Should we clone the wooly mammoth? A different perspective
A second blog from Guest blogger, Sarah Barry
29 February 2012
There’s a part of me that just loves the idea of ‘resurrecting’ the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius). Come on – who doesn’t love elephants? And great big shaggy, furry elephants would be even more awesome! What kid or adult wouldn’t want to meet “Manny” from Ice Age?
Since the discovery of the mammoth thigh bone containing completely preserved marrow cells in August last year, there have been many articles speculating on the possibility of cloning the mammoth, within the next five to 50 years (depending on the researcher) by Japanese and/or Russian researchers.
Easy peasy – not
There seem to be two main hurdles to cloning the mammoth: 1) finding an appropriate ‘surrogate’ mother (an African elephant seems the most likely candidate) and 2) finding a viable undamaged cell. Since finding the undamaged cell is unlikely, the probable course of action (in very simple terms) will be the extraction of the nucleus (containing the DNA) from the mammoth’s marrow cell, which will be then inserted into an egg from the surrogate mother elephant This means that the mammoth will not strictly be a pure woolly mammoth, but will actually be a hybrid elephant/mammoth because a proportionally tiny amount of mitochondrial DNA is found in the egg.
Although this is all very Jurassic Park-esque and totally fun, there are a few ethical implications that concern me. The following are not considering the ethics of the financial costs involved, just the effect to the animals.
First, is it fair to the elephant? Elephant gestation is almost two years and they are famous for their attachment to their young, right from birth. Assuming that the baby mammoth survived, (and remember that Dolly the cloned sheep was the only success from 277 attempts), would the ‘mother’ be permitted to raise the baby clone?
Second, is it fair to the herd? Elephant herds, being matriarchal societies, are famous for their community child raising techniques, where aunties, sisters and grandmothers all contribute to the parenting of the new members, and all grieve when a herd member dies.
Third, is it fair to the clone? Even if they could find a viable cell (and they would need to find a lot of them to have any chance of success), then create a viable embryo; successfully implant that embryo into the surrogate elephant mother, where she would gestate it for 22 months, being carefully monitored (which elephants can find very stressful), finally deliver (if she is permitted to deliver naturally, and there are no recorded cases of a successful elephant caesarean section), what would happen to the calf? Would the calf be removed from the herd? I suspect that the clone would be removed and kept isolated and subjected to constant tests and research (and rightly so, being such an extraordinarily valuable creature).
And finally, is it fair to all of the unsuccessful attempts? Miscarried clones, clones with congenital defects or clones that die soon after birth… who knows how many attempts there would be to achieve a successful clone. According to the Roslin Institute (who were responsible for Dolly the cloned sheep), the techniques used today are still the same as the technique used to clone Dolly (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer), (and I don’t know anything at all about the complexity of the genetic material of woolly mammoths, as compared to the genetic material of sheep, which could add another complicating factor) so I think it’s fair to assume that the success rate would probably be even lower for a mammoth than for a sheep. Do those unsuccessful clones suffer?
Scientific freak show?
And even if everything that could go wrong, didn’t, and they actually created a clone… then what? It would be a one of a kind creature,. If it were male, would its sperm be used to impregnate other female elephants? If it were female, would it become a breeding machine (assuming it could breed)? How many generations would we need to get back to almost pure mammoth DNA? How many unsuccessful pregnancies? How many maternal fatalities? How many clones delivered at full term with terrible defects? How much money do we spend on something with so many risks and such ethical implications?
But they’re so cuute
So I’m torn – I love the idea of baby woolly mammoths (of course, who doesn’t?) and I am mesmerised by cloning technologies and the advances in stem cell research, but is this fair and ethical? Am I anthropomorphising too much? Do I care too much about sad elephants? I am not a scientist, and I don’t have the research skills to even fully understand the risks and implications, but even as a science-loving non-scientist, I see huge, glaring risks here that I am just not convinced are really worth the outcome… right now. Perhaps with advances in technology, such as streamlining the cloning process which would decrease the number of attempts required, reduce the risks of abnormalities and even perhaps one day eliminate the need for a surrogate, the risks would be minimised to a more acceptable level, and the outcome would be worth the risks. I hope so.
TechNyou has previously posted on this research here
Other references
Live Science – Ethical Concerns Cloning
Wiki Wooly mammoth
Safety in numbers: how three parents can beat genetic diseases
More on the technology and feasibility of the science behind how three parents can circumvent genetic disease – and there are pictures.
The Conversation: 6 February 2012
Diabetic rats cured with their own stem cells
Neural stem cells, extracted from rats via the nose, have been turned into pancreatic cells that can manufacture insulin to treat diabetes.
New Scientist: 7 October 2011
And other interesting stem cell stuff
New Scientist have written a number of editorial and opinion articles related to the latest stem cell advances
Regenerating a stem cell ethics debate
Cloned human embryo makes working stem cells
Scientists have reprogrammed an human egg cell to an embryonic state using cloning technology and created a line of embryonic stem cells from the developing embryo.
Nature News: 5 October 2011
ABC The World Today: 6 October 2011
And a pictorial graphic of how it was done from Washington Post National
Genetic technologies and their implications
DNA Genetic Testing – Paternity and Forensic Use
Some Ethical Issues in Human Genetics
Life Insurance Products and Genetic Testing in Australia
The Human Genetic Code - The Human Genome Project and Beyond
Pharmacogenetics/Pharmacogenomics
Cloning and Stem Cells
Gene Therapy
Centre for Genetics Education Fact Sheets
Bioengineering animals: attack of the fluoro mouse
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Beasts that glow, grow fast, and lactate drugs. Is it time we questioned the nature and purpose of this research?
This post is in response to a comment and question on our Facebook page, Talking Technology, which was also posted on the TechNyou website News.
The question from Lisa was a response to the Paul Wolpe presentation for Ted Talks where he has a bit of show and tell of genetically modified animals and a brief discussion about the implications of the technology used in this way, though the implication aspect was all too brief and a bit like hearing a series of newspaper headlines rather than any in-depth analysis of the issues.
Anyway, below is Lisa’s question and my extended thoughts to it.
Lisa’s comment and question
Interesting Video. I think the key point is his closing statement on responsibility. Humans have been “genetically altering” their environment since we first domesticated animals and selectively bred food crops. None of these species would survive in the wild, without human intervention/care, though. My question is would these new breeds of transgenic organisms survive in the wild? And what would be the implications if they could? I’m not sure that there is an answer for that question.
My extended answer
You are correct that many, if not all, crops bred for agriculture would struggle to survive outside their well-tended fields (paddocks in Australia). Even canola which is a weedy, out-crossing species will only survive 3-4 generations at most if left to its own devices in the natural environment (see ref. 1 below). We only continue to see it on roadsides, rail lines and near farmland, ports, etc because of the continual spillage of seed from transport or spread from nearby paddocks.
Unnatural selection?
All of our breeding over the thousands of years has resulted in the selection of traits to maximise a crop’s yield, palatability and harvest potential. For example, in relevant species we have eliminated seed pod shatter to prevent the seed bursting from the pod before harvest, we have selected for specific flowering and ripening times, we have reduced the amounts of toxins, allergens and other chemicals that affect the palatability for human consumption, but which are important chemical for a plant to naturally defend itself against pathogens and pest attack in the wild…and so on. Consequently we have also reduced a lot of the natural variability and removed such crops from any selective pressure that would enable them to potentially adapt to any gradual changes in their environment. To some extent we have set up a form of unnatural selection where we control the environment and selective pressures (water, nutrition, weed and pest control) and we choose the traits we want via breeding using any number of modern plant breeding tools such as marker-assisted selection, hybridisation, mutagenesis, embryo rescue, transgenics…etc. You could argue, that we have forced the selection of traits to suit our purposes rather than those of Nature, if you consider humans removed from Nature. In this context, you could ask is agriculture, in any form, is natural? If humans are an integral part of nature, is what we do to feed ourselves via agricultural any different from a wild animal hunting its prey or a hunter gatherer burning the landscape to attract grazing animals? But then we get all deep and philosophical and I need chocolate if I have delve into that obscure part of my brain where “profoundness” hides.
Transgenic escape
There is no doubt we need to be extremely careful in using transgenic technologies to generate new traits in animals or plants because of the risk of letting loose something that might outcompete or displace existing species, or affect the ecosystem in some other way, should it jump the fence (literally or otherwise). For this to happen though the trait (gene) must confer some advantage to the animal or plant in that “natural” environment.
For example, as mentioned in the Talking Technology Facebook post the gene or trait for herbicide tolerance only confers an advantage in the presence of the specific herbicide. In the “natural” environment – ie anywhere outside the paddock – the herbicide tolerant crop is no different to its non-herbicide-tolerant counterpart (that is, it has no competitive advantage), unless someone decides to spray that specific herbicide. I don’t recall ever seeing, nor have I heard of, in Australia at least, seeing agricultural crops becoming invasive weeds outside the paddock. Someone please correct me, if I am wrong on this. Of course, if herbicide-tolerant crops pass on that tolerance trait to related species that are environmental weeds, this might be a problem, though this is unlikely to be an issue in Australia at the moment as I don’t think any of our crop plants a have any relatives that are environmental weeds (see reference 2 below). Again, someone correct me here, if I am wrong.
This is not necessarily a GM herbicide-tolerant issue as we have two conventionally-bred herbicide-tolerant canola varieties to which the same questions and risks apply, especially for one, which, via outcrossing, can transfer the specific gene for herbicide tolerance the same way as the transgenic varieties can.
Another example might be drought-tolerance. This and similar abiotic stress traits such as salt or frost tolerance can all be potentially bred into crops via conventional or transgenic methods. What if we breed such a crop (which we have done via conventional means) that outcrosses with a related wild species and the drought-tolerant trait is transferred? This will potentially allow this wild plant to grow and thrive in environments it doesn’t normally exist. What affect will this have on the ecological systems? These are risks that need to be assessed and managed. The question is, I guess, how acceptable are the proposed ways to manage these risks? This level of acceptability will differ for each person.
The short answer…
I have only provided an overview of some of the implications associated with Lisa’s original question, but in short, yes there is a potential risk of introducing novel traits into animal or plants that might pose a risk to the environment. The risk to the environment and their ability to survive and thrive in it will depend on the trait, the host it is in and the environment in which we raise it. The risk, therefore, will have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
References
1. Personal communication Associate Professor Christopher Preston, School of Agriculture, Food & Wine, The University of Adelaide
2. Preston, Reiger, Powles, Risks of gene flow from transgenic herbicide-resistant canola to weedy relative in southern Australian cropping systems, Aust J. Agricultural Research, 50, 115-128 1999
Other relevant stuff
I am happy to email anyone the papers, if required.
Maria Alice Garcia, Miguel A. Altieri, Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 25, No. 4, August 2005, 335-353
Chris Preston, Mary Riegere, Managing herbicide resistance in weeds from use of herbicide tolerant crops. Plant Protection Quarterly. Vol 15 (2), 2000
Image from – http://shesaidpop.blogspot.com/2011/01/caturday-pretty-shiny-crime-against.html
Plants cloned as seeds
Plants have been cloned as seed making hybrid crop plants that can retain favorable traits from generation to generation.
University California Davis: 17 February 2011
See also Nature News: Genetic engineering brings cloned crops closer
Image: Raphael Mercier/Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, V – via UC Davis. Hybrid crop plants can retain favorable traits from generation to generation.
Should we clone the woolly mammoth?
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Japanese researchers plan to resurrect the long-extinct mammoth by using cloning technology to bring the ancient pachyderm back to life in around five years time.
See ABC Science News story
And the purpose of this is…?
I find this fascinating science and down the track the knowledge generated by perfecting this cloning technology may lead to useful medical treatments and a better understanding of human development, among other cool stuff. But ultimately, in my humble opinion I have to question why we are trying to clone a mammoth, or any other long-extinct creature.
The scientists’ rationale for this research (at least according to the ABC story) is to “examine its ecology and genes to study why the species became extinct and other factors.”
For the time and expense, I consider this a relatively unimportant bit of knowledge. Sure if money and scientific expertise was in abundance then great, but it ain’t.
Besides what are you going to do with the hairy beast once it is born? It will be a lab rat and a circus show. You can’t release it back to its natural habitat; there isn’t one – and there is likely to be less soon, if the ice keeps melting. Effectively the beast will still be extinct as it won’t exist in the wild. It will be a living genome stored in a lab or zoo pen. The only difference between this and other extinct animals is that this one will require food, water and someone to muck out its pen.
For what purpose are we doing this short of trying to find out why it went extinct? I think you would be better spending the money on helping prevent existing endangered species suffering the same fate.
The researchers hope to examine its ecology and genes to study why the species became extinct (Source: Rob Pongsajapan/Flickr)
Aust Govt to review human cloning
The Australian Government has established an independent committee to review cloning legislation.
Bioportal Victoria: 22 December 2010
UK declares meat from clones safe
The UK Food Standards Agency will advise its ministers that products from cloned animals should be considered novel foods, but that they are safe to eat.
UK Food Standards Agency: 7 December 2010