bookworm]

An elephant is not that closely related to the mammoth. Not to my knowledge.

According to Wikipedia, at least, mammoths are both members of the elephant family and close relatives of modern relatives.

[Preturbed]

Clones are not grown in big tanks in labs like it usually is in sci-fi.
Well why not? We have SCIENCE, we could feasibly recreate the conditions inside an egg or womb, probably with relative ease. I'm sure it would be easier to make a fake egg than to, say, sequence the DNA of a Neanderthal.

Never the less, it is quite an tremendous scientific achievemen. Although it also raises some concerns such as; With some species, will people start going "Oh don't worry. It's ok to hunt the last of these animals. We'll just clone them afterwards."
I don't think you're anywhere near right on this. I imagine it'll be more like, oh hey, we need more Florida Panthers, lets make like a hundred then they won't be as endangered. We might even be able to open hunting season on them in 10 years or so.

But to bring back extinct species seems escaping responsability. "Hey we hunted these animals to extinction a hundred years ago. Let's relieve us of some moral baggage by bringing the species back. That will make it all ok."

You mean 100 years ago when we thought that if God wanted the species to survive he wouldn't let us make them extinct? I think that bringing back all sorts of stuff like the Dodo will relieve a lot of moral baggage that we've placed on ourselves and in fact will make it all OK.

[Regulus Tera]

I'm pretty sure bringing back something as old as a dodo is nigh impossible with our current technology. Unlike with mamooths, I don't think there are any well-preserved dodo tissues still containing defragmented DNA.

[Seil]

While this is neat, I just hope we can avoid something like Jurassic Park.

[Osterbaum]

According to Wikipedia, at least, mammoths are both members of the elephant family and close relatives of modern relatives.

I am a biology major, but not on expert on this particular topic. So I'm not saying wikipedia is necessarily wrong. But what I do know is that these things are debateable. It's hard to REALLY know unless the genomes of all species in question have been sequenced.

Plus, "close" is a relative term. Being in the same family is not, to my knowledge, close enough. For clearance, an example:

(Sub-species)
Species: Panthera pardus (leopard)
Genus: Panthera
Family: Felidae (cats)

And of less importance here, but for perspective (continued from above):
Order: Carnivora (carnivores)
Class: Mammalia (mammals)
Phylum: Chordata (vertebrates and closely related invertebrates)
Kingdom: Animalia (animals)
Domain: Eukarya (eukaryotes)

Well why not? We have SCIENCE, we could feasibly recreate the conditions inside an egg or womb, probably with relative ease. I'm sure it would be easier to make a fake egg than to, say, sequence the DNA of a Neanderthal.
DNA sequencing, from adequate samples, is quite possible and often done by machines these days. It is becoming an increasingly frequent practice. Where as replicating the conditions of a developing egg or a womb so that you could actually grow a fully developed animal in vitro is not.

I don't think you're anywhere near right on this. I imagine it'll be more like, oh hey, we need more Florida Panthers, lets make like a hundred then they won't be as endangered. We might even be able to open hunting season on them in 10 years or so.
Is that good? Or are you being sarcastic?

You mean 100 years ago when we thought that if God wanted the species to survive he wouldn't let us make them extinct? I think that bringing back all sorts of stuff like the Dodo will relieve a lot of moral baggage that we've placed on ourselves and in fact will make it all OK.
This is really about ethics and not about science so I don't think there's any reason for further debating it on my part. I just feel that what's done is done. I'm not saying bringing back species is absolutely a bad thing, but if done for the wrong reasons or to somehow justify our past mistakes as a species, I find it troubling.

While this is neat, I just hope we can avoid something like Jurassic Park.
Not possible. Dinosaurs have been extinct for over 60 million years. No living being today is a close relative. Besides, are there any adequate DNA samples?

Well, everything is possible. What might seem impossible today could be normal practice tomorrow. But the way things are now, it's not possible.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

You mean 100 years ago when we thought that if God wanted the species to survive he wouldn't let us make them extinct? I think that bringing back all sorts of stuff like the Dodo will relieve a lot of moral baggage that we've placed on ourselves and in fact will make it all OK.
You may be being sarcastic, I'm not sure. However, the Dodo is for the most part a pretty bad example, as the species died out mostly to the fact that it evolved on a very non-dynamic island. That is, the species could honestly not adapt to save it's life and had developed habits that made it relatively defenseless. In other words, the dodo could have died out if any significant predator came to exist on the island in any way. The same can not be said for many other animals from human derived extinctions (like rhinos).
While this is neat, I just hope we can avoid something like Jurassic Park.
In what way? There's a lot of subtext in Jurassic Park. If you mean making really old animals and having them run rampant, that would mostly be impossible. Even if we could clone the animals, the climate in the modern world is rather different than it was so many millions of years ago. The species probably couldn't live here.

If you mean cloning animals just to put them in a cage and showcase them, I feel ya.

[Kerensky287]

In what way? There's a lot of subtext in Jurassic Park. If you mean making really old animals and having them run rampant, that would mostly be impossible. Even if we could clone the animals, the climate in the modern world is rather different than it was so many millions of years ago. The species probably couldn't live here.

If you mean cloning animals just to put them in a cage and showcase them, I feel ya.

I think he meant the factor about introducing new, potentially dangerous (or at least invasive) species into a mostly stable ecology.

They could do stuff like screw with crops or eat people, depending on the animal.

I mean, seriously, you guys are all thinking about the moral implications and "ooh we can undo our past mistakes" when there are actually serious physical consequences with bringing a species back from the dead, especially an older species. If scientists decided to reintroduce these resurrected species into the wildlife, it would probably result in a similar situation to when European settlers were taking pets and game animals over to the New World... and then those animals started ruining the native ecology's shit.

[Preturbed]

Okay, Dodo was a bad example. The idea that we can bring back creatures that we made extinct is a good thing, regardless of the animal used for an example.

The panther thing was a little bit of sarcasm mixed with disagreement about what you said. The basic thought was that we'll no longer be troubled by possible extinction. If a population drops into an 'endangered' level, we now have the option to repopulate via cloning before extinction becomes a real threat.

As for replication a womb or egg, as far as I know we haven't done it because we haven't had the need to do it. Seems simple. Warmth, certain chemicals, a certain size. Heck we cold do it by trial and error as long as we can get an embryonic cell to keep dividing.

[Vault Of Thrones]

I know that it's extraordinarily unlikely that dinosaurs will ever be cloned. Despite this, this is ultimately one step closer to just that, and I find that scary.

[magmarashi]

I can't wait for the day when, as shown in the time-displaced historical document 3001, genetically modified subservient raptors tend to our great gardens and parks in our massive space-scrapers.

All Hail The Monolith!

[Buddha Fett]

I know that it's extraordinarily unlikely that dinosaurs will ever be cloned. Despite this, this is ultimately one step closer to just that, and I find that scary.

Replace scary with AWESOME and I'll agree entirely; my biggest dream is to own my own T-Rex, after all.

[Kaneda]

Dinosaurs aside, does anyone know how close the animal being cloned has to be to the egg's species? Like, pretty close, but I wouldn't think it has to be as close as with the Ibex example.

[Osterbaum]

The panther thing was a little bit of sarcasm mixed with disagreement about what you said. The basic thought was that we'll no longer be troubled by possible extinction. If a population drops into an 'endangered' level, we now have the option to repopulate via cloning before extinction becomes a real threat.
There is a major problem here though. Simply cloning more individuals to keep a species alive results far less genetic modification and no recombination of genetic material. On the long run, that is condemning the species to extinction by taking away it's ability to adapt.

That in mind, it could be possible to use cloning to resurrect individuals that are already dead. By doing that the impact on genetic modification would propably be less.

Even after that it reamains to be seen how things would actually go. Many problems don't become evident until they are actually experienced.

Also,
...as some sheep clones have lived relatively normal lifespans...
Relatively normal lifespans still isn't completely normal lifespans.

Dinosaurs aside, does anyone know how close the animal being cloned has to be to the egg's species? Like, pretty close, but I wouldn't think it has to be as close as with the Ibex example.
Well to my knowledge, cloning hasn't been done using two members of different species so far. If you go further than that the zygote does not develop normally or at all. Even cloning done inside the same species has resulted in some health complications of cloned individuals.

[Amake]

Thing is though, didn't these animals become extinct for a reason? Darwin would be so pissed right now!
If you believe in the prerogative of evolution, we have the right to bring back extinct species precisely because we have the ability to do so. It's no different than, let's say, killing all tigers. If you succeed in doing something, that means you're right to do it, from an evolutionary perspective.

And if the dinosaurs manage to eat us, that means they have the right to succeed us.

I find this cloning business very exciting. Especially cloning Freddie Mercury. We could really use a lot more of him. :D

[Si Civa]

I've to ask that if cloning gets succesful and is used on extinct animals, wouldn't that in the end result to same thing as inbreeding? And I think that we all know why inbreeding isn't that good idea when you want keep species living.

And we do need clone of Freddie Mercury. Now.

[Selfish]

Baby Mercury would not have the opportunities original Mercury did. The ol' Nature vs Nurture debate.

Aside from the genetic pool being shallow to the point of damp ground rather than deep lake, I can almost hear the mysogynists of the world uniting under the 'let's replace oviducts and wombs!' camp.

We as a species seem to be rather short sighted. Whereas there is no issue bringing back an almost identical twin to what we have floating around right now, I can see a time where some might say, WHO NEEDS (insert gender here).
Some people don't "get" that biodiversity is important. They don't understand that we have the genders and reproduction we have for a reason. They instead see their own self serving end and follow that course. If Mommy bit them as a child, they may read this and go...hm....

That's my two cents worth. Found them in the cracks of a couch. I also found what appeared to be a half a chocolate bar and the melted remains of a purple popsicle.

[Si Civa]

Baby Mercury would not have the opportunities original Mercury did. The ol' Nature vs Nurture debate.

In order to continue the joke erh, to continue our very serious subject I'll say that that's why we must clone the whole universe, duh.
And hope the best.

But seriously, talk about biodiversity interests me little bit, so pretty please?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

[QUOTE=Selfish;893764]Baby Mercury would not have the opportunities original Mercury did. The ol' Nature vs Nurture debate.
/QUOTE]
Somebody hasn't seen the Boys from Brazil.

[Regulus Tera]

Baby Mercury would not have the opportunities original Mercury did. The ol' Nature vs Nurture debate.

Nonsense! All we have to do is forcefeed him Queen videos and music from an early age and convince him that is what the world expects from him. It will do shit for his ego, but awesome for his music.

[Wyndon]

Not possible. Dinosaurs have been extinct for over 60 million years. No living being today is a close relative. Besides, are there any adequate DNA samples?


What about crocodiles/alligators?

Also: We should totally bring back that giant shark that was like bigger than a house. It's so necessary. And awesome.

[Fifthfiend]

Nonsense! All we have to do is forcefeed him Queen videos and music from an early age and convince him that is what the world expects from him. It will do shit for his ego, but awesome for his music.

Naw you'll mostly just make him hate Original-Recipe Mercury. And then eventually he'll flee to like, Mongolia and take up throatsinging.

What you want is to raise him to be introverted and deeply ashamed of his concealed homosexuality and with music as his only creative outlet and escape from an otherwise incredibly repressive and stultifying lifestyle. That's how you make the magic happen.

[Si Civa]

But who would like to listen angsty Mercury? Like really? I WANT HEAR THE POWER AND JOY and some melancholy of course, BUT WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS.

And as Mercury smoked cigarettes, when should clone Mercury start smoking? And using drugs?

[Azisien]

What about crocodiles/alligators?

Really not that close.

Considering we're doing something that was sci-fi not long ago, I've no doubt we'll progress into more and more advanced cloning procedures.

Jurassic Park would never happen though. Those films really didn't take into account AK-47s. A T-Rex wouldn't even stand up to one of those.

[Mirai Gen]

Yeah I liked how in Jurassic Park the dinosaurs were just no match for the very technology that could create them from tiny slivers of DNA humans stumbled across millions of years old.

I mean fuck weapons, dinosaurs are scary.

[Fifthfiend]

But who would like to listen angsty Mercury?

Because it worked out so badly for everyone the first time Freddy Mercury grew up as a painfully introverted youth who was almost certainly tormented by his repressed homosexuality with music as his only creative outlet?

...Well I mean okay it kind of did for him at the end there but hey, nobody said art was easy.

[Si Civa]

And this is when I remember that it was said that Mercury was different person when being front of audience and well, when not being front of screaming lunatics. Cruel, cruel reality.
But well, listenning Freddie, when you can clearly hear him being irritated and angsty,well, that's not the way I want hear him singing.

But, uhm, topic ahoy. Come here before I say something even more sillier tonight (it's nigh here suckers!).

[Osterbaum]

What about crocodiles/alligators?
What Azisien said.

And birds aren't close enough relatives either.