Could stem cells rescue an endangered species?
Jason Major
TechNyou
Scientists have made reprogrammed stem cells from an endangered rhinoceros and a monkey. See link to nature News article below
Nature News: 4 September 2011
I have written about this before when similar ideas were touted by what seems to be the same team in the above story, though now they are hoping to achieve the same thing with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC). Although I don’t question the motives and I am not suggesting we shouldn’t even consider doing the research, I am still not 100% convinced that this is the best use of scare dollars and resources available for conservation efforts. See my previous story for my thoughts behind the almost heretical proposal of dooming species such as the white rhino with just a handful individual remaining to extinction and using the dollars that would have been spent on what could be a futile attempt to save it, to spend on 10 species you know are reasonably confident you can save.
It is akin to getting the US president to cut all funds to saving the bald-headed eagle to instead save 10 species of snail, but there is solid science and methodology to this madness. As with a lot of our communication in this area we a bad at communicating risk and uncertainty.
Image: Cells from the northern white rhino Fatu (left) have been converted into stem cells and put into storage.M. Cizek/AFP/Getty Images
Stem cells saving endagered species or wasting money?
Scientist plan to turn cells from endangered animals into sperm and eggs to save them from extinction. Could this money be better spent saving many more species from becoming endangered in the first place?
Scientist plan to take frozen cells from an endangered, dead animal, reprogram them to become sperm and eggs, make an embryo and then bring it back from the brink of extinction.
See New Scientist article
Bring out ya dead
The research team behind this idea is a collaboration between the San Diego zoo (They have a frozen zoo) and The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. They described at a recent meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research how they created induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) from the frozen skin cells of an endangered monkey, (Mandrillus leucophaeus). The next step is to turn them into sperm and eggs cells – not done yet and certainly not a given. The aim is to increase the genetic diversity of endangered animals in captive breeding programs.
Save one, lose many?
The cause is noble and it is fascincating science that might also generate valuable knowledge that can be applied in many other areas, especially in human health. But this research is expensive and certainly not a gurantee for success, as far as I can tell. And in the last few years there have been rumblings among a few ecologists about whether such money might be better spent on trying to save species from becoming vulnerable or endangered in the first place. That is, when there is only one small pot of conservation money to go around, instead of spending a million dollars trying to stop one species going extinct, you could spend it on preventing twenty from becoming endangered or at risk from extinction in the first place.
For an insight into the theories behind this check out Professor Mark Burgman from the University of Melbourne. And here is a link to an article I wrote many years about his views on this.
And another in New Scientist, though you will need a subscription for full access
Only the cute survive
It is a hard call to make to the public if you are a government coughing up the funding for this sort of thing. You can hardly imagine a pollie saying sorry guys, we are no longer going to fund any conservation programs to save Harry the Hairy-nosed Wombat, or the Easter Bilby, because they are a lost cause, doomed to be zoo exhibits. This technology may indeed help save some species, but how many others will disappear as a result? A hard call either way, but it is possible that somewhere along the track we may have to resign ourselves to the fact that some of these poster species we species we are trying to save are going to become extinct or at best unviable in the wild because of insufficient genetic diversity, no matter what we do. The question then is was that a wise investment. I am guessing some will still say yes. At least it might be better spent than trying to use such research (and research money) to resurrect actual extinct species, something I personally find pointless.
Frozen Zoos
By the way, Australia has its own frozen zoo out at Monash University, Melbourne. The difference here is that they collect and cryogenically freeze samples of reproductive tissue (semen, eggs, embryos, etc) and use these in conservation/captive breeding programs, and to investigate disease.
Jason
TechNyou
‘DNA barcodes’ monitor illegal trade of wildlife products
DNA “barcodes” for up to 25 hunted species are helping tackle illegal wildlife and bushmeat trafficking (including, in Australia, sea turtles) estimated to be worth $5 billion to $8 billion a year.
Uni Colarado: http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/3239492b35103213a7fa0f2df6b2cf27.html
And in Australia DNA bar codes are stopping turtle poachers
Science Alert: http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20091609-19761.html