Endangered Animals and their DNA
January 22nd, 2010
What do you think about cloning the DNA from an endangered animal to keep it from going extinct? Dr. Betsy Dresser, senior vice president of research for the Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans, is doing just that. She takes the DNA from an endangered animal and uses it with a non-endangered relative. An example is the typical house cat and the African Wildcat.
She takes the egg of the house cat and sucks out the DNA. She then takes DNA from the skin cells of the African Wildcat and places it inside the egg. She uses electrodes to spit the eggs. If everything goes well she places the egg inside the house cat so it can mature and product a new kitten. It has been going so well, the cloned cats are mating and giving birth to very healthy kittens on their own.
This procedure might sound easy but it’s not. There is a lot of scientific research that goes into this. Take the Woolly Mammoth. They don’t know the gestation period for an animal like that so they would have guess. The goal is to keep endangered species from going extinct, not to bring back the Woolly Mammoth. She would like to do work on the Lynx to keep it from going extinct, or the bongo, cousin to the antelope.
The Audubon Nature Institute is located on 1,200 acres of land. It seems part Serengeti, part high-tech medical facility. She knows there is a lot of controversy on this topic. Her opinion, she doesn’t want our next generation of kids to only know an elephant from a text book. She wants the kids to be able to see these animals alive, in their own environment. If she doesn’t do this now, then we will be losing a lot of animals for future generations.
She is known as the lady with the “frozen zoo”. She collects tiny skin samples from thousands of different animals, representing hundreds of species, and is storing them at 343 degrees below zero in tiny canisters inside tanks filled with liquid nitrogen. She has samples from tigers, bears, frogs, rhinos and many more animals. She feels there is no reason not to save DNA from every species since the cells can survive for hundreds, if not thousands of years in these tanks.
The Woolly Mammoth is her poster animal because the thought of it is inspiring. Imagine the face of a 9 year old child. This child sees a picture of the Woolly Mammoth and knows that there might be the possibility of brining that animal back to life. Talk about inspiring for a kid to want to get involved in science that way. If not, there is the message to do something to improve our environment NOW so we are not impacting and affecting animals is such a negative way. We all live on the same planet and are connected to each other.
No one has yet found the intact cell it would take to resurrect that Woolly Mammoth, but in Siberia, two years ago, a reindeer herder discovered a remarkably well-preserved one month old baby mammoth that had lain frozen in permafrost for 40,000 years.
Its DNA was in better shape than any previously found, raising hopes that between new finds and new technology, it may just be a matter of time.
clonning if fine, if we are the ones that disturbed the natural balance and predisposed some specied to extinction then we must save them
This article gave us a significant Brainstorm session of all the chances we can utilize on our blog.
Cloning is not really the answer. We need to preserve habitat, then cloning would not be necessary. Who cares if we can see living creatures in a captive arena, They need to be out there for the benefit of the habitat. Remember Martha, the last passenger pigeon at the zoo? What good would it do to have any of her offspring around. The greatness of passenger pigeons was their sheer numbers. What a fascinating site that would have been to behold. Not one relegated to a cage…for what? Maybe if only to show people what we have lost due to lack of foresight
In the third Jurassic Park film, Alan Grant told his audience that the dinosaurs in the park were not “real” dinosaurs, but monsters created with the DNA of several species. ANY DNA-implanted egg will have to be such a “monster” (or perhaps chimaera) because the egg will have to come from a living and related species. From what my colleagues in the molecular world tell me, arranging a few “variations” in a gene would be a minor problem, so the offspring would not necessarily be clones.
But that said, the real question I think we should ask is “why do it”? We certainly cannot reintroduce mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, or even dodoes into the wild. The world has moved on in their absence. New diseases and introduced species have moved into the old haunts. These chimaeras would have to — morally and practically — remain captive creatures, and as such we can be sure only that we shall still not see them “as they were,” however close. Intriguing as it all sounds, I am unaware of any zoo lamenting that “we’ve got all this empty space and budget surplus; we wish we could have a pack of giant sloths”!
It’s not only about genes, keep in mind that evolution is an ongoing process let alone survival of the fittest! Also learning and even tradition constitutes a fairly big part of life in many species. Cloning seems to be a hip option but neglects all those facts and saves responsibility and decisions for later when there might not be an environment left to put the clones into.
If we’re cloning, we’re not expanding the gene pool, are we? This brings to mind the problems with cheetahs and their historical bottleneck. Not sure this is the way to go.
In my opinion we should only use cloning in extreme measures but i like what these people are doing. It´s like a Noa´s Arc with DNA and its a pity that we didnt had this tecnology some years ago so that other species that were exctinct by men could exist today. I agree with cloning only in extreme situations and it should be only used in species that were nearly exctint by the cause of men and not by natural selection. But how the things are going i guess this maybe the only way of preserving some species.
I think it makes sense to use this technology as a “last-resort” insurance policy. No-one wants the world populated with cloned animals but aren’t cloned black rhino better than no black rhino at all? I realise that the AZA’s SSP programs are designed to conserve endangered species (and promote genetic diversity too) but why not do this in addition to SSPs? Many species are not covered by SSPs and many others are not held in captivity. Initially I agreed that using this kind of technology would make it difficult to protect species in their existing habitats because we would know we could clone species if we need to. But actually I believe that people who want to preserve wild species and habitats will continue to do so just because they care. We should have insurance but at the end of the day, no-one wants to use it.
It should be done when necessary but other actions should be tried first.
Clone? I don’t think we should even breed endangered animals. We have destroyed their habitat, most likely. If we force a species to endure because we humans want them around, that is not ethical. Not to mention the ethical problems involved in the cloning process which often creates creatures that can’t survive.
I agree with Sara. Animals should not be treated as “specimens” for our entertainment.
Cloning endangered species, while a noble idea, is pointless because we are just condemning them to live on a planet soon to be destroyed by global warming. I think we should clone a couple hundred copies of Al Gore and get them all out making speeches and working to save the earth.
I think this is a good idea and it could be an option, but before that, all together (governments, animal protection organizations, environment protection groups) should work to minimize the adverse effect we are causing in the habitat of these endangered animals to avoid their extinction.
If we continue destroying the environment and poisoning the earth, in the next future we should look for another planet to live there or clone ourselves to save the human specie.
Keeping the animals that we currently have alive is great. I feel they are becoming extinct because of humans anyway. When you talk about dinosaurs, I think our environment has changed too much for them to survive, even if we could clone them.
This can be good because it might bring back animals that may become extinct. On the other hand would it be used to bring back animals that should not be in the present world as we know it today? This science must be used in the proper way with the proper controls.
It is an interesting topic. I liked watching the video and hearing what they had to say.
This is a very controversial topic on endangered species … reviewed the video and found the subject matter inspiring … One has to think about this DNA reality carefully otherwise the whole process may go out-of-hand in the wrong hands.
Difficult question you ask here. It is like you are asking us to play God and help keep alive an animal or animals that without our help might end up extinct.
But without a lot of thought on the subject, I don’t have an immediate objection to the idea. However, would like to hear more pros and cons from people much better verses on the subject than I am before I would give you a firm answer one way or the other.
Definitely Its a brilliant idea.The species of animals which are going to be extinct from the world it may be cloned rather than to keep them in captivity or in zoo as well but being a veterinarian i am so much interested in this topic but i am not equipped with up dated knowledge.
I never realized we are in such a bad place. What are we doing? My question, is the extinction something that is naturally occurring or is it something that humans are doing to cause this? If we knew the answer to that we could make changes, right?
I am so happy to see the responses. I think this is a topic that will only grow. There are so many issues that are interconnected with this topic. It’s scary to realize, animals we take for granted because we grew up with them, may not be here for our grand kids.
Something needs to be done to change the way we think about animals, humans and our environment. Humans are doing more harm than good to this planet!!! We could learn from these animals if we would stop and think before we move forward with our ideas. Thanks for opening up this conversation. I look forward to the responses of other people.
Very cool. Great article.
The video is very interesting. I am not sure if I like that idea or not. This is something wee need to think about.
reminds me of the animated film, “Titan A.E.”
My thoughts?? Ummm… is this an AZA facility? I don’t think it is altogether necessary for this type of cloning to take place. Animals are regulated by an SSP for the purpose of not only ensuring species survival, but also to ensure genetic diversity/viability. Cloning, by its very definition, does not ensure genetic diversity.
I think this is upsetting the balance of nature too much.
Thanks. i keep putting up your K-9 for Haiti page.
Think, perhaps, we should archive they’re DNA, reinforce protection issues, and clone to crossbreed with captive animals if necessary to perpetuate the species.
I personally think we could use some of those resources & efforts to discover a way to sustain & grow the population of species endangered we have right now. Dresser, senior vp of research for the Audubon Nature Institute takes the DNA from an endangered animal and uses it with a non-endangered relative. That’s actually creating a new species, not saving the original endangered one and should be done within that species. I also think, resurrecting animals already extinct, especially the exampled Woolly Mammoth, is a grave mistake
I am for it.
I watched the episode on 60 minutes and I think the concept has merit.
In theory, it’s a good idea. Maybe it’s the skeptic in me, but I wonder how that will adulterate the gene pool for future animal generations? In truth, I just don’t know enough about this to have a definitive opinion, so I’m a bit on the fence.
Why not if it’s a safe solution….could be a benefit to the world of animals…but of course to keep this ‘new class’ of animals accounted for…
Definitely. But I think it needs to be strictly regulated so that it is not used the wrong way (i.e. for profit).
thats a very good question!
Yes, because they may have a link to our own survival. But keep in mind that many of these animals may never be able to go into the wild because they will not have gone through the nuturing process with their parents or their habitat will not sustain them.
Interesting thought and it’s one way to keep a species alive. While it seems like a good idea, a better idea is to take care of those animals that are on the endangered species list. We will all benefit by taking care of the planet, a simple idea that takes a lot of necessary work.