Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday September 14 2021, @10:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the big-deal dept.

Firm raises $15m to bring back woolly mammoth from extinction

Ten thousand years after woolly mammoths vanished from the face of the Earth, scientists are embarking on an ambitious project to bring the beasts back to the Arctic tundra. The prospect of recreating mammoths and returning them to the wild has been discussed – seriously at times – for more than a decade, but on Monday researchers announced fresh funding they believe could make their dream a reality.

The boost comes in the form of $15m (£11m) raised by the bioscience and genetics company Colossal, co-founded by Ben Lamm, a tech and software entrepreneur, and George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School who has pioneered new approaches to gene editing.

The scientists have set their initial sights on creating an elephant-mammoth hybrid by making embryos in the laboratory that carry mammoth DNA. The starting point for the project involves taking skin cells from Asian elephants, which are threatened with extinction, and reprogramming them into more versatile stem cells that carry mammoth DNA. The particular genes that are responsible for mammoth hair, insulating fat layers and other cold climate adaptions are identified by comparing mammoth genomes extracted from animals recovered from the permafrost with those from the related Asian elephants. These embryos would then be carried to term in a surrogate mother or potentially in an artificial womb. If all goes to plan – and the hurdles are far from trivial – the researchers hope to have their first set of calves in six years.

[...] The project is framed as an effort to help conserve Asian elephants by equipping them with traits that allow them to thrive in vast stretches of the Arctic known as the mammoth steppe. But the scientists also believe introducing herds of elephant-mammoth hybrids to the Arctic tundra may help restore the degraded habitat and combat some of the impacts of the climate crisis. For example, by knocking down trees, the beasts might help to restore the former Arctic grasslands.

Pleistocene Park.

Also at NYT and CNBC.

Previously: Woolly Mammoth Genome Sequenced
Resurrection of the Woolly Mammoth Could Begin in Two Years
Analysis Supports Conservation of Existing Species Rather Than De-Extinction of Mammoths
Mammoth DNA Activates Briefly in Mouse Eggs


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 14 2021, @10:55AM (16 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 14 2021, @10:55AM (#1177655) Journal

    With the climate warming up, maybe it's not such a brilliant idea to resurrect a species that was adapted to Ice Age conditions.
    Perhaps more attention to pay to saving the present living species on their way to extinction due to a reckless humanity?

    But again... the ways to make profit from the commons are fewer by the day, and this one clearly have potential to part the fools and their money.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @11:23AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @11:23AM (#1177657)

      if you think about it, humans are really mocking the natural order by doing this.
      polar bears are literally starving to death or killing themselves by swimming too large distances between disappearing chunks of ice. orangutans are having their forests cut down from under them. and so on.
      and yet, humans think the solution to global warming is to breed hybrid elephant mammoths that will destroy forests throughout Siberia, allowing grasslands to come back. at least that's the way I understand this summary. honestly, they're not even trying.

      some rich asshole is bored with elephant and whale meat, and wants to try mammoth meat.
      the scientists involved want to maintain some appearance of sanity, and they make absurd claims that bringing back the mammoth will help the climate.

      look... if you're too ashaimed of the reasons behind your actions, then maybe you should reconsider what you're doing, instead of making up bullshit.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:07PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:07PM (#1177664) Journal

        and yet, humans think the solution to global warming is to breed hybrid elephant mammoths...

        You really think that they are doing it as "the solution to global warming"?
        My nose smells "VC creating unicorns to sell".

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:24PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:24PM (#1177720) Journal

        some rich asshole is bored with elephant and whale meat, and wants to try mammoth meat.

        At least they're not wanting to try human meat.

        They probably wouldn't like it. But you never know unless you try.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:37PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:37PM (#1177729) Journal

        I really doubt that mammoths would destroy forests. That seems foolish speculation, and without any reasonable basis in fact.

        OTOH, I don't think there's any reasonable place for them to live. Even buffalo are having a hard time. But perhaps there are areas of the tundra that could support mammoths but not bison. In that case polar bears might need to find a new hunting style to exploit a new food source. (I can be silly too.)

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 15 2021, @01:10AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 15 2021, @01:10AM (#1177919) Journal

        if you think about it, humans are really mocking the natural order by doing this.

        My take is that "natural order", or rather your conception of it, needs some mocking. No amount of fatuous sanctimony will bring back a species that has gone extinct. This technology will.

        polar bears are literally starving to death or killing themselves by swimming too large distances between disappearing chunks of ice. orangutans are having their forests cut down from under them. and so on.

        And if we can bring back mammoths from being extinct for over 6,000 years, then we definition can do something more recent like bring back polar bears or orangutans from the edge of extinction.

        some rich asshole is bored with elephant and whale meat, and wants to try mammoth meat. the scientists involved want to maintain some appearance of sanity, and they make absurd claims that bringing back the mammoth will help the climate.

        look... if you're too ashaimed of the reasons behind your actions, then maybe you should reconsider what you're doing, instead of making up bullshit.

        My take is that doing the right is more important than why you're doing the right thing. If hypocrisy brings back the mammoths, I'll consider it a great deal.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:08PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:08PM (#1178708)

          "Bringing back" species is pointless if we continue to occupy the land they need and perpetuate the conditions that led to their extinction. These "mammoths" will only benefit zoos and novelty meat producers.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @12:10AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @12:10AM (#1178976) Journal

            "Bringing back" species is pointless if we continue to occupy the land they need and perpetuate the conditions that led to their extinction.

            "IF". There's still quite a bit of unoccupied, mammoth-friendly land out there, such as most of Siberia. And if they were hunted to extinction in the first place, then not hunting them to extinction a second time would qualify as perpetuating a different sort of conditions.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @11:34AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @11:34AM (#1177658)

      Hunting was probably more responsible than warming temperatures, although both would have contributed.

      The main reason not to do this, in my opinion, is that they would still be mammoth/elephant hybrids, and not true mammoths. An elephant with extra fur isn't a mammoth. Once they have the real deal DNA they can think about it. This isn't reviving mammoths, it's creating a new species. It's not a given that this is a good idea. Reintroduction of locally extinct species has sometimes been good, but this isn't a reintroduction, it's a whole new genetically engineered species.

      De-extinction is something that has to go exactly right the first time. Rather than starting with a giant, cuddly animal that already has cartoon characters, they should dig up some mouse bones from a pyramid and practice on them.

    • (Score: 1, Redundant) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:11PM (4 children)

      by HammeredGlass (12241) on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:11PM (#1177667)

      The current ice age we are exiting from, would be regardless of human acceleration, is three million years old. What you refer to as the ice age that ended ~11 thousand years ago was merely an glacial period of the aforementioned ice age.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 14 2021, @04:51PM (3 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 14 2021, @04:51PM (#1177757) Journal

        Yep, it took us 3 million years to get through the first half of the warming and about 3 decades to get through the second half.

        That rate of change to the rate of change is totally fine.

        • (Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday September 14 2021, @07:31PM (2 children)

          by HammeredGlass (12241) on Tuesday September 14 2021, @07:31PM (#1177815)

          It wasn't going to take three million more years to completely exit that ice age.

          https://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aaw1114 [sciencemag.org]

          A major driving force that dwarfs human's tiny solutions that are not capable of affecting is obliquity.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @07:37PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @07:37PM (#1177817)

            Republicans understand just enough science to get suckered by bullshit.

            • (Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Wednesday September 15 2021, @12:19AM

              by HammeredGlass (12241) on Wednesday September 15 2021, @12:19AM (#1177902)

              That's a published, peer-reviewed, and cited, article.

              Fuck off forever, you tarded coward!

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:04PM (8 children)

    by looorg (578) on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:04PM (#1177663)

    It's both appalling and intriguing at the same time. It's nice to have the ability to bring back what was once extinct, for once not by modern human hands. But at the same time at what purpose? Why do we need Woolly mammoth hybrids roaming the earth again? Are they filling some kind of niche we need? Beyond playing God or whatever.

    At the same time I look forward to Mammoth steak if they become just common enough ...

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:23PM (4 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:23PM (#1177671) Journal

      Mammoth steak? Maybe. I'll use the American bison as an example. I often ate beefalo burgers at the local burger joint when I was young. They raised their own hybrid buffalo in the fields behind the burger stand. They didn't serve steak, all the meat went into burger meat, and they were damned good burgers. Later in life, I got the opportunity to purchase real bison meat. Hmmm - IMO, it's just not as good as the beefalo, or as good as most beef. Bison is tougher, and the flavor just doesn't seem quite right.

      Mammoth may be the same. Extra gamy game meat may appeal to some people, but it doesn't appeal to the masses.

      FWIW, the best beef I've ever sunk my teeth into, is Angus and Brangus, with the Brangus being ever so slightly more tender. Nothing else compares, IMO.

      • (Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:26PM (2 children)

        by looorg (578) on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:26PM (#1177672)

        Mammoth burgers does sound even more tempting now. Bring back the Mammoths!

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:37PM (1 child)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:37PM (#1177675) Journal

          Spoiler alert. It will taste like elephant.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:43PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:43PM (#1177732) Journal

            If they get it right, it won't taste like elephant. But what it would taste like I couldn't guess. However, different diets yield different flavors, and mammoths didn't live in tropical jungles.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @01:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @01:40PM (#1177684)

        tastes like chicken?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:36PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:36PM (#1177674)

      Oh, F off with the "playing god" nonsense.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:25PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:25PM (#1177722) Journal

        They're not playing god. They're playing genetic engineer. And they're not playing.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 15 2021, @01:30AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 15 2021, @01:30AM (#1177928) Journal

      Why do we need Woolly mammoth hybrids roaming the earth again?

      Why do we need anything? My take is that it's likely the reason that mammoths and a whole lot of other large mammals became extinct is because of humans hunting them to extinction. So we have some responsibility to bring them back and figure a way to fit them back into our world. After all, there are still a bunch of plants [americanforests.org] throughout the northern hemisphere that are adapted to a plant-eater that hasn't been around for longer than human civilization has existed.

      Now let’s return to the forlorn fruit of the Osage orange. Nothing today eats it. Once it drops from the tree, all of them on a given tree practically in unison, the only way it moves is to roll downhill or float in flood waters. Why would you evolve such an over-engineered, energetically expensive fruit if gravity and water are your only dispersers, and you like to grow on higher ground? You wouldn’t. Unless you expected it to be eaten by mammoths or ground-sloths.

      According to my field guide, Osage-orange has a limited natural range in the Red River region of east-central Texas, southeastern Oklahoma, and adjacent Arkansas. Indians used to travel hundreds of miles for the wood, prized as the finest for making bows. Then European settlers planted it widely as living fences, taking advantage of the tree’s ability to spread via shoots from lateral roots. But Osage-orange persisted, and became widely naturalized long after the invention of barbed wire rendered them useless to farmers. The tree can now be found in 39 states and Ontario. If Osage-orange does so well elsewhere, why was it restricted to such a small area?

      [...]

      Now when you see an Osage-orange, coffeetree, or honeylocust, you might sense the ghosts of megafauna munching on treats made just for them. (You may even see tropical ghosts in your local grocery store hungrily eyeing the avocados and papayas.) But you can also conjure megafaunal ghosts by considering the weapons designed by trees to discourage or slow their big mouths from eating the foliage.

      Osage-orange, mesquite, and hawthorn all bear stiff thorns, spaced too widely apart to do much good against narrow deer muzzles, but they would be unavoidably painful in the wide mouths of groundsloths and mastodons. Wild honeylocusts have vicious, trident-like thorns several inches long covering the lower trunk and branches. Hollies have prickly leaves. Devil’s walkingstick is festooned with wicked prickles. In all these heavily armored trees the thorns or prickles are present well above the reach of browsing deer, where they could still frustrate a mammoth’s trunk or a giant ground-sloth’s muzzle, but no higher. Cacti, Joshua trees, and other yuccas of the Southwest are particularly well armed in case the Shasta ground-sloths return.

      If some trees have evolved big fruits so that huge mammals would disperse their seeds, why, now that those dispersers are gone, do they waste their efforts on big fruits that rot on the ground with seeds that will never germinate? If some trees have been in an evolutionary arms race with megafaunal browsers, why not disarm and save energy now that their enemies have been eliminated?

      It’s true that such adaptations are now anachronistic; they have lost their relevance. But the trees have been slow to catch on; a natural consequence of the pace of evolution. For a tree that lives, say, 250 years, 13,000 years represents only 52 generations. In an evolutionary sense, the trees don’t yet realize that the megafauna are gone.

      This would all be just another interesting natural history story if not for the very strong likelihood – many scientists would say fact – that humans, not climate change, caused the extinction of the megafauna, mainly by hunting. Humans first came to North America from Siberia just before the megafauna became extinct. That was also at the end of the last Ice Age, but all those species had been through over 20 previous ice-age cycles and come out just fine. The same two-step sequence occurred when humans first came to the West Indies about 6,000 years ago, Australia 50,000 years ago, Madagascar 2,000 years ago, and New Zealand less than 1000 years ago. Wherever humans first colonized the world, megafauna soon disappeared, an extinction pattern that is not correlated with climate change or anything else.

      Consider that last paragraph. There's a strong indication that humanity has fairly recently caused the extinction of almost all large land animals. The ecosystems of today are missing that component. How long ago do we need to cause an extinction before it is no longer our responsibility to reverse it as best we can?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:23PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:23PM (#1177670)

    How comes it's a good idea to introduce a new species in the ecosystem and a bad idea to remove a species (mosquitoes)?

    Hasn't Australia played with introducing species?

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:40PM (#1177676)

      >> Hasn't Australia played with introducing species?

      Yes, and those transported criminals wreaked havoc on the ecosystem.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:29PM (1 child)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:29PM (#1177723) Journal

      How comes it's a good idea to introduce a new species in the ecosystem and a bad idea to remove a species (mosquitoes)?

      Q. Who made the biggest mistake in history?

      A.


      Noah. He didn't swat the two flies when he had the chance.

      If you want to introduce a NEW species, how about robots that are adapted for climate change and don't need personal time off days.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @10:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @10:53PM (#1177888)

        》 Q. Who made the biggest mistake in history?

        DannyB's father, for forgetting to buy condoms that one time.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:44PM (#1177677)

    Dr. Ian Malcolm:
    "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

    In other news, we have cows being potty trained!
    Now THAT will save the planet!

    Got to agree with the other comments in here...can we focus on saving what is going extinct in the present FIRST?

    Oh and the moderation on Soylent SUCKS.
    There were some great responses in this thread and many other stories that recieved crap...what gives there??

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:52PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @12:52PM (#1177679)

    A living species is more than the DNA that describes how to make it.
    It is also the biological machinery that interpretes when, where, and how to use those instructions.
    "Close enough' may make a sustainable life form, but it won't be the 'same' one. It will be a new one.

    Introducing a new species is not without risk.
    There is no compelling reason to do this.
    Just because we can or mere profit does not make it a good idea.

    Hopefully, it is just a fundraising stunt which won't do any harm.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:46PM (2 children)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 14 2021, @03:46PM (#1177735) Journal

      Well, with mammoths, if they become an invasive species they're pretty easy to get rid of. They're large enough that there won't be many of them, they can't hide, and they're easy to shoot from airplanes. Unlike rabbits.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @06:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14 2021, @06:04PM (#1177779)

        Yes and additionally, they'll be living far enough away from currently existing elephants that the likelihood of them spreading their genes to other species will be negligible. Assuming they're even let outside of a park, which is somewhat doubtful.

      • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday September 15 2021, @10:21PM

        by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 15 2021, @10:21PM (#1178133) Homepage Journal

        with mammoths, if they become an invasive species they're pretty easy to get rid of

        We've already done it once, and we have better technology now.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by iWantToKeepAnon on Tuesday September 14 2021, @01:41PM

    by iWantToKeepAnon (686) on Tuesday September 14 2021, @01:41PM (#1177685) Homepage Journal
    ... to leave out that gene that creates a single faulty enzyme in protein metabolism, so the animals can't manufacture the amino acid lysine!
    --
    "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday September 15 2021, @01:41AM (1 child)

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Wednesday September 15 2021, @01:41AM (#1177935)

    just my 2 yen.

    The people who want ot do things like this and the others who give them money don't look past the "Wow! Bring back the $ANIMAL from extinction! Sounds Cool!" never actually think about what comes after you bring them back from the dead. Where will they live, who will be responsible for their care, etc..

    Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

    /rant

    Thank you for your attention.

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
  • (Score: 1) by Zoot on Wednesday September 15 2021, @02:48AM (1 child)

    by Zoot (679) on Wednesday September 15 2021, @02:48AM (#1177951)

    So de-extincting placental mammals is tough, because you need host mothers to impregnate with your experiments, elephants have nearly a two year gestation period, and it may take many tries to achieve success. Along the way you're going to have to deal with miscarriages other failures, and even if you have successful births you're going to have to care for each one that isn't quite up to your goals. This is going to be a tough sell for animal rights people and it may well make the whole project unviable.

    Birds on the other hand should be much MUCH easier. You only need to get eggs from a related donor species and replace the embryo with your new creation. You can run many more attempts in parallel and dealing with the ones that don't turn out is much easier as well. Both the Dodo and Passenger Pigeon should have easily recoverable genomes (but don't forget to screen for retroviruses). The Passenger Pigeon has close living relatives and you might get away with just swapping the DNA out etc.

    So as much as Woolly Mammoths get a lot of press, I predict it is not going to happen any time soon, and definitely not until we have success with one or both of the birds.

(1)