Cloned mammoth in the offing. Perhaps Neanderthals next.

[RGClark]

Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million.
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: November 19, 2008
Scientists are talking for the first time about the old idea of resurrecting extinct species as if this staple of science fiction is a realistic possibility, saying that a living mammoth could perhaps be regenerated for as little as $10 million.
The same technology could be applied to any other extinct species from which one can obtain hair, horn, hooves, fur or feathers, and which went extinct within the last 60,000 years, the effective age limit for DNA.
...
"The full genome of the Neanderthal, an ancient human species probably driven to extinction by the first modern humans that entered Europe some 45,000 years ago, is expected to be recovered shortly. If the mammoth can be resurrected, the same would be technically possible for Neanderthals.
"But the process of genetically engineering a human genome into the Neanderthal version would probably raise many objections, as would several other aspects of such a project. “Catholic teaching opposes all human cloning, and all production of human beings in the laboratory, so I do not see how any of this could be ethically acceptable in humans,” said Richard Doerflinger, an official with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"Dr. Church said there might be an alternative approach that would “alarm a minimal number of people.” The workaround would be to modify not a human genome but that of the chimpanzee, which is some 98 percent similar to that of people. The chimp’s genome would be progressively modified until close enough to that of Neanderthals, and the embryo brought to term in a chimpanzee.
“The big issue would be whether enough people felt that a chimp-Neanderthal hybrid would be acceptable, and that would be broadly discussed before anyone started to work on it,” Dr. Church said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/sc...=1&ref=science

Though Neanderthals were undoubtedly thinking creatures, the ethical questions about cloning humans might be somewhat muted by recent studies that suggest that Neanderthals were genetically distinct from modern humans:

Neandertals Not among Our Ancestors, Study Suggests.
By Sarah Graham
May 14, 2003 in Archaeology & Paleontology
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-not-among-our [abstract]

For info on the capabilities of the Neanderthals see:

Once We Were Not Alone.
by Ian Tattersall
Paintings by Jay H. Matternes
Scientific American, January 2000
http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langevo/earlyhominids.pdf [free full text]

Another reasoning creature to interact with might provide us clues about how to communicate with other intelligent species in the SETI search.


Bob Clark

[BioSci]

Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million.
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: November 19, 2008
Scientists are talking for the first time about the old idea of resurrecting extinct species as if this staple of science fiction is a realistic possibility, saying that a living mammoth could perhaps be regenerated for as little as $10 million.

Whoa... that is not scientific speculation - it is pure science fiction!

Such a feat is simply not possible with current technology and highly unlikely at any cost - even in the next 50 years.

But, it is fun science fiction.

[Chuck]

No need to worry about endangered species. Future generations will clone them back into existence. Just freeze the last one of each for DNA samples.

[timb]

If future generations can be bothered with "retro" species: they'll be creating their own, much more interesting species, right?

[Warren Platts]

I would say that natural species are more interesting than the ones humans have created so far.

[JustAFriend]

Neanderthals are easy; they're already here... just look at the front line of any pro football team:

http://www.orlandorage.com/071.jpg

[HypothesisTesting]

I would say that natural species are more interesting than the ones humans have created so far.

good point,

and just having the actual hair of the mammoths 10000 years old is interesting enough. The idea of cloning them is ridiculous to me.

[HypothesisTesting]

Neanderthals are easy; they're already here... just look at the front line of any pro football team:

you are probably close to the truth even from a genetic viewpoint. Did they ever map out the Neanderthal DNA?

[JohnD]

I think you are missing a word out.

"A 38,000-year old bone has yielded the world's first complete Neanderthal mitochondrial genome sequence" New Scientist 7/8/2008 See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...completed.html

The word is "mitochondrial". As the Mit.genome is 16K base pairs long and the Human genome has 3 BILLION base pairs, I think that there is a long, long way to go.

John

[Ara Pacis]

Another reasoning creature to interact with might provide us clues about how to communicate with other intelligent species in the SETI search.

Well, it might help answer the questions about Nature v. Nurture. But assuming nurture is represented at all, it doesn't realyl help with aliens and SETI since they will probably have thousands of years of cultural prerogative informing their communications.

[ravens_cry]

If we could do it, if say we found a frozen Neanderthal, or some other means of capturing the DNA, I say we should do it. Call me selfish but the chance to talk with an Other, to meet a creature who is like yet unlike us is just something that I support.

[jlhredshift]

If we could do it, if say we found a frozen Neanderthal, or some other means of capturing the DNA, I say we should do it. Call me selfish but the chance to talk with an Other, to meet a creature who is like yet unlike us is just something that I support.

There has been some discussion in the literature that they may not have vocal chords.

[How come your flush handle is on the wrong side? It is so tempting to pull the lever, just because, not for any reason of animus.]

[ravens_cry]

There has been some discussion in the literature that they may not have vocal chords.

[How come your flush handle is on the wrong side? It is so tempting to pull the lever, just because, not for any reason of animus.]

Oh shucks. Well, the only way to find out for sure would be to clone one, or find an extremely well preserved one. But if we can do the latter, we could likely, in theory, do the former.
If you are referring to my avatar, I can't say. I didn't draw it myself, it is merely a frame capture that has been edited for clarity at low resolution.

[Chuck]

Lack of vocal chords could lead to extinction. No one could yell "Head for the hills!" when a dinosaur was approaching.

[Neverfly]

Lack of vocal chords could lead to extinction. No one could yell "Head for the hills!" when a dinosaur was approaching.

No one was around to yell it when dinosaurs were anyway. Not til 63 million years later at least.

[Lord Jubjub]

Whoa... that is not scientific speculation - it is pure science fiction!

Such a feat is simply not possible with current technology and highly unlikely at any cost - even in the next 50 years.

But, it is fun science fiction.

Many scientists expected that we would be about a quarter of the way through sequencing the human genome by now. Technology has a way of going by leaps and bounds under certain circumstances. I think the current technology could produce a woolly mammoth by trial and error in my lifetime.

Zoos could be a very interesting place to visit within the next generation.

[HypothesisTesting]

No one was around to yell it when dinosaurs were anyway. Not til 63 million years later at least.

good point, one many people overlook , probably because of popular films.

Fred Flintstone has a dog "dino" that yips like a dinosaur (I meant yips like a dog but looks like a dino) , works at the rock quarry on a Brontosaur, and flies "Pteradactyl Airlines". How many kids, including me, were brainwashed with those images?

And sci - fi: "one million years BC" , of course the cave man protected Racquel Welch by killing a dinosaur with a club.

[Neverfly]

by killing a dinosaur with a club.

By itself, this part seems very odd... But remember this part:

protected Racquel Welch

Now it all makes complete and total sense.

[RGClark]

[I'm continuing this discussion here rather than in the "Wired magazine article on Neanderthals" thread because it is more positive towards the feasibility of cloning the Neanderthals.]

This NY Times article also reports on the decoding of the Neanderthal genome:

Scientists in Germany Draft Neanderthal Genome.
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: February 12, 2009
Possessing the Neanderthal genome raises the possibility of bringing Neanderthals back to life. Dr. George Church, a leading genome researcher at the Harvard Medical School, said Thursday that a Neanderthal could be brought to life with present technology for about $30 million.
...
When the full Neanderthal genome is in hand, could it be made to produce the living creature its information specifies? Ethical considerations aside, Dr. Pääbo said, Neanderthals could not be generated with existing technology. Dr. Church of Harvard disagreed. He said he would start with the human genome, which is highly similar to that of Neanderthals, and change the few DNA units required to convert it into the Neanderthal version.
This could be done, he said, by splitting the human genome into 30,000 chunks about 100,000 DNA units in length. Each chunk would be inserted into bacteria and converted to the Neanderthal equivalent by changing the few DNA units in which the two species differ. The changed lengths of DNA would then be reassembled into a full Neanderthal genome. To avoid ethical problems, this genome would be inserted not into a human cell but into a chimpanzee cell.
...
Dr. Church acknowledged that ethical views on such an experiment would vary widely. But bringing a Neanderthal to birth, he said, would satisfy the human desire to communicate with other intelligences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/sc...anderthal.html

Perhaps Dr. Pääbo should recall that famous statement of Arthur C. Clarke:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

I also like the statement Dr. Church makes in the article that echoes what I said before that bringing back the Neanderthal could give us some understanding about communicating with other intelligences.
Here's another NY Times article that's in favor of the idea:

Why Not Bring a Neanderthal to Life?
By John Tierney
February 13, 2009, 11:30 am
So why not do it? Why not give Harvard’s George Church the money he says could be used to resurrect a Neanderthal from DNA?
I’m bracing for a long list of objections from the world’s self-appointed keepers of bioethics, who must see this new Neanderthal issue as a research bonanza. Think of the conferences to plan, the books to publish, the donors to alarm! I can imagine an anti-Neanderthal alliance between the religious right and the religious left, like James Dobson and Jeremy Rifkin — what I like to call the holier-than-thou coalition opposed to new biological technologies.
But I’m afraid I can’t see the problem. If we discovered a small band of Neanderthals hidden somewhere, we’d do everything to keep them alive, just as we try to keep alive so many other endangered populations of humans and animals — including man-biting mosquitoes and man-eating polar bears. We’ve also spent lots of money reintroducing animals into ecosystems from which they had vanished. Shouldn’t be at least as solicitous to our fellow hominids?
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/...rthal-to-life/

The ethical problems of bringing back a Neanderthal are explored in a classic Isaac Asimov story, though in this case by time travel, "The Ugly Little Boy":

The Ugly Little Boy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_Little_Boy


Bob Clark

[Argos]

The chimp’s genome would be progressively modified until close enough to that of Neanderthals, and the embryo brought to term in a chimpanzee.

Oh, that´s monstrous. Neanderthals are Homos [even human according to some - Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis].

I have no objection to human cloning. But bringing a lone [human or almost human] creature into a life where it has none of its kind to relate to seems quite extreme [yeah, 'The Ugly Little Boy' comes to mind].

[Pickled Tink]

Oh, that´s monstrous. Neanderthals are Homos [even human according to some - Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis].

I have no objection to human cloning. But bringing a lone [human or almost human] creature into a life where it has none of its kind to relate to seems quite extreme [yeah, 'The Ugly Little Boy' comes to mind].

The solution to that is to simply implant a large number of embryos into a number of different monkeys or even, gasp, people (If some willing ones could be found). Sure, sequencing the genomes of a few more individuals of the species would take a while longer, and they would need to be carefully crossbred for a century or two to get a stable population with some semblance of genetic diversity, but its doable.

I wholeheartedly support the resurrection of any and all hominids we are capable of bringing back, if only because being the only intelligent species on the planet is more than a little lonely.

In any case, the original post about Mammoths, well, that is entirely possible. People have been finding frozen whole mammoth buried in the ice for centuries. Some of the natives even dug up and ate them (Though I'm having trouble finding a source for this tidbit). Its not a matter of recovering DNA from the mammoth that's the problem. We have at least one entire frozen mammoth to work with, with all the associated damaged cells and Chromosomes that work to tell a pachyderm zygote how to turn into a Mammoth.

-edit to add-
clicked submit instead of preview.

Shouldn't be incredibly difficult to collect all that and put it into a fresh membrane. Ive seen similar things done with destruction of the nucleus of a cell and adding a new one to the mix. Shouldn't be terribly difficult to do. Just time consuming, but I would be willing to give it a shot myself, if for no other reason than to be able to say we tried.

[Argos]

The solution to that is to simply implant a large number of embryos into a number of different monkeys or even, gasp, people (If some willing ones could be found).

To carry out a human pregnancy in a chimp womb could be more offensive to certain groups than the cloning itself.

[aurora]

I'd like to see passenger pigeons, dodos, or giant sloths back from extinction. I think those are three that would have enough genetic material to use to map their genome. They might be easier than a mammoth or a neanderthal, albeit not as headline attention getting.

[RGClark]

The report of the resurrection of a recently extinct ibex might support the feasibility, though it is important to note the cloned animal survived only for minutes:

Hello again, Pyrenean ibex: Can cloning resurrect an extinct species?
Feb 3, 2009 05:07 PM in Biology
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-...fro-2009-02-03


Bob Clark

[RGClark]

I'd like to see passenger pigeons, dodos, or giant sloths back from extinction. I think those are three that would have enough genetic material to use to map their genome. They might be easier than a mammoth or a neanderthal, albeit not as headline attention getting.

Just be careful about bringing back the Sabretooth...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Sabretooth


Bob Clark

[Pickled Tink]

To carry out a human pregnancy in a chimp womb could be more offensive to certain groups than the cloning itself.

Given the wide variety of different cultures on the planet, it would be very difficult to do anything at all without being offensive to someone or some group. Science shouldn't care for people being offended or upset by research or experiments, so long as it doesn't actually harm those people (The obvious exception to this rule is Death Ray research ).

[Argos]

I disagree, on the grounds that there must be ethical boundaries to guide scientific research.

[Pickled Tink]

I disagree, on the grounds that there must be ethical boundaries to guide scientific research.

I agree that ethics should guide research, but these ethics should be based on informed consent, not doing physical or emotional harm to test subjects, and so on and so forth.

Simply stopping research or experiments because someone might be offended by them, however, is silly. If they find it so offensive they don't need to read about it, or be near it. We have so many crackpots on this planet that pandering to these easily offended sensibilities would stifle and kill scientific research. Especially considering how poorly informed the general population is about the specifics of research.

[Argos]

I agree that ethics should guide research, but these ethics should be based on informed consent, not doing physical or emotional harm to test subjects,

Well, I agree on 'informed consent'. But you understand that this is a very special case, in which the 'test subject' is a member of the human species.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Well, I agree on 'informed consent'. But you understand that this is a very special case, in which the 'test subject' is a member of the human species.

In a US university, such an experiment would have to get past both the IUCAC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) and the IRB (Institutional Review Board) for human subjects, and the mountain of paperwork thus involved would bury any attempt to do the experiment.

Nick