According to an article in the New York Times, with the new generation of genome-mapping machines, some scientists now believe they have the capability to resurrect formerly living organisms up to 60,000 years old using DNA samples and genetic coupling (much like in Jurassic Park, except for reals.). The process would cost around 10 million dollars, which means that for 20 million dollars, it is theoretically possible to resurrect and repopulate any extinct species from the past 60,000 years. This has huge ramifications for nearly every field of study, including ecology, evolutionary science, paleontology, geology and biology. It would even be possible to reconstruct a Neanderthal, ending practically every debate in developmental anthropology. The possibilities for this procedure are nearly infinite.
Applications of this procedure have the potential to be one of the greatest breakthroughs ever in the field of genetics. The entire article can be accessed here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&bl&ei=5087&en=cb254b577ccf4790&ex=1227330000
Here is an excerpt which is particularly descriptive: "There is no present way to synthesize a genome-size chunk of mammoth DNA, let alone to develop it into a whole animal. But Dr. Schuster said a shortcut would be to modify the genome of an elephant’s cell at the 400,000 or more sites necessary to make it resemble a mammoth’s genome. The cell could be converted into an embryo and brought to term by an elephant, a project he estimated would cost some $10 million. “This is something that could work, though it will be tedious and expensive,” he said."
What do you think about this process?
Some things to consider:
-Are there ethical violations involved in resurrecting extinct species, including Neanderthal?
-How would a possible re-population effect the current ecosystems, for the better or worse?
-Corporations by nature examine every action based on a cost/benefit analysis. Does the ability to reconstruct extinct species give corporations a clean slate to exploit nature even further, knowing that they can just pay for the reconstruction of what they have destroyed?
-How much emphasis should be placed on funding this project, given the current political and economic climate?
Hopefully this topic catches on more than the last one. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As with many issues I look at, I find there are pro's and cons to this issue.
Even though this is not a religion discussion(and i do not want it to be), I find it necessary to state beforehand that I personally believe that God should be the only superior Being to create any form of life or matter, and I think this issue falls under that category. Therefore, as an individual I think that right off the bat this is not a good idea.
Before delving further into the topic, remember that all people have Human Rights, as stated in the Preamble. As you probably know the three rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If say a Neanderthal was cloned into existence, wouldn't that mean he/she is entitled to these rights? Evidently (supported by Evolution), these people were not fit to survive, and so mutated eventually to the currant human being. If it was never fit to survive then, why would it be justified for one to survive in the present? (except to fulfill debate purposes)
Also, I believe there would be an equal opposite reaction to solving debates in developmental paleontology; it would only irritate arguments between Creationism and Evolution with more evidence supporting Evolution.
There are many more organisms that could be resurrected from cloning, so perhaps the pro's would eventually outweigh the cons. All I support is that if I was the one making the decision to push the big red button to begin the process, I would not do it.
Well. Even though this is an old topic, I'd like to comment on it. In addressing the comments made by "Matt", I would say that I agree for the most part. I feel that his assesment of this situation that this is not a relgious question is correct, but I will say that I am of the opinion that if God didn't want us to be able to do this, then we would not have evolved the brainpower to do it. That in mind, I seriously doubt that we could get much of out this kind of thing other than some research and then a giant theme park. However, I would think that the lessons of Jurassic Park need to be kept in mind, specifically that you never know what kind of stuff will happen, no matter how many precautions you take. Humans have a tendency to think that anything that happened in the past or in fiction is something that they are too good to consider, and that they are the pinacle of humanity. I think, then, that no one would be able to keep a park like this safe, even if they had built-in safety features in their creations. Even though the biggest things they'll reate are things like moas, it must be kept in mind that cassowaries can kill people with relative ease, and they're half the size of a giant moa. So superfauna could be a huge danger, even if people think tht we could control them. Therefore, it might be better to never even bother with this altogether. Also, the millions of dollars that would need to be spent would be a waste. There are people who need all sorts of money now. This sort of thing is for times when money is plentiful.
Post a Comment